are there any Oneness Pentecostal Calvinists out there?

[Dave L]

Okay, so your Christology is messed up too it would seem.

Christ, the man, is also Christ who is God the Son from all eternity.

The Father is in the Son, not just in the Son incarnate, but in the Son from all eternity, even as the Son is in the Father from all eternity. Likewise the Holy Spirit in the Father, in the Son; and the Father and Son in the Spirit. This is the doctrine of the Perichoresis of the Trinity.

Only the Son became flesh.
Only the Son was given the name Jesus.
Only the Son was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
Only the Son rose on the third day.
Only the Son ascended into heaven.
Only the Son sits and reigns at the right hand of the Father.
Only the Son is coming again to judge the living and the dead.

Jude 5 means what it says, that the Son--Jesus--is YHWH, the God of Israel. Because Israel's God is the Holy Trinity.

The Father is YWHW.
The Son is YHWH.
The Holy Spirit is YHWH.

Because the Father is God.
The Son is God.
And the Holy Spirit is God.

The Father is Almighty.
The Son is Almighty.
The Holy Spirit is Almighty.

The Father is Eternal.
The Son is Eternal.
The Holy Spirit is Eternal.

Three Divine Persons.
One God.
Holy Trinity.

-CryptoLutheran

“To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” 2 Corinthians 5:19 (KJV 1900)

 

[ViaCrucis]

“To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” 2 Corinthians 5:19 (KJV 1900)

Yes, because "in Him is the fullness of Deity bodily" (Colossians 2:9), Jesus Christ is God. He is God the Son, the Divine and Uncreated Logos who was in the beginning with God (the Father) and is Himself God (the Son). In the beginning God was with God (John 1:1).

And yes, the Father and the Spirit are in the Son, even as the Son is in the Father (John 14:11) and the Spirit--that is the Perichoresis of the Three Persons of the Trinity.

But no, the Father did not become flesh.
And no, the Holy Spirit did not become flesh.

Only the Son became flesh (John 1:14, Galatians 4:4).

Only the Son is Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:21).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dave L]

Yes, because "in Him is the fullness of Deity bodily" (Colossians 2:9), Jesus Christ is God. He is God the Son, the Divine and Uncreated Logos who was in the beginning with God (the Father) and is Himself God (the Son). In the beginning God was with God (John 1:1).

And yes, the Father and the Spirit are in the Son, even as the Son is in the Father (John 14:11) and the Spirit--that is the Perichoresis of the Three Persons of the Trinity.

But no, the Father did not become flesh.
And no, the Holy Spirit did not become flesh.

Only the Son became flesh (John 1:14, Galatians 4:4).

Only the Son is Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:21).

-CryptoLutheran

You are ignoring that God is omnipresent, even in Christ. You cut God up into pieces and divide him which is heresy if I recall.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You are ignoring that God is omnipresent, even in Christ. You cut God up into pieces and divide him which is heresy if I recall.

In nothing I've said have I ignored God's omnipresence. Nor am I cutting up the Trinity.

I'm presenting orthodox Triadology and Christology.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dave L]

In nothing I've said have I ignored God's omnipresence, I'm not cutting up the Trinity.

You should probably go and study orthodox Triadology and Christology.

-CryptoLutheran

Stick with the Ecumenical Creeds, they'll set you straight.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Stick with the Ecumenical Creeds, they'll set you straight.

Dude. I am sticking to the Ecumenical Creeds.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dave L]

Dude. I am sticking to the Ecumenical Creeds.

-CryptoLutheran

Not if you perform a "Texas chainsaw massacre" on the Godhead.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Not if you perform a "Texas chainsaw massacre" on the Godhead.

"The catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity, neither confusing the Persons, nor dividing the Substance."

Thus far my argument has been to insist on the non-confusion of the Persons and maintaining the unity of their Being.

I have been abundantly clear of the unity of the Trinity as I have insisted on the distinction and non-confusion of the Persons.

I am sticking to the Creeds. You are the one who is arguing against what the Creeds say.

