Baptism in Jesus’ Name?

reformed

@Wolfgang said:

@reformed said:

@Wolfgang said:
What is a simple way of putting it?
Are you saying that the term "God" is and describes an "essence"?
What would this "God" or "essence" be ... is it some character trade, some "thing", or what?

Reading Gen 1:1 rather clearly states that "God" is an acting "individual" (cp. "In the beginning God created ..."). Throughout the Bible, "God" is never said to be "an essence". Nor is God ever said to be a team, a family, a group, or any such ...

The essence question is much deeper than can be talked about here in a forum setting. I recommend picking up Sproul, R. C. What Is the Trinity?. Vol. 10. The Crucial Questions Series. Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2011.
It is free in Logos or from Ligonier and it addresses this topic specifically in one chapter.

I am asking YOU about YOUR understanding and YOUR insights ... when I am interested in R.C. Sproul, I will look up in his writings. I am not having a conversation with R.C. Sproul, but with someone who goes by the "name" @reformed and would like @reformed to answer questions asked of him (or her).

YOU spoke above about "one essence" ... so I would think that YOU understand what YOU are talking about and take responsibility for what YOU write and are willing to answer and clarify YOUR statements if and when asked about them.

I showed you where to go for the answer, like I said, it is much too long for a forum setting. If you don't want to read up on the subject that is your call.

Bill_Coley

@reformed said:

@Bill_Coley said:
What kind of God is powerless without assistance?

A kind of God that works in three in tandem. The Father has ultimate authority over the Trinity.

While I respect your point of view, your response comes across to me as a result of reverse engineering: Your assertion of Jesus' divinity produces - in a sense, requires - that if Jesus is powerless, it's only because he's part of a Godhead designed with one or more powerless components.

Such engineering can defend/rationalize ANY aspect of Jesus' identity or conduct. What kind of God would have a will different from God's will in the Garden? The kind of God that works three in tandem, the Father as the ultimate authority.

Okay, but that's an argument not subject to contention. It's a vision of God that conforms to reality, rather than compelling reality to conform to its vision of God. In my view, that's neither sufficient nor satisfactory.

He wasn't ready to reveal himself yet. But never once did he say he shouldn't be called good.

Where in the Gospel of Mark does Jesus EVER reveal himself to be God? In chapter 9's transfiguration scene, a voice from a cloud - presumably, God's voice - calls him "my son" to whom the disciples should listen. (MK 9.7) And in MK 14, Jesus accepts identification as "the Christ, the son of the Blessed One." (MK 14.61) But neither text makes any suggestion of those roles' being part of a Godhead.

Then there's Mark 7.31-37, in which a crowd disobeys Jesus' command not to tell anyone about the healing they had witnessed. So there's some sense in which the word was spreading with or without Jesus' being ready to reveal.

And the confession scene in Mark 8, where Jesus tells his disciples not to tell anyone: But what he doesn't want them to tell anyone is that he is the Christ (MK 8.29-30) - the messiah, the chosen one - which was NOT a position understood to be part of a Godhead. The Christ was the person chosen by God to return Israel to glory and, as we know, to save the world.

Where in Mark do you believe Jesus first revealed himself to be God?

In John 13.13, Jesus tells his his disciples they are right to call him "teacher and Lord" for that is what he is. He doesn't say, "Why do you call me teacher and Lord? Only God is teacher and Lord."

How is that relevant?

It's an example of the direct responses Jesus gave to the identifications people offered of him. "You call me teacher and Lord, and so I am." But when called "good teacher," instead of saying, "You call me good teacher and so I am," Jesus asks "why do you call me good?" It seems clear to me that he does that because he objects to the designation.

You added to the text that he states he is not God by asking the question. Think of it this way, if the President disguised himself as someone else but was recognized and someone said "Mr. President" and then he said "Why do you call me President when Donald Trump is the President?" Would that be the President denying his Presidency? No.

