are there any Oneness Pentecostal Calvinists out there?

[Jipsah]

You overthink things that any schoolkid could make perfect sense of.

If he'd been taught nothing esle from birth, maybe.

Why not relax and stick with scripture?

What about the one where our Lord told His followers to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy GHost? You have to do one of those infamous "what that really means is..." tricks that are essential to defending any made-up-from-whole-cloth doctrine.

 

[Dave L]

If he'd been taught nothing esle from birth, maybe.

What about the one where our Lord told His followers to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy GHost? You have to do one of those infamous "what that really means is..." tricks that are essential to defending any made-up-from-whole-cloth doctrine.

Feast on this.
Baptism in Jesus’ name

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” Matthew 28:19 (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)

“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)

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


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."

 

[Dave L]

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?

He said that but you and the Catholics missed how the Apostles interpreted it.

 

[Dave L]

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.

What does scripture say? Go by that and drop your traditions.

 

[Jipsah]

Feast on this.
Baptism in Jesus’ name

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” Matthew 28:19 (KJV 1900)

Well that obviously can't mean what it says! If you baptize people as Jesus literally said to do, then those people will still be hell-bound because they didn't figure out what Jesus really meant when He said that. God will say, "Tough luck, y'all, they used the wrong words when you were baptized, so it didn't count. Please take a seat in yon handbasket."

Gotta say the Magic Words, you see. God's always looking for an excuse to chuck folks into hell, after all.

 

[Jipsah]

What does scripture say?

Our Lord said, and I quote: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” Matthew 28:19

Go by that

We do.

and drop your traditions.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Jipsah]

He said that but you and the Catholics missed how the Apostles interpreted it.

I reckon the Catholics set more store by what our Lord Christ actually said than by what you, or even the Apostles, thought He "really meant". Too many people have done too much violence to the Word of God with "No, what that really means is..." claptrap than anything else. I have no use for any doctrine based on that kind of nonsense.

 

[The Liturgist]

No. Jesus Christ is the name of the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son.

-CryptoLutheran

This is correct.

Who was Gabriel talking about when he said, "You shall call His name Jesus"?

What does Jesus mean when He says that "the Christ must suffer, and on the third day rise again"?

Did Joseph name the Father "Jesus"? No. Did the Holy Spirit suffer and on the third day rise again? No.

No, only the Son was named Jesus, only the Son suffered and rose on the third day.

-CryptoLutheran

Indeed so. It is important for me as a believer in Theopaschitism not to inadvertantly cross the line into Patripassianism or Pneumatopassianism.

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

I agree entirely. This is the faith of the Apostles, the Early Church and the Councils.

 

[The Liturgist]

The trinity was in Christ the man who spoke God's word through the second person of the Son..

“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)

I don’t think that Christology is compatible with the Nicene Creed. You’ve gone way beyond Nestorius who argued for a personal union, in that you seem to be talking about the Son of God and Jesus Christ as different persons in a union of will, after the fashion of Diodore of Tarsus.

The problem is that in the Nicene Creed, which is the CF.com Statement of Faith, we confess that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God, begotten, not made, by who all things were created, very God of very God, begotten of the Father before all ages, who for our salvation became incarnate of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, suffered under Pontius Pilate, died, was buried, and rose again on the third day. He ascended into Heaven where he sits at the right hand of the Father, and will return to judge the living and the dead.

Thus, Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son and Word of God. If you separate our Lord into two persons, which was St. Cyril’s concern about the potential of Nestorianism, although Nestorius himself stopped short of doing this, only separating the hypostases, you cannot logically confess the Nicene Creed, and that is a huge problem.

 

[The Liturgist]

@Dave L

have you heard of this thing called the Orthodox Church, which was never under the control of the Roman Catholic Church, and which broke communion with the Catholic church when the Catholics introduced innovations like the filioque and Papal Supremacy?

The Orthodox also wrote the creeds - the early Bishops of Rome did not have the time or inclination to travel to Asia Minor for ecumenical councils, and all of the ecumenical creeds except for the Apostles Creed are of Greek provenance (although the Orthodox version of the creed psuedepigraphically attributed to St. Athanasius, but dating from the 6th century, is different from the Western version with regards to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Dave L]

@Dave L

have you heard of this thing called the Orthodox Church, which was never under the control of the Roman Catholic Church, and which broke communion with the Catholic church when the Catholics introduced innovations like the filioque and Papal Supremacy?

The Orthodox also wrote the creeds - the early Bishops of Rome did not have the time or inclination to travel to Asia Minor for ecumenical councils, and all of the ecumenical creeds except for the Apostles Creed are of Greek provenance (although the Orthodox version of the creed psuedepigraphically attributed to St. Athanasius, but dating from the 6th century, is different from the Western version with regards to the Holy Spirit.

