/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

His name is the greatest name there is.

Lol ok Oneness Pentecostal.

But seriously, baptisting in the Name of Jesus means that they were bapstising under his command, while baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the actual formula used.

Im not pentecostal. I want to become orthodox. Im just trying to figure somethings out. My frind messed my head up with some scriptual critiques that I didn’t have an answer for in the moment. Sorry for these posts.

>>733156

“In the name of” can mean both literally under the name or on behalf of. Jesus commanded baptism, they are baptizing in Jesus’s name. The formula is the trinitarian formula

>>733156

The baptism in the name of Jesus is the shorthand for the trinitarian baptism as Christ directed the disciples to do. In acts it differentiates from the baptism of john the baptist which was not a sacrament nor trinitarian so not a true baptism but only a preparation for true baptism. Hence why those with a john the baptist baptism have to receive the Jesus trinitarian baptism

Both formulas are valid. The community of Luke knew of the baptism in the name of Jesus, and the community of Matthew knew of the baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Both formulas are apostolic and technically valid. Why? Because they have the same meaning and intention. Baptism in the name (note the singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit obviously baptizes into the fullness of the godhead. Baptism in the name of Jesus does the same, since "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form" (Colossians 2:9). "Trinity" baptism puts emphasis on God's Trinitarian nature and "Jesus" baptism puts emphasis on that we are buried and resurrected with Jesus, but both have the same meaning and intention.

I believe that St John Chrysostom and other saints show that "Jesus" baptism continued being practiced centuries after the birth of the Church. So why isn't it done anymore? The reason should be obvious - non-Trinitarian heretics were plentiful in the early centuries of the Church, and so "Trinity" baptism became the standard to highlight how important such a doctrine is, and to make sure that the one bapizing more likely had orthodox intentions.

There are absolutely no reasons to revive the practice of "Jesus" baptism. "Trinity" baptism has the exact same validity but has actually cemented itself as the normative form, and considering that non-Trinitarian heretics exist even today, and certain heretics that I will not name are taking onto the "Jesus" baptism for themselves, continuing the traditional practice of "Trinity" baptism is necessary anyway.

>>733174

>under

into*

>>733209

Are you stupid or do you just want to find a reason to shitpost?

I did not say that Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit. Read my post again, if you even read it in whole to begin with.

God is a Trinity. We cannot refer to the Son without implying the Father and the Holy Spirit. You do realize that, right? *You* are the heretic if you disagree. I admit that social Trinitarianisml is a relatively recent heresy though.

>>733213

>social Trinitarianism

Heck is that

>>733213

>I did not say that Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit

Yes you did

<Baptism in the name of Jesus does the same, since "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form"

It would bad enough if you left it at "does the same", but citation of Colossians 2:9 to substantiate it unequivocally equates the Father, Son and Holy Spirit into the person of Jesus Christ. If the particular names of the Son at the same time convey the Father and Holy Spirit, there is no distinction. Jesus Christ is the Son alone and if we conceive of Him as the Father, we are guilty of deadly error.

>God is a Trinity

Which is precisely why the Son is entirely different from the Father and the Holy Spirit

>We cannot refer to the Son without implying the Father and the Holy Spirit

We cannot refer to the Son and mean the Father and Holy Spirit. They are three different individuals, and as such can and must be viewed individually. This is the doctrine of Nicaea and you are bound to affirm it to post on this board. Do you affirm or deny this doctrine?

>>733217

Understanding each person of the Trinity as a "person" in the modern, English sense, rather than a "hypostasis". Which notably means that each person of the Trinity can be understood and "studied" apart from the two others. It also means that there are three wills that coincide, rather than one will.

>>733220

>If the particular names of the Son at the same time convey the Father and Holy Spirit, there is no distinction. Jesus Christ is the Son alone and if we conceive of Him as the Father, we are guilty of deadly error.

Okay. Jesus is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. Are you happy now? I'm not a heretic. Now stop being dense and actually try to understand what I am saying.

