# I baptise you in the name of the Rock, Redeemer, and Friend



## SRoper (Jul 3, 2006)

While PCUSA still requires the words "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" for the words of institution, would a baptism with a novel trinitarian formula be a valid baptism?


----------



## jaybird0827 (Jul 3, 2006)

I think that is a seriously open question. Such substitute titles as "Rock", "Redeemer", "Friend" seem to confuse economic relationships in the Trinity and seems inconsistent with Christ's usage of the names "Father", "Son" and "Holy Ghost" in the Great Commission (Matthew 28: 19). Admittedly an intuitive reaction on my part.

I would certainly appreciate hearing on this question from the learned divines who post on this forum.

_J. Sulzmann_


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> While PCUSA still requires the words "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" for the words of institution, would a baptism with a novel trinitarian formula be a valid baptism?




I think not. Likewise for Mother, Child and Womb.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SRoper_
> ...



 I am among those who accept the validity of Roman Catholic baptism, for example, and the words of Charles Hodge who said: 



> With one accord, however, they [Protestants] have acquiesced in the judgment of the ancient Church, that the baptism of heretics is not void on account of heresy, *provided they retain the doctrine of the Trinity, and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit.*



Thus, the Trinitarian formula is at bare minimum a necessary condition for a valid baptism. It does not seem to me that these revised baptism formulas meet that standard.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 4, 2006)

I'm really interested here. Why would a baptism in the name of God using Biblical expressions - the Father is called the "Rock" (e.g. Ps 89), Christ is called the "Redeemer" (Isa 59) and the Spirit is called "Friend" (John 17) be invalid, and a Roman baptism be valid?

I'm not advocating it; and I think that the renaming the Trinity stuff is arrogant nonsense, but nevertheless, I wonder why (for example) a baptism done in a true church (let's assume that it is not a PCUSA church for argument's sake, but an over zealous pastor in {insert acceptable church}) would be invalid, but one done in a false church by a false minister for a false motive would be?

Have we come to the point where a "magic chant" is what counts?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jul 4, 2006)

> Have we come to the point where a "magic chant" is what counts?



Unfortunately, yes.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Jul 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_Thus, the Trinitarian formula is at bare minimum a necessary condition for a valid baptism. It does not seem to me that these revised baptism formulas meet that standard.





Pastor Greco, I really appreciated your response on this, too. In the questions you raise, you articulate concerns that are on my mind as well.

This is what I'm struggling with:

At what point does a baptismal formula become nonvalid?

I understand the baptismal formula to be taken from Matthew 28:19. This is why I see a problem with the PC(USA) formula. Christ uses the name "the Holy Ghost" (A.V.) in Matthew 28:19, speaking of the 3rd Person of the triune godhead. "Friend" ("paraclete"?) seems more like a function or ministry than it does a name title.

But suppose we accept that. I find "Rock" and "Redeemer" less clear than "Father" and "Son" (what Christ spoke) in naming the 1st and 2nd Persons. For instance, note Christ's response to Peter's confession ("upon this Rock") and also "that Rock was Christ" (I Corinthians 10:4, A.V.).

And yes, I suppose one could argue Isaiah 9:7, "his name shall be called ... the everlasting Father ..." invalidates what I said above and validates what the PC(USA) says. But the baptismal formula is given in Matthew 28:19, if I understand correctly.

Is the real issue, then, whether the baptismal formula names the God who has revealed himself in the Scripture, or not? What happens when the PC(USA) finally gets a majority to approve the use of feminine names in the baptismal formula?

More thoughts?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 4, 2006)

I don't know, Fred. (I am a bit conflicted over this rather interestin question)

What is the rejection of the "formula" or "words of institution," if it _isn't_ a rather blatant, overt distancing of onesself from the Word of God?

Weren't the Reformers saying (by accepting Romish baptism) that the "edifice" of that church stood as a "mute witness," as it were, against the papacy _even in the very act of baptism,_ even when it was overlaid in corruptions. God was still bearing witness to his own claims, every time someone was baptized.

