The Trinity & Baptism: is Doctrine essential for Faith? Ask NT Wright Anything Podcast

[@traceyedson9652]

As an EO, one-time a kind of American fundamentalist of the Stone-Campbell variety, I do enjoy Wright’s take - so near Orthodoxy. His relevant, biblical-creedal, yet contemporarily fresh take & vocabulary is welcome & useful. Thank-you, many times over.

[@cwanne1996]

Curious what sec were you affiliated with. I’m currently in the mainline COC. I enjoy listening to Wright myself and seeing why they believe what they do.

[@traceyedson9652]

@ I was in a small group of very strict congregations in the independent Christian churches/coc’s (instrumental) affiliated with Bible colleges in Iowa, Nebraska, and elsewhere.

[@SamJS-9]

Always your teachings inspire us

[@charlescroll9870]

Baptism. It's a good idea to go back to understanding what John the Baptist was doing so that we can better understand what followed. I'd like to recommend my book John the Baptist: A Biography. God bless you in your KZbin work.

[@robertbruce1552]

I love that one where Jesus hands the Kingdom to the Father. Being an old military man it reminds me of forming the command and then do an about face to the General saying, " sir the command is formed".

[@WatchtowerHunter]

As someone who was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses this is something with which I truly struggle. While I no longer believe that Jesus was MIchael the Archangel (something which I understand the case for, but do not agree with) I have not come as far as believing that Jesus is equal to God in the way the Nicene Creed states. I can see that Scripture blurs the line in terms of the relationship of Father and Son, but I cannot ignore the places where that distinction is quite clear. At this point, I have given up on this doctrine. I have not given up on doctrine entirely, as there are clear doctrines we must believe to be a Christian and Scripture is very clear on those (Christ having risen from the dead as an example). But in those areas where the Bible is vague, I am not going to make strong assertions. My former religion did just that, with the idea of diminishing the role of Jesus so the religion’s leaders could occupy his place. I trust the Scriptures, believe that Jesus died for my sins, follow Jesus as the model for my life, and endeavor to shine a light in this bedarkened world. I trust that a God of love will find that an acceptable offering to HIm for all He has done in my life.

[@emilesturt3377]

Well said, and God bless. Here is how I and the Orthodox view the Triune relationship of the Living God. Hope it helps a little. Eastern Trinitarian Theology - (which maintains the "Monarchia of the Father" without making the Son subordinate: God is One: Our Father God is Triune: Three Persons (Gk. Hypostasis) One in Essence (Ousia) The One Energy, Mind and Will proper to that Infinite, Eternal and Incorporeal Essence, is shared and expressed by the Three Divine Persons The Father Son and Holy Spirit are each fully God; One in Nature and Attributes; equal in all but causation. For the Father alone Eternally Begets and Spirates. He is the Fountainhead of the Trinity, the Source, the "Arche" The Son and Spirit alone are timelessly caused - but Not Created By reason of Begetting, the Son is eternally God, and with God By reason of Spiration, the Spirit is eternally God, and with God Ontologically, "Eternally", the Son alone is Begotten of the Father, and the Spirit Proceeds solely from the Father Economically, "Energetically", Providentially toward and within the Creation, the Spirit Proceeds (is sent) from the Father, by way of the Son on Whom He rests In the Spirit we see the Son in Whom we see the Father All things are from the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit And in the Spirit, through the Son and to the Father, all things will find their fulfilment (the Eastern view of "simplicity" also differs to the Western One. The Eastern Orthodox would see that God both intends and manifests - by His Mind and Will (which are "really" and not simply "conceptually" distinct from Nature and Person also) and manifests distinct Attributes and Activities / Energies to distinct people and circumstances... though it is equally true to say that they are of the one Divine Uncreated Energy) ✌️💚🙏

[@MuyiwaMonehin]

Excellent point. If I may add: if God doesn't fit neatly into metaphysical categories that humans can handle, it shouldn't be a surprise. What else could be more true about God than that he defies all categorising? Anyway, while our concepts and language about God remain insufficient, we may stick to Biblical languages: "The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit" (2 Cor. 13:14) basically captures later Trinitarian attitudes. Nothing against the Orthodox tradition on this.

