AnthonyB

PC, Surely the Godhead in the NT is separate physically. It was the Son who was crucified not the Father, it was the Spirit who came at Pentecost. If you hold to the persons not being pysically separate how do you avoid the Father being crucified, something that was explicity defined as heretical. I'm not deny the unity, the one essence or the one being of the persons, just don't see that intrinsically means one physical entity. I'm not saying that thay couldn't chose at times to be one physcially just that to say they are always one physically would for me sound practically some form of modalism. Since it must imply that the Father ws present at the crucifixion physically. I see the watershed between LDS and TC's (traditional or trinitarian Christians) as being the one being. The LDS from what I understand seem to insist on 3 beings, TC's on 3 persons in one being. Oddly LDS seem to deny the one essence of the Godhead, yet from my outsider view they do actually believe the 3 persons are of one essence. It is just that they have made the three persons creatures (created at some point) and that they they share that one essence with humans and angles.

Seattle, "Oldest = earliest" but maybe I wasn't that clear. A more exhaustive list for "immersion" (the reason we leave "baptism" untranslated was that translating it from the Greek didn't suit the sponsors of the KJV, there wasn't many other Greeks words we ported into English and left untranslated) Mat 28:18-20 John 3:3-5 Acts 2:38-39 Acts 22:16 Rom 6:3-4 I Cor 12:13 Gal 3:26-27 Eph 5:25-27 Col 2:11-13 Titus 3:5 1 Pet 3:21

Dr T, Just wanted to say, 15 getting dunked is really great news. 15 folk being "immersed" into Jesus, being obedient to the initiation ceremony of faith he left his disciples.

durante, Sorry don't check here too often these days. Most modern versions don't use "textus receptus" that the KJV was based on. Byzantine text is the text smoothed by the "church", I would have thought LDS would be Alexanderian text supporters. If the church went into apostasy then why would you rely on a text that appears to a have been altered by that very same church. 1st problem is that the oldest texts of Mark end at verse 9 but grammatically it seems very unlikely the original ended there. So Mark 16:16 is a very old alternative ending but probably not an original part of the gospel. So I would use it to indicate what some unknown author from early church history thought about baptism but it isn't apsotolic so I'm not going to use it as a foundation of my beliefs on baptism. (Of course JS might have declared it scripture for LDS but most non-LDS would generally these days not treat it so.) Your translation sounds fine to me. There are no other major textual issues with the verse and it is rather straight forward to translate. If your wanting a thorough run through of the scriptures on baptism from a non-LDS than may I suggest "Baptism: A biblical study" by Jack Cottrell.

Angelo, What version of the text are you using?? Mark 3:16 in USB 4 reads (minus some breathing marks lost in cutting and pasting... 16 kai; epoihsen tou" dwdeka, kai; epeqhken onoma tw'/ Simwni Petron,

Landy77, Whilst I appreciate you efforts to grapple with this topic. There are some factual errors in your post. Trinity is the word used to describe the Godhead by not just Protestants but Catholic and Orthodox. Actually there are people who would be losely viewed as Protestants but would be wary of an unbiblical term like trinity whilst maintaining the same basic understanding. Secondly the idea of a spiritual body is not conceptually used about the trinity. It is "one in essence" or "one in being" but I have never seen one in body (even a spiritual one). Jesus was crucified not the Father. The Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost not the Son. Jesus will return in glory as as the resurrected Lord not the Father. The Father sits in judgement, not the Sprit or the Son.

I'd agree with PC second point of view. It is faith that justifies (initially makes right with God and removes the separation from God) but I'm not the judge so I don't get to decide exactly what that faith looks like. I know the NT normally describes it in terms of confession, repentance and baptism. That is the gospel offer we are to proclaim. What I also know is God justified through faith the OT "heroes" of faith, whose faith was in many ways a "foggy" assurance that God would look after things somehow/someday. Those who hear the gospel should respond as God has requested them, those who have not heard (and only God knows what hearing means) I believe can still be saved through the faith that they have, a faith which may be little more then God will look after me. God is both just and our justifier. No one will be unfairly dealt with in his judgement and many will get better then they deserve (that is the whole point of grace).

I can't help but think that trinitatians seem to often mix or blur the distinction between essence and being. (Or maybe I'm not getting something.) All oranges have one essence, all dogs have one essence, all people have one essence, all persons of the Godhead have one essence. They share the essential attributes of eternal divinity. To say something shares the same essence or is one in essence is not the same as saying it is one being. However what do trinitarian mean when they say God is one being. It doesn't rule out functional subordination. It is acceptable to believe that the son can be seen as functionally subordinate to the Father. It doesn't exclude spatial distincton. The Father wasn't crucified, the Son wasn't poured at Pentecost. It doesn't preclude communicaton or the expression of emotions between the persons. I personally accept the idea that scriptures teaches that God is one god. That appears to me to be an attribute of God. If Jesus is fully the same essence as God, then one of things he must share is the attribute of "oneness". Or in the words of John...."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." To be "with God" means that in some sense the Word is distinct from God. "the Word was God" means he must be in some sense God, with all that means.