So? The bible shows Baptism was of believers in the name of Jesus Christ as performed by the Apostles. Are you saying they got it wrong? Are you not rewriting scripture by doing it your way instead of theirs?
Baptism in Jesus’ name

The Command;
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” Matthew 28:19 (KJV 1900)

The Interpretation;
“(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)

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

 

[Dave L]

I don’t think that Christology is compatible with the Nicene Creed. You’ve gone way beyond Nestorius who argued for a personal union, in that you seem to be talking about the Son of God and Jesus Christ as different persons in a union of will, after the fashion of Diodore of Tarsus.

The problem is that in the Nicene Creed, which is the CF.com Statement of Faith, we confess that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God, begotten, not made, by who all things were created, very God of very God, begotten of the Father before all ages, who for our salvation became incarnate of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, suffered under Pontius Pilate, died, was buried, and rose again on the third day. He ascended into Heaven where he sits at the right hand of the Father, and will return to judge the living and the dead.

Thus, Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son and Word of God. If you separate our Lord into two persons, which was St. Cyril’s concern about the potential of Nestorianism, although Nestorius himself stopped short of doing this, only separating the hypostases, you cannot logically confess the Nicene Creed, and that is a huge problem.

How can you accuse me (bear false witness) when my position remains according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us. [1]

 

[Dave L]

I reckon the Catholics set more store by what our Lord Christ actually said than by what you, or even the Apostles, thought He "really meant". Too many people have done too much violence to the Word of God with "No, what that really means is..." claptrap than anything else. I have no use for any doctrine based on that kind of nonsense.

So you are right and the Apostles wrong?

 

[Dave L]

Our Lord said, and I quote: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” Matthew 28:19

We do.

Physician, heal thyself.

You are ignoring the Apostles and their interpretation of Jesus' words. How serious is that?

 

[Dave L]

Well that obviously can't mean what it says! If you baptize people as Jesus literally said to do, then those people will still be hell-bound because they didn't figure out what Jesus really meant when He said that. God will say, "Tough luck, y'all, they used the wrong words when you were baptized, so it didn't count. Please take a seat in yon handbasket."

Gotta say the Magic Words, you see. God's always looking for an excuse to chuck folks into hell, after all.

Scripture tells us how the Apostles interpreted it. I got re-baptized as a trinitarian, in the name of Jesus Christ so I didn't reject God's word.

 

[The Liturgist]

How can you accuse me (bear false witness) when my position remains according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us. [1]

If you had used that Chalcedonian language, I would not have accused you of anything. However, in posts 19 and 21, you spoke of Jesus Christ and the Son of God as if they were different persons in a union of will, which is what @ViaCrucis was objecting to about your Christology. Conversely, everything you just wrote in this post is doctrinally orthodox.

I would respectfully suggest that you use greater care in expressing Christological positions, because you made it seem as though you believed something that you very evidently do not.

 

[Dave L]

If you had used that Chalcedonian language, I would not have accused you of anything. However, in posts 19 and 21, you spoke of Jesus Christ and the Son of God as if they were different persons in a union of will, which is what @ViaCrucis was objecting to about your Christology. Conversely, everything you just wrote in this post is doctrinally orthodox.

I would respectfully suggest that you use greater care in expressing Christological positions, because you made it seem as though you believed something that you very evidently do not.

You should learn English. And not assume anything until you do.

 

[The Liturgist]

You wrote:

The trinity was in Christ the man who spoke God's word through the second person of the Son..

This indicates that the Second Person of the Son was not the same as Christ the man but rather spoke through Him, which apparently you did not mean to say, because that was the extreme error I was addressing.

However, it is still an error to say the Trinity was in Christ; rather, Christ is in the Trinity, consubstantial and coessential with the unoriginate Father from whom He is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father. However, each person of the Trinity is hypostatically distinct, and Jesus Christ our Lord is hypostatically united with us.

 

[Dave L]

You wrote:



This indicates that the Second Person of the Son was not the same as Christ the man but rather spoke through Him, which apparently you did not mean to say, because that was the extreme error I was addressing.

However, it is still an error to say the Trinity was in Christ; rather, Christ is in the Trinity, consubstantial and coessential with the unoriginate Father from whom He is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father. However, each person of the Trinity is hypostatically distinct, and Jesus Christ our Lord is hypostatically united with us.

The trinity was Christ's person. He did not have a human person.

 

[The Liturgist]

How can you accuse me (bear false witness) when my position remains according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us. [1]

Also, on a second reading, I do have one question about your Christological confession which appears to be doctrinally correct, and that is, what do you mean by “According to the manhood”?