For those that left the UPC...

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Acts 2:21 "And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Acts opens up the beginning of the New Testament church - a phenomenal event. Acts 2:21 speaks to me of simply "acknowledging" and "understanding" who Jesus Christ was, what He came to do and why I need Him in my life.

Do you believe that we simply need to acknowledge or understand who Jesus Christ was, what he came to do, and why we need him in our lives to be saved, then?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Acts 22:16, IMO, is saying the same thing. To turn that into introducing the idea that it is talking about a baptismal wording for the person being baptized is bad interpretation, IMO.

No, it's not that the person being baptized has to word anything a certain way. That is not what I said. By their action of baptism, which acknowledges the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, and their faith in Jesus and desire to follow him and walk in newness of life are how they "call on the name of the Lord." Not in word, in deed. Our minds get so wrapped around a certain formula that you automatically thought by what I said that the convert should say specific words. But that isn't what I said.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Why? Because Acts 22 is Saul/Paul speaking here. We understand his actions in Acts 8:3 because of his pedigree (Philippians 3:4-6).

I still don't quite understand why you put this part in. What do Saul of Tarsus's actions or Paul's pedigree have to do with baptism?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

In Hebrew, if you have a plural noun followed by a singular verb, the noun must also be singular.

Wow, where did you learn ancient Hebrew?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

So, this is what Saul/Paul knows:

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God/Elohim (plural noun) created/bara (singular verb) the heavens and the earth.

That makes God singular and the only creator. We will never find out, at any other time, that anyone created anything but God alone.

Yes, we all know that. And more Trinitarians know that than some OPs could ever imagine.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

That makes God singular and the only creator. We will never find out, at any other time, that anyone created anything but God alone.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3)

Yes, and Trinitarians believe this too.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The writer is identifying God, who created all things, as Jesus Christ himself!

No one has denied this, and this is no huge revelation to most Christians today. Saul of Tarsus didn't have a gospel of John to read, so these verses weren't part of his revelation on the Damascus Road.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;." I John 1:1

Saul of Tarsus hadn't read 1 John either, I'm guessing. (TIC)

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

They heard Him speak, saw Him with their own eyes and handled him with their own hands - the WORD of life - God himself - Jesus Christ!

Again, Trinitarians believe this too.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

To overlook the glory of this revelation and say that it's okay to baptize in the FS&HG is to not recognize the powerful, wonderful and majestic truth of who God is and what He has done.

Oh, somewhere during all that we seem to have gotten off topic and a few things misunderstood. The 'glory of this revelation' that there is one God is a separate matter from the formula used at baptism. I wasn't arguing for baptism in the titles. We were simply discussing Acts 22 and exactly what it meant.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

This is what Saul experienced on the road to Damascus and he never looked back! Glory to God!!!!! He perfectly understood what Ananias was instructing him to do - Call on His name, believe in His name - God Almighty - God manifested in the flesh - Jesus Christ.

Matthew 28:19 are very powerful words and a revelation of Jesus Christ. It is not a baptismal formula. Never has been, never will be.

Uh, what did this have to do with baptism?
Oh, yeah, you were pointing out that John 1 and 1 John 1 gave Saul of Tarsus a revelation of who Jesus was or something. (If you had left it at the fact that Saul of Tarsus asked "who art thou, Lord?" and Jesus had responded "I am Jesus...", that would have better proven your point, at least if your point really was that Paul realized that Jesus was God come in flesh and his baptism signified that... although that still doesn't prove or disprove any formula.)

And you are right, Saul of Tarsus, now Paul, DID call on Jesus at his baptism. Not the preacher.

Matthew 28:19 is one verse in an entire Bible full of verses. Just like Acts 2:38, Acts 10:44, and so forth. None necessarily present a baptismal formula. Baptism is "the answer of a good conscience toward God" (1 Pet 3:21), not the words someone utters over you.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by missourimary

For the record... that verse has Paul commanding the jailer to call on the name of Jesus. Not the preacher.

that was my point..? Thats why one must conclude the name of Jesus must be called upon. I don't think it matters who says it.

However the apostles were commanded to baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the HG and they did it in the name of Jesus. They interpreted the command differently than the catholic church does.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Matthew 28:19 is one verse in an entire Bible full of verses. Just like Acts 2:38, Acts 10:44, and so forth. None necessarily present a baptismal formula. Baptism is "the answer of a good conscience toward God" (1 Pet 3:21), not the words someone utters over you.