"Rock/Redeemer/Friend"--no, this is not the Name of the Trinity. These are "other designations" for each Person of the Trinity. But no, in my opinion, this is not the Name of the Trinity. Mt. 28:19 seems fairly unambiguous. Personally I think this is a departure of major proportions. This is Man telling God "I'm going to do things my own way."

This "magic-chant"---presumably one wouldn't refer to the _words of institution_ as rightly declared by a true minister of the gospel in such a way. So, if they aren't a "magic chant," why has the church, in its broadest conception, for 2000 years held on to it? May I suggest that properly it has *nothing at all* to do with _incantation,_ and everything to do with a respect bordering on reverence for the communion of saints to which we are avowing admittance?

All Christendom, for 2000 years have had the same intitiation rite, and the same words, in different languages, have united us in something as profound as the circumcision that united the Israelites. The power of the Word has effected this (in conversion) and the WordS have visibly united us.

For these arrogant self-indulgent people _playing at church_ to tamper AT LAST with this--after having eviscerated their communions of practically every vestige of real faith--is nothing less than the knocking flat of the walls, the hollow shell. Even Rome camouflages her audacity under "traditions." These folks want to sublimate Christianity into a new spirituality. They are Levelers. And they have decided their hour has arrived.


These are just some preliminary thoughts. What does it mean for a (once) Christian church to abandon the Name of the Trinity?


----------



## jaybird0827 (Jul 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> "Rock/Redeemer/Friend"--no, this is not the Name of the Trinity. These are "other designations" for each Person of the Trinity. But no, in my opinion, this is not the Name of the Trinity. Mt. 28:19 seems fairly unambiguous. Personally I think this is a departure of major proportions. This is Man telling God "I'm going to do things my own way."



Thank you, Rev. Buchanan. This helps makes the issue much clearer to me.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> I don't know, Fred. (I am a bit conflicted over this rather interestin question)
> 
> What is the rejection of the "formula" or "words of institution," if it _isn't_ a rather blatant, overt distancing of onesself from the Word of God?
> ...



Bruce,

In one sense I agree wholeheartedly. The point about this whole "renaming" thing is not about the name _per se_, but about rebellion. It is about casting God into our image. There would be no move to use "Rock, Redeemer and Friend" if not for covering for allowing the (blatantly anti-Biblical) "Mother, Child, Womb" blasphemy.

It is not words, but substance and intent. The name of the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is not a magic chant (my words were rhetorical). My point was only that we should not jump quickly at words, but look at substance. I would still maintain that it would be wrong to disallow "Rock Redeemer Friend" baptisms in an otherwise true and orthodox church, but yet allow "Father Son and Holy Spirit Baptisms" by a servant of Satan in a false church.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 4, 2006)

> It is not words, but substance and intent.



Bingo...heterodoxy for heterodoxy's sake.

-JD


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 5, 2006)

Contrary to some of the opinions stated above, the motives of the one who administers the sacrament of baptism are essentially irrelevant when considering the validity of the sacrament. It is a Romish view to think that the intentions of the minister play a role in its validity. 

Robert Dabney, _Systematic Theology_, Chap. 40:



> 7. Rome´s Doctrine of Intention.
> 
> *THE Council of Trent asserts (Seq. 7 canon 11), that the intention of doing at least what the Church proposes to do, is necessary in the administrator, to make the sacraments valid.* Some Papal divines are so accommodating as to teach, that if this intention is habitual or virtual, though not present, because of inattention, in the mind of the administrator at the moment of pronouncing the words of institution, it is still valid; and some even say, that though the officiating person have heretical notions of the efficacy of the Sacrament, e. g., the Presbyterian notion, and honestly intends a Sacrament, as he understands it, it is valid. Now, there is obviously a sense, in which the validity of sacramental acts, depends on the intention of the parties. If, for instance, a frivolous or profane clergyman should, in a moment of levity, use the proper elements, and pronounce the proper words of institution, for purposes of mockery or sinful sport, it would certainly not be a sacrament. But this is a lack of intention, of a far different kind from the Papal. There would be neither the proper place, time, nor circumstances of a divine rite. The profanity of purpose would be manifest and overt: and all parties would be guilty of it. The participation on both sides, would be a high act of profanity. But where the proper places, times and attendant circumstances exist, so far as the honest worshipper can judge; and all the divine institution essential to the validity of the right is regularly performed with an appearance of Religious sincerity and solemnity, there we deny that the sincere participant can be deprived of the sacramental benefit, by the clergyman´s secret lack of intention. And this: because
> 
> ...