[@emilesturt3377]

@@WatchtowerHunter apologies for this, my second lengthy response to you : ) I can, through knowing friends of mine who were in the Organisation, completely sympathize with your particular distrust of any group of people claiming to speak for God. Even without a cultic background, many Protestant friends of mine don't see much need to adhere to any 'extra-Scriptural' authority (and I don't count myself Protestant Catholic or Orthodox but simply Christian... though most heavily influenced by Orthodoxy). The irony is though, is that a lot of these 19th century cults were simply taking the not so good individualistic and divided side of the Reformation and putting it on steroids. In a rejection of, not just some, but most, or all "tradition", the 19th century Millerites etc were literally simply taking it all one step further... J.W's and Mormons were almost an inevitability. When Christ said "I will lead you into all Truth" He was specifically speaking to his Apostles - who represent the Bishops that succeeded them, centered around the Bread and the Wine... guardians of the Apostolic deposit containing both the oral and written to tradition. "Tradition is the life of the Holy Spirit within the Church" - Vladimir Lossky (20th century). Both Ireneaus in the second century and Athanasius in the fourth say the same thing regarding what constitutes 'apostolicity'... and it was within this organized tradition that the Ecumenical Councils gave us the Spirit guided and inspired boundaries which were already there in the Text, but affirmed and solidified in the Councils. As you probably may know, it was Athanasius who was instrumental in the downfall of the Christogy of the Alexandrian Priest 'Arius', who was the first very vocal proponent / type of Jehovah's Witness; but the co-divinity of the Son with the Father was talked about much earlier in the very early second century fathers. And Ireneaus himself, in his countering many gnostic heresies, pointed to the fact that God became man in the flesh (assuming a very real human body and soul) in order that man - in and by the grace of God - might become, like God. It is only the Person of God (the Son and Word) Who could assume our nature and raise it up within His divinity in order that we - as persons - might partake in that Risen nature. Christ simply wasn't a created personality - be it angelic or human - He was God the Word made flesh. (see Cyril of Alexandria). This is undeniable Scriptural and Traditional Dogma. Anyway, I have a peace about all this, but I appreciate everything you've said. And you've said, as I would, that Christ is ultimately our Dogma. But who do we trust when affirming Who He really is in relation to the Father? This is where we have to go past private interpretation and submit to a consensus. Everyone is part of a tradition... but which one is the question.

[@WatchtowerHunter]

@@emilesturt3377 Emile, I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to craft some well thought out responses. I truly appreciate it.

[@emilesturt3377]

@WatchtowerHunter Oh bless you muchly : ) it's a relief to get very acquainted with the early fathers of both the East and West It's a faith building experience. Yes there are differences of opinion; but more in common than not.

[@jpelo]

Question, how did adam and eve know the meaning of shame and nakedness

[@RapunzelASMR]

Because the ate from the tree of knowledge where suddenly sin came inside them, knowledge of good and right, including what nakedness can mean and even pooping and peeing is now with shame. Animals dont care, neither do small kids. but humans with larger awareness get shame. OR the serpent seed theory is right and it involved a sexual act

[@gregtyler4002]

Shame and nakedness are feelings and not meanings.

[@MuyiwaMonehin]

An anthropological answer (not to downplay theological answers): Maybe same way children come to know nakedness and shame. Just maybe. And as the other commenter pointed out: they are feelings, not meanings. Children can feel naked and ashamed, while not being able to put words on these feelings.

[@jpelo]

Because animals, angels, devils and God dont cover themselves, so the first human why did they think need to cover themselves? God, angels, devil is a spirit being, not a physical being. how come human invented or know these words like cover? nakedness? shame? follow? eat? touch? dont? fruit? die? or maybe God install already all the words in that fruit its like a dictionary app including future words like fly, run, walk, work, plane, tank, phones, internet, etc because he is all knowing God, he knows the future so he already install the first words and all future sa words of human to be used

[@onionbelly_]

There are tribes in South America where nakedness isn't considered to be something shameful or wrong. Rather, nudity is associated with purity and honesty. Not to mention that the primary reason humans started wearing clothes was for protection and survival, it's social cohesion and cultural evolution that made people feel ashamed of being naked in front of others.