Pray tell us them why a formula was given? Why did the early church follow the short formula and the latter formation of the catholic faith inducted matt 28:19 as the verbal formula. If you want to throw out formulas, why then do people get convicted from GOd when they pray about the baptism and he directs them to be baptized in Jesus name?

So why would God care about the formula when formula really doesn't matter?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Do you believe that we simply need to acknowledge or understand who Jesus Christ was, what he came to do, and why we need him in our lives to be saved, then?

It makes for a great foundation and then we grow in grace and knowledge. (II Peter 3:18).

No, it's not that the person being baptized has to word anything a certain way. That is not what I said. By their action of baptism, which acknowledges the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, and their faith in Jesus and desire to follow him and walk in newness of life are how they "call on the name of the Lord." Not in word, in deed. Our minds get so wrapped around a certain formula that you automatically thought by what I said that the convert should say specific words. But that isn't what I said.

People that want to argue the Word get wrapped up in certain formulas.

The three scriptures I cited in Acts say, "in the name of". It's pretty self-explanatory. I would think the next question would be, "In the name of who?" Answer: Jesus. Pretty simple. Kind of throws the useless formula argument out the window.

I still don't quite understand why you put this part in. What do Saul of Tarsus's actions or Paul's pedigree have to do with baptism?

Uh, his revelation of who Jesus was? What would be his point of being baptized if He didn't get that? He was persecuting the church. He's not going to cooperate with that doctrine when he has no understanding and basically disagreed it was even of God.

Wow, where did you learn ancient Hebrew?

I don't know what kind of question this is supposed to be.

Yes, we all know that. And more Trinitarians know that than some OPs could ever imagine.

Yes, and Trinitarians believe this too.

Again, Trinitarians believe this too.

Trinitarianism isn't even the subject here. It's Saul/Paul speaking in Acts 22.

No one has denied this, and this is no huge revelation to most Christians today. Saul of Tarsus didn't have a gospel of John to read, so these verses weren't part of his revelation on the Damascus Road.


Saul of Tarsus hadn't read 1 John either, I'm guessing. (TIC)

The New Testament is a prophetic revealing of the Old Testament. Saul was well educated in the scriptures, i.e law and the prophets.

Oh, somewhere during all that we seem to have gotten off topic and a few things misunderstood. The 'glory of this revelation' that there is one God is a separate matter from the formula used at baptism. I wasn't arguing for baptism in the titles. We were simply discussing Acts 22 and exactly what it meant.

No, it's not off-topic at all. Jesus' words in Matthew 28:19 is speaking a revelation. To relegate that to a baptismal formula is error, having no understanding. And to use Acts 22:16 as an argument about who said what, is also error, IMO. It is only ever going to be "in Jesus name" and that is what Paul is reiterating in Acts 22:16.

Why did God use Saul? Why did he pick him? Because he knew the scriptures, i.e law and prophets and was given a powerful revelation.

"And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. (Acts 22:14-15)

"But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. " (Acts 9:15-16)

Uh, what did this have to do with baptism?
Oh, yeah, you were pointing out that John 1 and 1 John 1 gave Saul of Tarsus a revelation of who Jesus was or something. (If you had left it at the fact that Saul of Tarsus asked "who art thou, Lord?" and Jesus had responded "I am Jesus...", that would have better proven your point, at least if your point really was that Paul realized that Jesus was God come in flesh and his baptism signified that... although that still doesn't prove or disprove any formula.)

I didn't say John and I John gave Saul anything. I was merely pointing out the majestic revelation of what the NT, including, repentance, baptism and infilling of the Holy Ghost is all about. It's not something as shallow as a debate on baptismal formula. It's truth. Precise, well planned, timely and powerful revelatory truth.

Saul knew the writings of the law and prophets which came together on his Damascus Road experience. God could not have picked a better person to carry forth the New Convenant to the known world.

And you are right, Saul of Tarsus, now Paul, DID call on Jesus at his baptism. Not the preacher.

I didn't say this. This is your thinking. I said that Ananias was referring to Acts 2:21.

Acts 9:18 "And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized."

I don't see anything alluding to Paul using his own words when he was baptized. I don't think that is what Acts 22:16 is saying at all. He is simply acknowledging the baptism for the remission of his sins and that he has professed Jesus is the Lord, whom he met on the Road to Damascus. It is an affirmation from Ananias that Paul accepts this revelatory truth.

On the other hand, if someone were to decide they would give the choice to the person being baptized to have his/her own profession, I'm not against that either. It's not what I would teach, but if someone felt they couldn't get past the preacher evoking the profession, then I would not try to discourage them.