The proper criteria for evaluating the validity of a baptism, as I have stated, is to consider whether the baptism has been administered with water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, by a lawfully called minister who is acting, materially speaking, within the visible church.

Peter has previously well expressed the historic Protestant view of the distinction between the visible church materially considered and the visible church ministerially considered:



> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 1. When determining whether a particular church is a member of the visible church we must be careful to examine it by the definition of a church, not a description of the ideal church. The 3 marks of the church are description not a definition. If they were a definition of the ben esse of a church they would exclude Congregationalists (discipline), Reformed Baptists (sacrament, discipline), and every other church except orthodox Presbyterians. 2. A particular church of the visible church is (a) an organized group, (b) gathered for worship and discipline, (c) that professes the true faith, (d) and is under a common tribunal. 3. It is obvious the Church of Rome meets a,b & d. 4. *Rome professes the true faith materially and therefore may be considered church materially. That is, they believe what is essential to salvation, viz. they believe the OT and NT, the believe the ecumenical creeds, etc. However, ministerially, ie, when they expound upon these truths they teach heresy.*



Consistent with this crucial distinction, William Perkins wrote in _A Treatise of Conscience_:



> If it be said, that then the true sacraments may be out of the true church, as in the church of Rome at this day; because heretics and such like ministers are not of the church. *I answer, that there is in the church of Rome, the hidden church of God, and the Sacraments are there used, not for the Romish church, but for the hidden church which is in the midst of Papacy; like as the lantern bears light not for itself, but for the passengers: yet hence it follows not, that we should communicate with idolaters, heretics, and wicked persons.*



It is a Donatist error, which Cyprian originated, to invalidate lawful baptism performed by heretics, but the church did not invalidate Donatist baptisms, although the church did declare Donatists to be heretics and excommunicated them. 

Francis Turretin provides this historical commentary in his _Institutes_:



> II. Stephen, the Roman bishop, in accordance with the ancient custom of the Catholic church, affirmed that those baptized by heretics should be received without a new baptism; as appears from the epistolary discussion of Stephen and Cyprian, where he gives his opinion, the sum of which is: "œIf anyone comes to us from any heresy, nothing new should be done, except what is customary, that the hand be placed upon him for repentance." In the following century in the First Nicene Council, this question was decided when it was said of those who style themselves Cathari: "œIf at any time they come to the Catholic church, it pleased the holy and great Council that receiving the imposition of hands, they should thus continue among the clergy" (hoste cheirothetemenous autous menein houtos en to klero, Canon 8, Council of Nicea, cf. tanner, 1:9). Hence it is evident that this great synod esteemed valid not only the baptism, but also the clerical ordination received under the ministry of heretics. Still the Paulianists or Samosatians, are excepted by Canon 19, whom the synod determined should "œbe baptized over again" (anabaptizesthai ex apantos, Tanner, 1:15) because they did not acknowledge the Trinity. Hence it is evident that Cyprian and Stephen erred through an excess of counterpoise (ametrian tes antholkes): the former when he held that those baptized by any heretics should be rebaptized, the latter when he thought that no one of them ought to be rebaptized, but that all should be received without a new baptism. Both ran into extremes. But here the mean is the safest, regard being held to the distinction between heretics.
> 
> III. Here therefore we think the question can be solved by distinguishing between heretics. *For there are some who corrupt the substance of baptism and omit or change the form of institution; such as were the ancient Arians, who denied a Trinity of persons in unity of essence, and the modern Socinians. Others, while they retain substantials and defend the true doctrine of the holy Trinity contained in the formula of baptism, "œerr on the other heads of doctrine"; as the ancient Novatians and Donatists, and the modern Romanists and Arminians. As to the former, we judge that baptism administered by them is null, and so they are not properly to be rebaptized, but baptized, who have been baptized by such heretics, because they evidently corrupt the essential form of baptism, to which the invocation of the Trinity belongs. For this reason, the baptism of the Arians, who baptized "œin the Father, the only true God, in Jesus Christ, the Savior and a creature, and in the Holy Spirit, the servant of both" (according to the testimony of Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians 9 [NPNF2, 6:324;PL 23.172] and Athanasius, "œContra Arianos, Oratio tertia," Opera omnia [1627], 1:430-31).* Still a distinction must be made here again. For either the minister alone was infected with that heresy or the whole church with him. If the latter, we deny it to be a true baptism. If the former (to wit, if the church thinks rightly, notwithstanding the error of the pastor, if he is a secret heretic), provided the formula of Christ be retained, we believe the baptism to be valid and that it is not necessary to rebaptize those who have been once baptized. The sacrament is the property of the church, which is administered in her name and in her faith. On this account, the hidden error of the minister detracts nothing from the integrity of the baptism, provided the essentials are observed and nothing is changed in the word or element. Hence it is evident what reply should be made to the question which can be put, whether the baptism administered in an orthodox church by a minister imbued with Antitrinitarian or Jewish errors (but not detected) is valid. Undoubtedly, the public faith of the church is here to be considered, into which he (who is baptized) is introduced and the promises made to him by Christ. Since these do not depend upon the minister, he (however deeply tainted with secret heresy) cannot render them useless and void.
> 
> ...