[@donjezza]

Whenever somebody clutches at Pascal's wager, no matter how fleeting, their arguments instantly seem weaker.

[@pmac_]

The gold standard is not the Trinity (as claimed by Wright), but is a dead serpent upon a pole (John 3:14).

[@robertvann7349]

Explain how OMNISCIENT GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT DOESN'T KNOW THE DAY OR HOUR. That is impossible unless the Holy Spirit is God the Father. Matthew 1:18-20.

[@Robert-r4s4c]

Both are necessary for salvation.

[@SpotterVideo]

A person must be "baptized" to be saved, but it has nothing to do with water. The proof is found below and proves the connection between salvation and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Luk 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

[@robertvann7349]

​@@SpotterVideoso you twist scripture for a profession? You're subtracting Acts 2:38, everyone be baptized INTO the name of Jesus FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. Dumbass.

[@leebarry5686]

Fully oil is fully water. God is matter? Where are wisdom and logic gone .

[@tarikramadaan3342]

Who older in trinity between the father and son and holly spirit ?

[@SpotterVideo]

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

[@Particularly_John_Gill]

The triune God is eternal.

[@surferatapollobay1341]

i have a background un the Open Brethren i Australia where believers Baptism was strongly taught and practiced. I was an elder for many years, so have had quite a lot of pastoral experience. For the last 20 years I have been part of a very evangelical Anglican church in a large rural city of 100000. The last 10 years the majority of Baptisms are Believers and by Immersion. The bring a bath in for t. People are not loyal too their denomination that their family grew up in. "my grandfather was a member for the last 50 years as were their parents etc. This has led to a move where most children are dedicated as found in the Aust Prayer book. After they have experienced New Birth then they get baptised and confirmed. My objection to babies having water sprinkled on their head is it teachers that salvation is by works not faith. There is no mention of children in the NT of children being baptised and Tertullian had some strong words to say around 200 AD..

[@SpotterVideo]

A person must be “baptized” to be saved, but it has nothing to do with water. The proof is found below. Old Covenant Baptism vs. New Covenant Baptism (water vs. Spirit) Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. (Ex. 30:17-30) When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then the Holy Spirit came from heaven. (Acts 10:38) The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a water baptism ceremony. Which baptism makes you a member of Christ’s Church? The New Covenant conversion process is described below. (Born-again) Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.) Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment) ============ Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says? What did Peter say below? Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 1:5, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water/ every time they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13) “baptize” KJV Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.) Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5) Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant)

[@surferatapollobay1341]

I would also add in relation to Acts 16V 33...Luke was an historian of detail. if there were babies in involved Luke would have noted it and recorded it

[@leebarry5686]

What did Jesus teach is important. Any doctrines that are imagination of anyone or any church are false. Doctrines about God can only come from the words , literal words of God

[@MuyiwaMonehin]

But What did Jesus teach? Do you care to answer that? And before you do, take note: whatever you want to type up to answer my question can be seen as your "own imagination." Because someone else can read those same verses you will refer to and come up with an interpretation that differs from yours. Or they would simply quote another verse. Jesus made these two statements: "My Father is greater than I." "I and my Father are One." Almost everyone claims their doctrine from the Bible. We need to listen to one another.

[@jhabernathy690]

N.T. Thinks his sprinkling is legit? He clearly is misguided. Worse, he gets justification wrong.

[@MuyiwaMonehin]

Maybe you simply don't like his articulation here. For Tom, justification is the doctrine that "God has promised to put everything right [through Christ Jesus]. In the present, he puts people right [through faith in Christ Jesus], so that they can be part of his putting-right project. I think that is a good way to understand justification.