Matthew 28:19 is one verse in an entire Bible full of verses. Just like Acts 2:38, Acts 10:44, and so forth. None necessarily present a baptismal formula. Baptism is "the answer of a good conscience toward God" (1 Pet 3:21), not the words someone utters over you.

Matthew 28:19 is a huge revelation of what God became and came to do - Christ in you, the hope of glory. Again, to use that as a formula is a shortsighted and misfortunate error. And, IMO, it's a very shallow and misfortunate understanding, just like arguing about what to say when someone is baptized - shallow.

Acts 8:16; 10:48 and 19:5 - pretty simple - In Jesus Name.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Pray tell us them why a formula was given? Why did the early church follow the short formula and the latter formation of the catholic faith inducted matt 28:19 as the verbal formula. If you want to throw out formulas, why then do people get convicted from GOd when they pray about the baptism and he directs them to be baptized in Jesus name?

I don't quite think you've read the last few pages... maybe skimmed them, but not read them. They hold your answers.

We are so wrapped up in focus on a formula. There are several ways of looking at the verses we perceive as commanding a formula, though.

I'm not throwing out formulas. I'm just looking at them from a different perspective, mainly because someone used Acts 22 alone-regarding Paul's conversion-to try to prove that baptism in Jesus name was correct. I made a statement that the particular verse in question appears to say the believer calls on the name of Jesus... not the preacher.

Originally Posted by onefaith2

So why would God care about the formula when formula really doesn't matter?

DOES God really care about the formula as much as we do?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It makes for a great foundation and then we grow in grace and knowledge. (II Peter 3:18).

People that want to argue the Word get wrapped up in certain formulas.

to both statements.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The three scriptures I cited in Acts say, "in the name of". It's pretty self-explanatory. I would think the next question would be, "In the name of who?" Answer: Jesus. Pretty simple. Kind of throws the useless formula argument out the window.

I answered that already. Post... 529. Near the bottom.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Uh, his revelation of who Jesus was? What would be his point of being baptized if He didn't get that? He was persecuting the church. He's not going to cooperate with that doctrine when he has no understanding and basically disagreed it was even of God.

So... are you saying that if a person is a non-believer and is baptized, their baptism isn't effectual? Does it matter how they were baptized if they didn't believe? Why not?

Could it be because they are not proclaiming the work Jesus did through his death, burial and resurrection and claiming that in their lives if they don't believe? It doesn't matter what formula a preacher says over an atheist, or how many times they are dunked, they aren't baptized, because they don't believe. They aren't calling on the name of Jesus by their actions, because they don't have faith in Jesus, who can save. So it isn't the act of being dunked, or the words a preacher says, but what baptism means and proclaims to the believer that makes the difference.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The New Testament is a prophetic revealing of the Old Testament. Saul was well educated in the scriptures, i.e law and the prophets.

But you can't use NT scripture to prove how Paul got the revelation. It doesn't work that way. Use Is 9:6 and Gen 1:1 and verses like that. Don't talk about Paul getting a revelation and then appear to skip into the New Testament verses to prove his scriptural foundation for his new beliefs.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

No, it's not off-topic at all. Jesus' words in Matthew 28:19 is speaking a revelation. To relegate that to a baptismal formula is error, having no understanding. And to use Acts 22:16 as an argument about who said what, is also error, IMO. It is only ever going to be "in Jesus name" and that is what Paul is reiterating in Acts 22:16.

Again, I'm not relegating anything to a baptismal formula. As to the use of Act 22:16, that was my original point. It is erroneous to use that as a proof text. But that is what happened in post 523.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I didn't say John and I John gave Saul anything. I was merely pointing out the majestic revelation of what the NT, including, repentance, baptism and infilling of the Holy Ghost is all about. It's not something as shallow as a debate on baptismal formula. It's truth. Precise, well planned, timely and powerful revelatory truth.

Sorry, I have seen scripture misplaced to prove points many times, and talking about Paul's revelation and suddenly tying in and skipping to verses in John and 1 John was worth calling you on.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I didn't say this. This is your thinking. I said that Ananias was referring to Acts 2:21.

Exactly where in the above quote did you say that Ananias was referring to Acts 2:21, and how could he have been, since the verse hadn't yet been written?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Acts 9:18 "And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized."

I don't see anything alluding to Paul using his own words when he was baptized. I don't think that is what Acts 22:16 is saying at all.

I never said Paul said the words. I stated on several occasions that he called on the name of Jesus not by his words, but by his actions, in submitting to baptism. It is through baptism that we proclaim who Jesus is and what he did for us. Thus by our actions we "call on the name of Jesus", not by any words.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

He is simply acknowledging the baptism for the remission of his sins and that he has professed Jesus is the Lord, whom he met on the Road to Damascus.