If angels are the same kind of beings as men, then demons (eg Satan) are the same kind of beings as men. How does Demon posession as recorded in the NT work in LDS thinking? How do many multiple spirits live in people or pigs?

Since no body has mentioned it yet, the Australian flag bearer, Torah Bright (an LDS church member) won a Gold medal in the "half pipe".

Faded, From a trinitatrian point of view seperating the persons into differing beings means that it was a lesser God who atoned for us. It was no longer God himself dieing for us but a lesser, stand in, proxy, second but not God himself. It was the 2IC not the CEO. Much of the contortions of trinitarian thought is the attempt to maintain the full divinity of Jesus, to ensure that the atonement was an act fully born by God himself. Whilst also maintaining the distinction in the persons, that God didn't abandon the rule of the universe during the incarnation. You feel the distancing of the Father, I feel the lessening of the glory of Christ and the loss of geniune atonement. PC, Not disagreeing with your posts but maybe.... Genesis also has God imparting his own breath into man and only man is recorded as having that, neither beasts not angels are recorded as having had the breath of God imparted. Man was brought alive by the direct imparting of the spirit of God. God birthed humanity (birth is in some sense taking breath) by breathing life into Adam, making a body he had crafted a "living soul" by the impartation of his spirit/breath.

Erik, "Baptism without faith saves no one" is exactly what I believe, just that I would put it the positive, "Baptism with faith saves". I have just finished reading H Wheeler Robinson's "Baptist Principles" but I have got the feeling that both he and Beasley-Murray would be thrown out of the SBC. As wedding with loving commitment is how we mark the beginning of marriage. Baptism with faith commitment is how we are meant normally to mark the beginning of being Christians. Faded, I have a 7 year old, I will really be surprised if he reaches an point where I believe baptism would be appropriate by the time he is 8. Sure he can parrot our beliefs but is it a personal faith commitment not just wanting to please his parents.

theophilus, If Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and passed on authority, from which papal authority follows, why is such a claim not made in 1 Clement? A senior member of the church of Rome (possibly the person listed as the third Pope) is writing a letter to the Corinthinian church around 95-97 AD and is attempting to make them heed rightful authority. If he had the slightest knowledge of apostolic authority existing in Rome on the basis on which Rome now claims it, why would he have not used such? (Or if you can detect such a claim in 1 Clement please list in which verses?)

Would be interested if anyone produce the stats? (I hadn't checked for Gethsemane but it alas is zero in the same range.)

KelleyMc, Some churches see dancing as possibly leading to inappropriate behaviour, have you ever seen Salsa or Rhumba. I went to a AOG church for a number of years, where people on Sundays would happily "jump" around in praise of God but any form of social dancing was forbidden. I don't have a problem with dancing in general but there are some forms of dance which I wouldn't do because they are just too suggestive. For Baptists generally, salvation is by "faith alone", therefore anything that appears to be added to faith in need to be saved makes them think your adding works. They are very concerned not to add any works and therefore can appear to diminish the importance both confession, repentance and baptism but in practice they have generally held these things to be important, just secondary to faith. Being saved means having a personal faith in Jesus or being born again. It is this that makes you right with God and all the rest then flows from this. If your truly born again, then you should at some stage start evidencing that birth. Of course you'll say that faith has to be more then just a mental ascent to some facts and Baptist will generally agree with you. But their concern to maintain that no works can be any way involved with salvation makes them very wary to add any physical act like baptism to the salvation process.

Whilst happily acknowledging that the suffering of Jesus in the garden was significant and was clearly part of his redemptive action for mankind. A deliberate contrast to the events in the first garden. I'm even happy to admit that the LDS posters have lead me to a new depth of appreciation of the events in the garden and its part in the atonement. However a simple word search of the NT from Acts onwards has the cross at 13 mentions versus the garden at 0. 1 in Acts, 11 in Pauline letters and 1 in Heb. The authors/editors (especially Paul) of the NT have either deliberately diminished the importance of the garden or it as an event simply didn't grab their attention like the cruxifiction. Unfortunately I don't have the tools to do a similiar check on the BoM or DoC but I'd be curious for the comparision.