[@TempleofChristMinistries]

The Trinity does not exist, those who believe in a triune god believe in the doctrines of man, such things are not found in the scriptures, the trinitarians put words in Christ's mouth and they twist the scriptures, the scripture says son of god the trinitarians say god the son, the scripture says the spirit of God the trinitarians say god the spirit, see how they twist scripture, the trinitarians say that Christ said he was God yet Christ never said he was god, he did explicitly say he is the son of God, also the spirit of God cannot be divided for God is spirit and God cannot be divided therefore, the spirit cannot separate itself from itself to be the third person of the trinity, the spirit is the very thing which binds Christ to God which binds us to the Christ and God by the power of the spirit which cannot be divided, trinitarian theology is a man-made doctrine there is no such thing as a triune god, God is one and cannot be divided.

[@robertvann7349]

Matthew 1:18-20 seems to be invisible to humanoids. The HG made Mary pregnant and fathered Jesus but isn't God the Father? Really? God ordained whoever gets the woman pregnant is the father of the child as every son in the Bible proves.

[@MuyiwaMonehin]

Well, I'm not sure what your persuasion is but hopefully this is simply a disagreement on language about reality; not a disagreement about reality itself. If you don't agree with Trinitarian language, you have to find a language to say that Jesus Christ is not simply a man or an angel, as some suppose, and that the Spirit of God is not simply a force but a person that binds us to Christ and God. Also, the argument that Jesus never claimed he was God may be tenuous at best. Let's keep in mind that he mostly hid his identity, even as the Christ. He hardly ever claimed to be the Christ. He tried to stop many from calling him the Christ, the Son of God. He only approved Peter's confession, and basically "gave a nod" when asked while on trial if he is the Christ. I think he knew most people would struggle to receive him as the Christ, which they did, much less as God incarnate. So we must find language to say what the opening statements of John 1 and his confession during prayer in John 17:24 tell us; particularly to refute those who say he is simply a prophet or an angel. The Church Fathers were doing their best in formulating Trinitarian doctrine, a Greek philosophical/metaphysical language rather than the Jewish narrative language: God who returns in person in Christ Jesus to redeem is people and in the Spirit to lead them to their inheritance. If you feel shaky about quoting John, then think of Matthew and Mark who recorded John the Baptist declaring that his mission is as Isaiah and Malachi prophesied: "to prepare the way of the Lord;" and "the Lord whom you seek will suddenly be in his temple." And we see who John prepared the way for: Jesus.

[@TempleofChristMinistries]

@MuyiwaMonehin your arguments prove nothing, just because someone uses the term lord does not mean it is referring to God as God but rather one who rules, my lord and my god, God is with us in the Christ but the Christ is the son of god not god, but you failed to understand these things like so many, I will even argue that Christ did not even exist before all things but Christ existed when he came into the world as Flesh and Blood, but it is the spirit of God that existed before all things as it is written, so stop manipulating scripture to suit your theology because it doesn't hold water.

[@MuyiwaMonehin]

@@TempleofChristMinistries It appears this engagement is degrading into attacks, so this would be my last submission. I understand that you want to defend God's honour and glory. I salute you on your mission and encourage you to continue to do so. But hopefully with more humility and generosity. Truly, the declaration that a man is God, at first, sounds preposterous and counterintuitive. Any honest person will admit this much. But also anyone who has gained any intellectual maturity knows that there are many truths we once considered preposterous but turned out to be true upon further learning. Our minds may not have initially imagined or intuited it, but the declaration that God took on flesh now challenges us to look deeper than our basic intuition predicts and to rethink our worldview. That declaration reveals God who humbles himself, which we prolly won't have expected, and also re-affirms God's glory and greatness. And we may want to take after him in humility. Your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is twisting the scriptures, as well as your dismissive attitude, spell pride to me. Without any deep exegesis, the quotations from Isaiah and Malachi clearly refer to YHWH himself. YHWH is the One the priests were expecting to return to his temple. And Isaiah went on to say, "make a pathway for our God." And since you wish to argue that Christ had no existence prior to his human life, then you are clearly not subscribed to the plain reading of John 1:1-14. So if you need to identify who may be twisting scriptures, you should look in the mirror.