The Creeds are clear that there are three Divine Persons, one Divine Substance. And that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

"For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

Equal to the Father, as touching his Deity; and inferior to the Father, as touching his manhood; Who, although he be God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; One, not by conversion of the Deity into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works" - from the Athanasian Creed

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dave L]

"The catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity, neither confusing the Persons, nor dividing the Substance."

Thus far my argument has been to insist on the non-confusion of the Persons and maintaining the unity of their Being.

I have been abundantly clear of the unity of the Trinity as I have insisted on the distinction and non-confusion of the Persons.

I am sticking to the Creeds. You are the one who is arguing against what the Creeds say.

The Creeds are clear that there are three Divine Persons, one Divine Substance. And that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

"For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

Equal to the Father, as touching his Deity; and inferior to the Father, as touching his manhood; Who, although he be God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; One, not by conversion of the Deity into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works" - from the Athanasian Creed

-CryptoLutheran

The problem is, Jesus Christ is God's name in the NT. Lord in the OT = Lord in the NT.

“as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. He gave himself for us to set us free from every kind of lawlessness and to purify for himself a people who are truly his, who are eager to do good.” Titus 2:13–14 (NET)

“Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:” 2 Peter 1:1 (ESV)

“Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” Jude 5 (ESV)

“and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:4)

 

[ViaCrucis]

The problem is, Jesus Christ is God's name in the NT. Lord in the OT = Lord in the NT.

“as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. He gave himself for us to set us free from every kind of lawlessness and to purify for himself a people who are truly his, who are eager to do good.” Titus 2:13–14 (NET)

“Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:” 2 Peter 1:1 (ESV)

“Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” Jude 5 (ESV)

“and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:4)

That Jesus Christ is God isn't under debate. And these are all very good passages that highlight Christ's Deity, that He is Israel's God, YHWH.

None of these say that "Jesus Christ" is the name of the Father or the Holy Spirit. They all say that Jesus (the Son) is God, Israel's God.

Your claim is not substantiated by these proof texts.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dave L]

That Jesus Christ is God isn't under debate. And these are all very good passages that highlight Christ's Deity, that He is Israel's God, YHWH.

None of these say that "Jesus Christ" is the name of the Father or the Holy Spirit. They all say that Jesus (the Son) is God, Israel's God.

Your claim is not substantiated by these proof texts.

-CryptoLutheran

The scriptures I posted verify you are misled.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The scriptures I posted verify you are misled.

Let's look at the Scriptures you posted:

“as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. He gave himself for us to set us free from every kind of lawlessness and to purify for himself a people who are truly his, who are eager to do good.” Titus 2:13–14 (NET)

Where does this say that "Jesus Christ" is the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit? I'm not seeing it, I'm not sure how you see it. Please explain how you are able to see this in this passage.

“Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:” 2 Peter 1:1 (ESV)

Again, I'm not seeing "Jesus Christ is the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit" here. I'm just seeing Jesus being called "our God and Savior".

“Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” Jude 5 (ESV)

Again, how does this say that Jesus is the name of the Father? It's saying Jesus, the Person of Jesus, saved the people out of the land of Egypt.

“and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:4)

Same, how does this say that Jesus is the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit?

I'm not seeing whatever it is you are seeing. How are you arriving at your position with these passages of Scripture?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dave L]

Let's look at the Scriptures you posted:

“as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. He gave himself for us to set us free from every kind of lawlessness and to purify for himself a people who are truly his, who are eager to do good.” Titus 2:13–14 (NET)

Where does this say that "Jesus Christ" is the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit? I'm not seeing it, I'm not sure how you see it. Please explain how you are able to see this in this passage.

“Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:” 2 Peter 1:1 (ESV)

Again, I'm not seeing "Jesus Christ is the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit" here. I'm just seeing Jesus being called "our God and Savior".

“Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” Jude 5 (ESV)

Again, how does this say that Jesus is the name of the Father? It's saying Jesus, the Person of Jesus, saved the people out of the land of Egypt.

“and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:4)

Same, how does this say that Jesus is the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit?

I'm not seeing whatever it is you are seeing. How are you arriving at your position with these passages of Scripture?