Exactly!

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by missourimary

I don't quite think you've read the last few pages... maybe skimmed them, but not read them. They hold your answers.




DOES God really care about the formula as much as we do?



!

Well WHY would GOd care for all the people who have testified of the Lord dealing with them regarding the subject?

You are saying we are being baptized in Jesus name by our actions. Thats not biblical.

[missourimary]

How is that not biblical, OneFaith2? It may cross many peoples' perceptions of the interpretation of a few verses, but the context does have strong scriptural basis.

We choose to be baptized. By being baptized, WE are putting on Christ. We are demonstrating His death, burial and resurrection by being baptized by immersion. We are proclaiming His name and what He has done, identifying with Him through baptism.

Gal 3:23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

INTO Christ. Not by a pronouncement over us by another person, but INTO Him, by faith. How? By baptism itself, not a series of words spoken.

Co 2:12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Rom 6:3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Again in both these passages the act of baptism, not a series of words, identifies us with Jesus.

1Cor 10:1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
How were they baptized UNTO Moses? Not by someone pronouncing "In the name of Moses" over them as they passed through the sea, but by their faith in walking through on dry land.

Even 1 Cor 1:10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. ...13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17For 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.

Is, according to commentaries http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/1-13.htm (see lower part of the page) discussing that people are baptized INTO someone's name to profess becoming followers of that person, and that Paul was making the point that he didn't baptize them nor did he make them his own followers, but Christ's. This passage could be brought to the unstated conclusion that since they were not baptized in the name of Paul, they were baptized into a name, and that name would have been Jesus', or it could mean that Paul did not make disciples for himself, but of Jesus. Jesus died for them, and it is Him they should follow, not dividing the body of Christ with disputes, not following various leaders, but following the One who died for them and they pledged to serve by their baptism.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by missourimary

...
DOES God really care about the formula as much as we do?
...

I doubt if He does.
We are overly concerned about "correctness" sorta like straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. God sees the person's heart and know what happened or is happening inside.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by missourimary

So... are you saying that if a person is a non-believer and is baptized, their baptism isn't effectual? Does it matter how they were baptized if they didn't believe? Why not?

Why would a non-believer want to be baptized? "Well, I don't believe any of this, but let's dunk it anyway, 'cause I love water." LOL!

Could it be because they are not proclaiming the work Jesus did through his death, burial and resurrection and claiming that in their lives if they don't believe? It doesn't matter what formula a preacher says over an atheist, or how many times they are dunked, they aren't baptized, because they don't believe. They aren't calling on the name of Jesus by their actions, because they don't have faith in Jesus, who can save. So it isn't the act of being dunked, or the words a preacher says, but what baptism means and proclaims to the believer that makes the difference.

Uh, well, yeah. LOL! A person needs to have an understanding of what they are about to do and why. So, faith/belief, the understanding through teaching from the Word, the water, the words spoken and the belief in it all kinda go hand in hand. But, it always starts with faith, of which, God gives every man a measure.

But you can't use NT scripture to prove how Paul got the revelation. It doesn't work that way. Use Is 9:6 and Gen 1:1 and verses like that. Don't talk about Paul getting a revelation and then appear to skip into the New Testament verses to prove his scriptural foundation for his new beliefs.

This is what I said:

The New Testament is a prophetic revealing of the Old Testament. Saul was well educated in the scriptures, i.e, law and the prophets.

Saul/Paul received his understanding from the Law and prophets. The NT speaks of how he came to have an encounter and revelation of Jesus Christ.

I already referenced Isaiah 9:6 and Gen. 1:1. These are but a few of the passages that Saul/Paul was very well aware of.

So, yes, I can cite NT passages as proof of his revelation because it was written after the fact. The OT passages would reference where he got that understanding that these things were true. The NT shows where and how he received a revelation of these things.

Again, I'm not relegating anything to a baptismal formula. As to the use of Act 22:16, that was my original point. It is erroneous to use that as a proof text. But that is what happened in post 523.

Oh, so you are saying that being immersed in water is "calling on the name of the Lord"? No words necessary?

Sorry, I have seen scripture misplaced to prove points many times, and talking about Paul's revelation and suddenly tying in and skipping to verses in John and 1 John was worth calling you on.

I see you keep saying this when I already responded to it, but I will try one more time.