I dispute your example because in the Gospels, Jesus is not trying to hide divinity - which except for a handful of verses that can, taken out of their larger context, possibly be interpreted otherwise, he never claims. Instead, he's trying to hide his identity as the Christ, the one chosen by God. Donald Trump enters your example as the president. Jesus does not enter Mark 10 as God.

I believe I did answer the central issue, how did I not?

The central issue I asked about was this: How is it possible for God to have two wills, one that conflicts with the other? In the Garden, it's clearly Jesus' will that he NOT endure the suffering. But that's not God's will, which means Jesus' will conflicts with God's will. If Jesus was God, how could his will have conflicted with God's will?

Maybe I am missing something here? What are you saying and what do you think I said?

This is down in the weeds.

Your original claim about the three texts I cited was that in each, Jesus denied only that he was the Father, and not that he was deity. My objection to your claim is that the Mark 10 passage I cited makes no mention of the Father, and hence I don't understand the grounds on which you believe it is an example of Jesus' denying being the Father.

He makes a clear distinction between him and the Father. Yes, but not him and God.

We disagree. To my count, the list of NT passages that distinguish between Jesus and God is dozens in length. Also in my view, as I have stated previously, for Jesus, "Father" is not a term of partnership, an address to a fellow Godhead member. It's a term of endearment, intimacy, and connection.

C Mc

@Wolfgang said:
I am asking YOU about YOUR understanding and YOUR insights ... when I am interested in R.C. Sproul, I will look up in his writings. I am not having a conversation with R.C. Sproul, but with someone who goes by the "name" @reformed and would like @reformed to answer questions asked of him (or her).

YOU spoke above about "one essence" ... so I would think that YOU understand what YOU are talking about and take responsibility for what YOU write and are willing to answer and clarify YOUR statements if and when asked about them.

Wolfgang,
Given that each of us is not equally gifted or skilled in expressing one's self or a concept why can't one's resource be acceptable? Does this mean he has nothing to say or to contribute? Why do you think we have the gospel writers telling of Jesus? Different views, approaches, emphasis, relationships, and understandings.

Besides, to express a point, here in the CD Forums, must one view be fully evolved? Could his views be subjected to change or a work in progress? One man's rationale is another man's foolishness. Everyman doesn't need the same degree of "proof" or "persuasion" to believe or accept a matter. A point to consider. CM

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ said:
Wolfgang,
Given that each of us is not equally gifted or skilled in expressing one's self or a concept why can't one's resource be acceptable?

My "resource" is what I may use in my study and by which I may have formed my understanding regarding a certain topic or certain scriptures. But when I write, it is WOLFGANG who is responsible for what WOLFGANG says and types and it is WOLFGANG who answers questions with WOLFGANG'S understanding and opinion for which WOLFGANG takes full responsibility.

What I actually hate is when people HIDE BEHIND OTHERS and constantly quote others (pope, scholars, Dr. so and so, theologians, priest and pastors, etc ) and in essence refuse to take responsibility for what they write and what they believe.

Besides, to express a point, here in the CD Forums, must one view be fully evolved? Could his views be subjected to change or a work in progress? One man's rationale is another man's foolishness. Everyman doesn't need the same degree of "proof" or "persuasion" to believe or accept a matter. A point to consider. CM

See above ... in these forums I have an exchange with those who are participants in these forums and communicate with them ... I am NOT discussing things with R.C. Sproul, Pope, your priest or pastor, theology professor, etc. ... and I am NOT interested in their ideas and what they believe and have written.

Now, if you quote "Prof so and so", and YOU then tell me why and to what degree you perhaps agree with that, then fine ... just, please, do NOT hide behind someone else ... just say that you have no clue, do not know any further, etc .... When I have no answer, I simply write "I have no answer", "I do not know", etc ... and take responsibility for that!

reformed

@Wolfgang said:

@C_M_ said:
Wolfgang,
Given that each of us is not equally gifted or skilled in expressing one's self or a concept why can't one's resource be acceptable?

