Because Jesus embodies the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. According to the pure divine revelation in His Bible. Mt 28:19; Col 2:9




The earliest record (Acts) shows only baptizing into the name of Jesus. It doesn't show "baptizing in Jesus' name only," if you see the difference. It makes no exclusion of the words of Matthew 28:19. Which in fact precedes both in time and time of writing, Acts

What name is that ?
"Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," Mt 28:19
or "Jesus Christ," Ac 2:28 ?

Do you mean that "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" and "Jesus" are effectively one name ?
That's fair

Meaning that Jesus Christ's word in Matthew 28:19 is effectively a nothing, a decoration or a lie, according to modalism ?
What about Jesus Christ's word, say, in Matthew 24:25 "Behold, I've told you beforehand;"
when afterhand isn't actually taking place ? Is that also to modalism somehow not real ?




Jesus also says that "just as the Father has life in Himself, so He gave to the Son to also have life in Himself;" so also the Father gave His Son "authority to execute judgment because He's the Son of Man." Jn 5:26-27.
And that both He and His Father (who eternally indwell each other) will send Their Spirit of reality to "guide you into all the reality..." Jn 14--16, in particular 16:13.
So i don't see why you write "yet" in your sentence




No. God is Father, Son, and Spirit. From eternity to eternity. And throughout Their Bible, especially from beginning of New Testament to end. So why would i think it's odd the slightest ?




Father, Son, and Spirit are Three in One




If the apostles only or mostly had a formalistic religion, such as Oneness Pentecostalism or Roman Catholicism, it probably would be disobedience. Thankfully they, and i, don't




Modes ?
Father, Son, and Spirit are more than modes and labels.
Nor are they independent modes of salvation, or salvations.
They not only live as One, They work as One




Just as Acts 2:38 etc isn't any formula at all, so neither was Matthew 28:19 ever any formula at all. Baptism is and should be a reality. Not a mere symbol or religion. Likewise with the Father, Son, and Spirit. Jesus Christ. He isn't a mode, He isn't mere modes, They are not a formula or mere words. They are the eternally interrelating Persons comprising the mysterious person who is God

Then according to modalism i can, as i have, say "i baptize you into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" when baptizing a new believer into Jesus the Son of God ?




"Yes and no"




"Because He's the Son of Man" Jn 5:27.

"He called God His own Father making Himself equal with God" Jn 5:18.
i don't see why you write your "if" sentence




As man, the Son is subject to God




Because Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are inseparably one personal God and inseparable from One Another




Because They share, and give, more than authority. Or i should say: Their authority's inseparable from Their Being




Because the Son hadn't manhood from the beginning.

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God...And the Word became flesh"




Because "baptizing in the name" doesn't mean reciting the words  "Father, Son, Spirit, Jesus, Christ" or "I baptize you in the name of..." when baptizing.

Thankfully the apostles didn't, and whoever wills needn't, have a formulaic formalistic religion such as Oneness Pentecostalism or Roman Catholicism or many sects of "Protestantism"




Then it might be fair to say that calling Father, Son, and Spirit "modes" doesn't explain how The're mere modes, much less make Them so




"The Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings which can't be uttered...He intercedes for the saints according to God" Rm 8:26-27.

"God said Let Us make man in Our image" Gen 1:26.

"Which Spirit is the word of God" Eph 6:17




The Father Son Spirit God needn't explain anything to be who He is.
Truth's not truth because your, or my, created mind can encapsulate it.
Instead, it's the 3-1 God who created us spirit, soul, and body





What did Jesus tell you, since He's the One who said "baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" ?

Father and Holy Spirit were embodied in Christ's embodiment, and incarnated in Christ's incarnation. And only in Christ's embodiment and incarnation. Col 2:9; Jn 14:10-11; Lk 4:1. They left Him economically, outwardly, Mt 27:46. But never intrinsically, inwardly, Jn 1:1, 4, 18; Col 2:9; Isa 9:6; 1 P 3:18; 2 Cor 5:19. Furthermore, "the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit," 1 Cor 15:45, incorporating and compounding into the Holy Spirit all that Christ became, did, and experienced.

This is for your, and my, salvation, the building of His Body

Which is why Jesus Christ isn't modalism. Both He said it, and it's appropriate to Him




i'm not a modalist, and i'm the one who supplied you the explanation.
Nor is modalism's heresy that Jesus, or God, is man.
Modalism's heresy is that Father, Son, and Spirit merely are modes




The Son of God IS the Son of Man. Which is why "trinitarians" are accurate in this regard




Because He became the Son of Man, Jn 5:27; 1:14; Phil 2:5-7; etc




To the contrary: This IS the theology that Jesus is the GodMan.
Nor was God the Son "already" GodMan until God became Man.
Which may be the theology you're neglecting




The Son of God wasn't eternally already Man. Rather, one day, the Word became flesh




Because They also Are.
Unlike modalism's teaching that They essentially and ontologically are not. But rather are merely designations or temporal phases




To the contrary" you're avoiding the answer




For the same reason name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the account of Matthew. They're real, personal, enterable, and namable




You mean like the record of Acts 8:38 and elsewhere ?
The New Testament writers frequently do write the verb "baptize" only, without adverbial phrases.
If you're suggesting that there's some kind of legalism to say only say the name "Jesus" when baptizing, you continue to be both contrary to the New Testament's direct words and Spirit.
Unless you can show us your legalism written in Scripture.
Want to give it a try ?
Would you like further begging for you to try ?