Is Jesus fully God? Is Jesus the "nexus" into the godhead by His Incarnation?

>We cannot refer to the Son and mean the Father and Holy Spirit. They are three different individuals, and as such can and must be viewed individually.

Holy crap, you're actually a heretic. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit cannot be viewed "individually". That is the whole point of the Trinity. What is the Father the Father of? What is the Son the Son of? What is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of?

>Do you affirm or deny this doctrine?

I affirm this doctrine 100% although I reject the heretical "filioque".

>>733222

>Understanding each person of the Trinity as a "person" in the modern, English sense, rather than a "hypostasis"

Considering the two terms were never used interchangeably, I'm guessing you're trying to re-define the word person into something superficial so you can sneakily deny the Trinity and justify it by an appeal to anti-modernism.

>Is Jesus fully God?

Yes, but if you weren't a Modalist you wouldn't ask that in this context. You've betrayed your Modalist logic, the only way this is a question is if God is an individual and therefore it can't be that Jesus is God in Himself, the Father God in Himself, and the Holy Spirit God in Himself, but just one divine person with multiple names

>Is Jesus the "nexus" into the godhead by His Incarnation?

No

>The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit cannot be viewed "individually".

Ok, so now that you've explicitly admitted you reject the teaching of the bible, the fathers, the councils etc, why are you even here? You know this is the Christian board right?

>What is the Father the Father of? What is the Son the Son of? What is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of?

Is the Father the Father? Is the Son the Son? Is the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit?

>I affirm this doctrine 100%

Is that why you just called it heresy?

>I reject the heretical "filioque"

Nice shallow attempt at d&c, kid.

>>733200

False: a non trinitarian baptism is invalid. A pope was given a filial correction because he taught that a Name of Jesus baptism was valid. The pope investigated and decreed it was indeed invalid.

If you notice St Paul when visiting some guys in Ephesius, talks about the Holy spirit, and they reply they never heard of it. And Paul says who what name were they baptised, to which they reply they only had the baptism of John.

Acts 19:1-3

>Now it happened that, while Apollo was at Corinth, Paul, after he had journeyed through the upper regions, arrived at Ephesus. And he met with certain disciples. And he said to them, “After believing, have you received the Holy Spirit?” But they said to him, “We have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” Yet truly, he said, “Then with what have you been baptized?” And they said, “With the baptism of John.”

The baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is short of the baptismal formula. You never see them actually saying "I baptise thee in the name of Jesus Christ" it's always during the narration to avoid clustering the text with the "they were baptised in the name of the Father….."

>>733238

It's interesting that he found them all the way in Ephesus, but I imagine they were some of John's first hearers and heeded his call to be baptized and believed "another would come". If they were foreign Jews, maybe they went back home and then later heard of Jesus and believed he was the one John spoke of.

>>733230

>Considering the two terms were never used interchangeably, I'm guessing you're trying to re-define the word person into something superficial so you can sneakily deny the Trinity and justify it by an appeal to anti-modernism.

Are you denying that social Trinitarianism exists…?

>Yes, but if you weren't a Modalist you wouldn't ask that in this context. You've betrayed your Modalist logic, the only way this is a question is if God is an individual and therefore it can't be that Jesus is God in Himself, the Father God in Himself, and the Holy Spirit God in Himself, but just one divine person with multiple names

I deny Modalism before your eyes and you still call me one?

>No

"No"? Who shows us the Father? Who gives us the Holy Spirit?

>Is the Father the Father? Is the Son the Son? Is the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit?

Answer my questions first.

>Is that why you just called it heresy?

Hey, feel free to report me if you want, let the mods figure it out.

>>733235

Which Pope?

It was by a special revelation from Christ that in the primitive Church the apostles baptized in the name of Christ; in order that the name of Christ, which was hateful to Jews and Gentiles, might become an object of veneration, in that the Holy Ghost was given in Baptism at the invocation of that Name.

I feel like Jesus was much more handsome and beautiful than that picture shows.