My "resource" is what I may use in my study and by which I may have formed my understanding regarding a certain topic or certain scriptures. But when I write, it is WOLFGANG who is responsible for what WOLFGANG says and types and it is WOLFGANG who answers questions with WOLFGANG'S understanding and opinion for which WOLFGANG takes full responsibility.

What I actually hate is when people HIDE BEHIND OTHERS and constantly quote others (pope, scholars, Dr. so and so, theologians, priest and pastors, etc ) and in essence refuse to take responsibility for what they write and what they believe.

Besides, to express a point, here in the CD Forums, must one view be fully evolved? Could his views be subjected to change or a work in progress? One man's rationale is another man's foolishness. Everyman doesn't need the same degree of "proof" or "persuasion" to believe or accept a matter. A point to consider. CM

See above ... in these forums I have an exchange with those who are participants in these forums and communicate with them ... I am NOT discussing things with R.C. Sproul, Pope, your priest or pastor, theology professor, etc. ... and I am NOT interested in their ideas and what they believe and have written.

Now, if you quote "Prof so and so", and YOU then tell me why and to what degree you perhaps agree with that, then fine ... just, please, do NOT hide behind someone else ... just say that you have no clue, do not know any further, etc .... When I have no answer, I simply write "I have no answer", "I do not know", etc ... and take responsibility for that!

No need to be so rude. I agree with Sproul 100% in the resource I sent you and do not need to re-invent the wheel.

C Mc

@Wolfgang said:

@C_M_ said:
Wolfgang,
Given that each of us is not equally gifted or skilled in expressing one's self or a concept why can't one's resource be acceptable?

My "resource" is what I may use in my study and by which I may have formed my understanding regarding a certain topic or certain scriptures. But when I write, it is WOLFGANG who is responsible for what WOLFGANG says and types and it is WOLFGANG who answers questions with WOLFGANG'S understanding and opinion for which WOLFGANG takes full responsibility.

What I actually hate is when people HIDE BEHIND OTHERS and constantly quote others (pope, scholars, Dr. so and so, theologians, priest and pastors, etc ) and in essence refuse to take responsibility for what they write and what they believe.

Besides, to express a point, here in the CD Forums, must one view be fully evolved? Could his views be subjected to change or a work in progress? One man's rationale is another man's foolishness. Everyman doesn't need the same degree of "proof" or "persuasion" to believe or accept a matter. A point to consider. CM

See above ... in these forums I have an exchange with those who are participants in these forums and communicate with them ... I am NOT discussing things with R.C. Sproul, Pope, your priest or pastor, theology professor, etc. ... and I am NOT interested in their ideas and what they believe and have written.

Now, if you quote "Prof so and so", and YOU then tell me why and to what degree you perhaps agree with that, then fine ... just, please, do NOT hide behind someone else ... just say that you have no clue, do not know any further, etc .... When I have no answer, I simply write "I have no answer", "I do not know", etc ... and take responsibility for that!

Wolfgang,

Thanks for sharing. You have been heard. If you were to send your above message to the American President (Trump) and his Administration, what a breakthrough you would achieve.

In my sharing, sometimes I allow people to speak for themselves (pro/con). And there are times when others can express better my very sentiments. In the "real world" and in CD, that means, "what's is, is."

For what its worth, I am not from a country or a tradition that demands answers of others or tell them how to answer. I am glad you have extreme confidence in your opinions. However, it doesn't give you any rights or authority to demand of others how one should respond or by what means. Some in CD "hates" your opinions. Please, Wolfgang, show the same civility to others that have been shown to you of your views.

The only thing different between your opinions and mine, I cite others that agree with me. I love it, others appreciate it and see it as a window to a wider world of knowledge and understanding. I am sure you will deal in the most mature and Christian way the things you "actually hate."

In the words of the one whose "divinity you deny" and/or claims the "Bible denies the divinity of Jesus", said, "Blessed are the peacemakers..." Happy sharing. CM

PS. I approve this message. CM