-CryptoLutheran

Jesus told the Apostles to baptize believers in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Apostles did this when they baptized believers in the name of Jesus Christ. The Catholics didn't like this and changed it, ignoring the name of Jesus Christ and using only Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as their model.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Jesus told the Apostles to baptize believers in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Apostles did this when they baptized believers in the name of Jesus Christ. The Catholics didn't like this and changed it, ignoring the name of Jesus Christ and using only Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as their model.

Does "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (and variations thereof) constitute a baptismal formula that the Apostles used; or does it reflect the Christian belief that this baptism is instituted by Christ--in His name and by His authority?

Why do the earliest descriptions of how Christian baptism is performed mention "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit"? (c.f. the Didache, 7:1-5)?

If "the Catholics didn't like this and changed it", when did they do this? When did that happen? That's a big claim, and is going to need some serious evidentiary support to back it up.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dave L]

Does "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (and variations thereof) constitute a baptismal formula that the Apostles used; or does it reflect the Christian belief that this baptism is instituted by Christ--in His name and by His authority?

Why do the earliest descriptions of how Christian baptism is performed mention "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit"? (c.f. the Didache, 7:1-5)?

If "the Catholics didn't like this and changed it", when did they do this? When did that happen? That's a big claim, and is going to need some serious evidentiary support to back it up.

-CryptoLutheran

You overthink things that any schoolkid could make perfect sense of. Why not relax and stick with scripture?

 

[ViaCrucis]

You overthink things that any schoolkid could make perfect sense of. Why not relax and stick with scripture?

I appreciate your concern. But I don't think I would be doing anyone any favors by turning my brain off and not take the Scriptures, the Creeds, and the entire historic faith of the Church seriously.

Back to my question: When did "the Catholic Church" change this? When did that happen? Because, again, that is a big claim, and it requires evidence to back it up.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dave L]

I appreciate your concern. But I don't think I would be doing anyone any favors by turning my brain off and not take the Scriptures, the Creeds, and the entire historic faith of the Church seriously.

Back to my question: When did "the Catholic Church" change this? When did that happen? Because, again, that is a big claim, and it requires evidence to back it up.

-CryptoLutheran

How embarrassing to think the mainline Protestant Churches got baptism wrong by listening to the Catholics instead of scripture.\ Even the baptists fumbled the ball on this one.

Baptism in Jesus’ name


“(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” Acts 8:16 (KJV 1900)

“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” Acts 10:48 (KJV 1900)

“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 19:5 (KJV 1900)

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38 (KJV 1900)

“(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” Acts 8:16 (KJV 1900)

“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 19:5 (KJV 1900)

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” Romans 6:3 (KJV 1900)



Acts 2:38, "And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."


Acts 10:48, "And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days."


Acts 19:5, "And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."



(Acts 2:38) "Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."


(Acts 8:14-16) "Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them:

15 Who, when they came down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)"


(Acts 10:47-48 Peter) "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as us?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days."


(Acts 19:4-5) "Then Paul said, John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people, that they should believe in him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

 

[Jipsah]

Wow. Oneness is more controversial than Predestination? Shocking.

Not really. Predesinatiuon is explicit in Scripture. The fact that many people wish it was not doesn't make it any less so. "Oneness", on the other hand, is not.

 

[Jipsah]

You got it wrong. Jesus told the Apostles to baptize believers, not babies, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They did this in Acts baptizing believers in the Name of Jesus Christ.

That sounds amazingly like the result of someone coming up with a doctrine and then working like mad to find somethng vaguely Scriptural to hang it on.

I personaally see no reason to believe that our Lord dealt in that kind of silly circumlocution. If He'd meant "baptize them in My Name" that's what He'd have said.

Apart from that, I don't hold with "magic words". If there was salvific magic in one form rather than the other, why would our Lord have made the thing ambiguous? The whole thing smacks of the kind of acane "knowledge" that was the trademark of Gnosticism.

 

[Jipsah]

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

So you're saying that our Lord never said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, right? Wow, how many other things in the Bible are just wrong?