How (other than modalism itself) is that "re-writing" the book of Acts ?
Is your equally silly claim that only Oneness Pentecostals say "Jesus" or "name of Jesus" or "i baptize you into Jesus," or "i baptize you into the name of Jesus" when baptizing ?




You restate your (and/or modalism's) peculiar, odd problem better than i have.

In contrast to your statement, for Christians, Acts' and Matthew's versions don't oppose. But rather both are true and harmonize




That's their legalism and religious problem. "Formulas" are unrelated to Christ. Who is a person with a name. Embodying, even incarnating, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit




To the contrary: interecession's conversation. Help (to the intercession) is the supply and the answer. For example God got Abraham to intercede with God for Lot by conversing with Abraham, and Abraham's conversation with God there was Abraham's intercession for Lot




To the contrary: you (modalism) attempts (laughably) to create a negative theology, or legalism, by absence of direct mention of Matthew 28:19 in Acts. As if, even to begin with, Acts and Matthew 28:19 were somehow in conflict, or polar opposite commandments.
Yet at the same time, above, you apparently seemed to agree with me that baptizing into Jesus = baptizing into Father, Son, and Spirit.
So it's a sad, and transparent, deceit on your (modalism's) part. Kind of like your earlier "yes and no" answer to a simple direct question. Jesus said, to the contrary, let your yes be yes and your no be no.

The Son of God, as well as His Spirit and Father, are deity, and can pass thru death. In humanity. Which is exactly what not only the Son's deity, but also His Father's and Spirit's, did in the Son's human death. Father, Son, and Spirit are not separate. But indivisibly one. In being. This is Pauline (as well as the rest of the New Testament, and Old) theology




To the contrary: the Son Himself in Matthew 28:19 stated "baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," using the words "Father and Holy Spirit" with the word "baptizing." Just as Paul also did, for example, with "Spirit" in 1 Corinthians 12:12-13.
This is Pauline (not modalist) theology and writing

Yes it does. And did. At least twice now




Because He's the Son of Man. Jn 5:27 reads "Son of Man." Not "Son of God."
They're the same. But humanity and divinity, though mingled in Him, remain distinct.
That's the definition of "mingle." Lev 2.
So let's call that a third time the same answer against modalism




i won't speak for "trinitarianism," but the apostles wrote:
"called God His own Father making Himself equal with God"
Jn 5:18 and
"being equal with God"
Philip 2:6 and
"of the Son: Your throne O God"
Heb 1:8





Again, that is answering the question. The New Testament (and Bible) is about God. And God became a man with a name. That's why His name's in Acts and the New Testament




If you're dyslexic, then just admit it. No hard feelings

To the contrary: modalism denying God is absolute and genuinely Father, Son, and Spirit is Not "baptizing the way it was done in Acts." Because everything properly Christian done in Acts was in faith of God who really is Father, Son, and Spirit contemporaneously and actually and interrelatingly as persons. Not in faith that They're not.






!
"Unlike our trinitarian counterparts" = "only Oneness Pentecostals" baptize this way !

"Only Oneness Pentecostals baptize this way" = "unlike our trinitarian counterparts"

As mentioned above, you need to be schooled what "in Jesus' name" means. It doesn't mean merely saying the words "in Jesus' name." Especially where deficient (eg modalistic or Jehovah Witness) faith in Jesus is. Nor is "in Jesus' name" absent where one in spirit might say "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (eg Mt 28:19)





You might first want to attempt to explain to me how your first two sentences right above don't contradict

There's no other Christian baptism except into Jesus. Because Jesus is Christian's God.
Into the name of Jesus = into Jesus. Into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit = into Jesus. Into the name of Jesus = into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Into the Spirit = into the Father and the Son.

Merely speaking and/or mumbling religiously, ritualistically, or deadly correct formulas, may however, especially without faith on the part of the baptized = nothing




i understand. You didn't mean "unlike our trinitarian counterparts."
You meant "generally unlike them."
Thanks for correcting yourself





What's "the Matthew application"?




As i've mentioned repeatedly: both modalism and Jehovah Witnessism deny God's triunity.
As do your other companions in that regard: Islam, Mormonism, and Christ-rejecting Judaism.
It's particularly serious




Deity is 3-1. Triune. Neither modalistic nor separating Son from Father




To the contrary: the New Testament Greek word "hairesis," the root of "heresy" and "heretic,"
has and had meaning long before Roman Catholicism either existed or began to evolve. Nor do Catholic definitions automatically or necessarily change Biblical uses and meanings of it




Unlike in modalism, Father and Son aren't separate in the New Testament.
Jn 10:30, 38; Mt 28:19; Jn 14:10-11; Col 2:9; Jn 1:18; etc.
Nor are Father and Son or Spirit mere modes.
Jn 1:1-2; 3:35; 5:20; 17:1; 10:38; 8:16-18, 28-29; Mt 3:17; etc