[@TempleofChristMinistries]

@MuyiwaMonehin it is clear that trinitarians twist the scriptures, they put words in Christ's mouth say things that Christ did not say of himself, scripture says son of god, trinitarians twist the scripture and say god the son, the scripture says spirit of God, trinitarians twist the scripture and they say god the spirit, it is clear trinitarians twist scripture and put words in Christ's mouth, god did not become flesh you misunderstand scripture this is why so many Christians fail in overcoming, being full of light, they still full of Darkness, tell me what it is to be full of the Holy Spirit do you even understand what that means, to be perfect man perfect woman do you even believe that that can be possible, but how can trinitarians believe in such things when they believe Christ is God, Christ is the son of god that's why we can become just like Christ, if Christ is God then Christ is the father but Christ is not the father he is the son, trinitarians twist scripture and they put words in Christ's mouth and they fail to understand the dynamics of what Christ is talking of, it is all a man-made doctrine there's no such thing as a triune god no such thing as the doctrine of the trinity, Christ is not god he's the son of god, but you all failed to understand this.

[@gregtyler4002]

Um... did anyone else notice the very first question wasn't answered? Bummer. Thought it was a good one, too.

[@MuyiwaMonehin]

You may want to pay closer attention when listening to him; he doesn't believe binary 'yes or no' answers help that much. But if you need help catching it, his answer is something like: Our doctrines are hardly ever perfect, so faithful Christians keep reading, studying and praying to get ever closer to right doctrines. In some cases, however, wrong beliefs may be a sign of walking away from the faith. So be careful.

[@gregtyler4002]

@@MuyiwaMonehin well, replying to a question doesn’t inherently mean it’s being answered. Typically an ambiguous or absent answer hides the truth- the respondent doesn’t know. None of us has every answer, but the question did clearly contextualize the crux of Calvinism doctrine (that it has to be overlaid scripture to be found).

[@MuyiwaMonehin]

@@gregtyler4002 Guess you reposted your response, cause I saw this days ago. Anyway, what you say is true: there are times a would-be answer only obscures the issue. However, another thing is also true: sometimes, the answer does a good job but it's not the kind that was expected. Some questions are often put in a philosophical framework that make it hard to answer. Answers only come when they are put in a better framework. Simple and short: some good answers may not just be the kind we were expecting.

[@davidcawthorne7115]

Baptism. We do it because God tells us to be baptized. 👍

[@SpotterVideo]

Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Luk 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

[@dunk_law]

NT is about a coherent as Kamala Harris.

[@MuyiwaMonehin]

You may want to pay closer attention when listening to him; he doesn't believe binary 'yes or no' answers help that much. For example, another commenter felt he didn't answer the first question. But he actually did. If you need help catching it, his answer is something like: Our doctrines are hardly ever perfect, so faithful Christians keep reading, studying and praying to get ever closer to right doctrines. In some cases, however, wrong beliefs may be a sign of walking away from the faith. So be careful. But if you don't already hold or see his unstated premise that "having perfect doctrine" is very hard for most of us, even God-loving faithful Christians, his answer will make no sense.

[@dunk_law]

@MuyiwaMonehin you know nothing about me, my IQ, level of biblical education etc. I paid close attention. Perhaps you did not.

[@ritawing1064]

I'd like to ask how Dr.Wright feels about appearing on the same channel - and giving face to - extreme right wing demagogues?

[@mjh277]

Who? 😂 To answer your question seriously: he co-wrote a whole book about how Christians should approach politics this year. I’m sure you can pull enough of an answer from that/interviews he’s done about the book

[@jerryhillyer7799]

What does this even mean?

[@ritawing1064]

@mjh277 I have repeatedly asked Justin Brierley and Premier Unbelievable to comment on - or apologise for - their inclusion of these demagogues, to no response whatever: one can only assume that the intimate connection of evangelical (I would say, practically all) Christianity with the extremes of right wing politics is endorsed by this channel. My question was if Dr.Wright knows what sort of company he is keeping and is happy with it. Kristian Kobes du Mez' "Jesus and John Wayne " is a very good tracing of the unholy alliance between the right and evangelicals for those interested.

[@jerryhillyer7799]

@ritawing1064 you need help. Really.

[@ritawing1064]

@@mjh277 I see the book you cite does criticise religious nationalism: all the more surprising we see no mention of platform-sharing with this nasty manifestation.