I gave Genesis 1:1 which ties in with John 1 and I John 1 - "In the beginning". I never said that Paul got a revelation from John or I John. You know, as well as I do, that Paul's revelation preceded any of his writings in the NT as did all other books of the NT by the various authors. It doesn't take away from Paul's having a revelation from God as he knew what Genesis 1:1 was implying - there can be no other creator. He knew about Jesus saying, "When you have seen me, you have seen the father." That is why he was wrecking havoc on the church. None of those scriptures are misplaced to prove a point. It is a point, because it happened and they wrote about it later. Tying in Genesis 1:1 with John 1 and I John 1 shows how they had the understanding that these things were true. Just because it wasn't set forth, at the moment, for us to read, doesn't mean it wasn't something they understood. God used Saul's/Paul's knowledge to open up his understanding to the revelation of himself. I never only used NT scriptures to prove anything.

Exactly where in the above quote did you say that Ananias was referring to Acts 2:21, and how could he have been, since the verse hadn't yet been written?

This is a strange question as you know the book of Acts is - "the Acts of the Apostles". The action has to come before anything is written. You think that Ananias didn't know about what was said on the day of Pentecost, i.e. Acts 2:21, just because it was not formally written in script? That doesn't make sense. Their actions preceded the written Word or they would have had nothing to write about.

I never said Paul said the words. I stated on several occasions that he called on the name of Jesus not by his words, but by his actions, in submitting to baptism. It is through baptism that we proclaim who Jesus is and what he did for us. Thus by our actions we "call on the name of Jesus", not by any words.

I can see what you are saying, but I'm reading where Peter looks at the lame man at the gate beautiful and says, "In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise up and walk" (Acts 3:6)

And in Acts 16:18, Paul turned to the damsel who had a spirit of divination and says, to the spirit, "I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her."

It appears to me that the verbal use of Jesus' name was important. That makes me think that it is also important in baptism.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Why would a non-believer want to be baptized? "Well, I don't believe any of this, but let's dunk it anyway, 'cause I love water." LOL!

Right. So no matter the formula or method use, baptism means nothing unless the person being baptized believes.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Uh, well, yeah. LOL! A person needs to have an understanding of what they are about to do and why. So, faith/belief, the understanding through teaching from the Word, the water, the words spoken and the belief in it all kinda go hand in hand. But, it always starts with faith, of which, God gives every man a measure.

whoops, where did those come from? As I noted and you agreed, it would be ludicrous to baptize a non-believer. There is no power in the water or the words. We use water in obedience and as a symbol. The same may be said of any words spoken.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

This is what I said:

The New Testament is a prophetic revealing of the Old Testament. Saul was well educated in the scriptures, i.e, law and the prophets.

Saul/Paul received his understanding from the Law and prophets. The NT speaks of how he came to have an encounter and revelation of Jesus Christ.

I already referenced Isaiah 9:6 and Gen. 1:1. These are but a few of the passages that Saul/Paul was very well aware of.

So, yes, I can cite NT passages as proof of his revelation because it was written after the fact. The OT passages would reference where he got that understanding that these things were true. The NT shows where and how he received a revelation of these things.

You still can't tell me that Saul got a revelation and describe that by John 1 and 1 John 1, PO. You jumped topics in midstream, starting with baptism, then Saul on Damascus road, skipping to a general explanation of oneness using John 1 and 1 John 1, and ending on what was apparently to you an emotional high, but still not a solid explanation of anything. If you'd followed through with "who art thou, Lord?" and gone from there to describe the NT authors' concept of oneness or baptism, your explanation would have been much more solid.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Oh, so you are saying that being immersed in water is "calling on the name of the Lord"? No words necessary?

I just wouldn't be too quick to condemn those who were baptized using a different wording than your favorite.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

None of those scriptures are misplaced to prove a point. This is a strange question as you know the book of Acts is - "the Acts of the Apostles". The action has to come before anything is written. You think that Ananias didn't know about what was said on the day of Pentecost, i.e. Acts 2:21, just because it was not formally written in script? That doesn't make sense. Their actions preceded the written Word or they would have had nothing to write about.

Lets try this from a different angle. The principles of our constitution were present before the document was drafted. However, if Jefferson had said something in, say, 1771, we couldn't possibly say he was referencing the Constitution. It hadn't been drafted. He may have been voicing the concepts that were later solidified by the Constitution, but he couldn't have referenced the Constitution, itself. Nor could we take what was said and back it, in historical context, with the Constitution, because again it had not yet been drafted.

But that is really beside the point of the main discussion. I do the same thing sometimes. It's easy to do when a person is very familiar with their topic. Just something to watch in any sort of discussion.