I think Joe Jackson got it right.. "If there's war between the sexes Then there will be no people left"

I would never wear a cross nor display one in my house but I think it is an important symbol. I'm happy to admit that Jesus suffered in the garden but the cross has some extra things to it. It was the final sacrifice of our Lord for us. It marked the height of his willing degradation, he not only become "flesh", he not only served us, he suffered the humiliation of a death reserved for the lowest. The king of kings murdered as a criminal.

Here's some ideas... 1) GP's instead of specialists for the vast majority of consultations, specialists only on referal. 2) A PBS (Pharmeutical benefit scheme) with a unified being system to drive down drug costs. 3) Limit the ability to sue and replace it with a government run insurance scheme. The US, a nation that spends more on health and gets less from it then almost anywhere else. Australia may a socialist country then the US but I'll take our health system over the US oen anyday.

PC, Jakes on the "trinity" actually sounds a bit like Alexander Campbell. Wanting to avoid non biblical terms, use biblical phrases and just wanting people to follow Jesus rather then get caught in abstract arguments over "precise" non-biblical theological words. (Also Jakes church’s emphasis on the need to approximate baptism to the salvation experience is something Campbell would applaud but definitely not the prosperity stuff nor the tongues!) This is his churches statement. To me it sounds “oneness” God--There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three Manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. “Manifestations” of God make me think of the burning bush or the pillar of fire, not the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. You can’t grieve the burning bush; the pillar of fire wasn’t able to address the Father in prayer; the shekinah can move but it still seems in a different category. Whilst one can use unorthodox terms and still mean biblically sounds things by it, when someone from a particular tradition uses an unusual term, that is distinctive to that tradition and purposefully avoids the more common phrase (Can you find a quote from Jakes’ where he uses “person” of the trinity.) I think he should be queried as to what he means by it? So some questions for you PC, Can someone (in your opinion) hold a theology that is acceptable to both “Oneness” and “Trinitarian”? Is One God in three Manifestations an appropriate description of the Godhead? God--There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing only in three Manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I think adding the “only” to Jakes’ church’s wording would help make it sound more orthodox and certainly create a clear distinction between “the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” and the other ways God has been manifested.

That's great, in the words of the chorus we sing at my church.... Oh, happy day, happy day, You washed my sin away. Oh, happy day, happy day, I'll never be the same. Forever i am changed. When i stand in that place, Free at last, meeting face to face, I am yours, Jesus, You are mine.

PC, At Hillsong conference this year they are having T D Jakes, I'm curious as to your thoughts on him? (specifically his "onenss" leanings) His churches websites defintely uses "manifestations" not "persons" in regards to the persons of the godhead.

I must say this particular doctrinal area still gets me confused. If exulataton is needed to become a God and exultaton requires both embodiement and marriage, how does that fit in with the three examplesw of the persons of God that we have. The Holy Spirit has never been embodied nor married. Jesus was eternal God before he was embodied and scripture never mentions his marital state (although most presume him to be single and given his request during his cruxifiction to ensure John looked after his mum, if he had had a wife surely he would have done the same). No scripture mentions God the Father being embodied as a mortal, it comes only from the thoughts of one of your latter day prophets.

PC, At Australian AOG's, baptism doesn't do anything or alter the state of anybody, it is merely an act of obedience of no much more merit then say tithing or attending a worship service. Infact at an AOG churches, I've heard many more admonintions to tithe or not to be a spiritual "oncer" (someone who only attends 1 service a Sunday) then to be baptised Baptism is only really used as an act to get membership, but since membership wasn't particularly encouraged (At the AOG church and I also attended a Christian City Church were membership was delibarately discouraged). So unlike the RC's and the LDS, the validity of baptism to the AOG people I've meet was a non question. My Church of Christ baptism has been held valid for applying for memebrship at all the Pente, Baptists chruches that I've attended. So for an LDS person, who wanted to hold that their LDS baptism was valid but decided to attend a Pente church and made no noise about their situation but just professed faith in Jesus (I know it is a very unlikely situation) , their baptismal status would have very little effect on what they could and couldn't do. Formal membership and ministerial ordination would be about all they would be excluded from but they could baptise others, serve communion, teach Sunday school. Is it any different in the US?

pam, One answer to that question is that sin is passed on "federally" not "biologically". Adam was the representative of mankind, he was the "head" of all mankind, he broke the covenant on our behalf. Adam was not Christ's head, since Christ existed before Adam and therefore Jesus was not under Adam. All that choose to be under (or in) Christ, move from being under the headship of Adam to the headship of Christ. For me Romans teaches that all other infants (except Jesus) are born under Adam but they are not held accountable for Adam's sin because of the sacrifice of Christ, but they are held accountable for their own sin. All people even infants carry a fatal attraction to sin but not all are held accountable for their sins until they have a knowledge of commandments and consequences.