It is telling that at least one on this thread has previously defended Donatists as being "not heretics." It is the Donatist view revived which sees baptism as dependent on whether the minister is a heretic or idolater rather than looking solely at the orthodox external criteria of baptism administered by lawful minister called within the visible church using water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It is has been the historic Protestant teaching for centuries, consistent with the early church's approach to the Donatists, that heretics who baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, administer a valid baptism, because the efficacy of the baptism is not dependent on the heretical intent of the minister but upon the sacrament itself, meaning the Holy Spirit working through his appointed means, even if those means are employed irregularly, so long as water is used in the name of the Trinity within the visible church.

I have already cited a paper which provides abundant proof of this principle, which is the historic Protestant view. It is worth noting that those who have adhered to this view typically have also viewed the Papacy as Antichrist in part on the basis of 2 Thess. 2.4, which shows that Antichrist is within the visible church. Calvin, Perkins, Rutherford, Turretin, Hodge, the Westminster Assembly, Baxter, et al., have all held to both views, ie., that the Papacy is Antichrist and Rome is a false church, yet her baptism, which comes from the visible church materially considered, is valid. This is not strange, but entirely consistent, and well explained by those men I have cited much better than I can, although I have done so previously. The irony is that those who see in Rome the Antichrist are typically those who defend her baptism as valid, while those who reject WCF XXV.6 typically reject the validity of Rome's baptism. It is an intriguing point, which merits further discussion, but I'll try to return to the more pertinent matter at hand.

The application of this principle to the PCUSA is to consider her baptism valid though administered by heretics with motives false or well-meaning so long as the basic criteria of water administered in the name of the Trinity is met. 

When the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not used it does not matter whether the intent of the minister is well-meaning or not, a basic criteria of valid baptism has not been met.

The words of institution by Christ are indeed not a magic incantation, nor should they be described as such to score rhetorical points, but rather I would assert that they are a key and non-negotiable element in what constitutes a valid baptism, because they are Christ's appointed means of administering grace in the sacrament, regardless of the intent of the minister at hand.

[Edited on 7-5-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## a mere housewife (Jul 5, 2006)

I wasn't going to post here because my own thoughts are so confused and the subject has been discussed so thoroughly, but Andrew you say: "œThe proper criteria for evaluating the validity of a baptism, as I have stated, is to consider whether the baptism has been administered with water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, by a lawfully called minister who is acting, materially speaking, within the visible church."

What are the covenantal implications of the reformation seen as a process of biblical discipline (rebuke, call to repentance, final cutting off "“ the reformers are very clear in calling people to come out of the Church of Rome)? If Rome has been covenantally cut off (& if the reformers have any ecclesiastical authority, hasn't she?) - then how is part of the visible church, or able to administer covenantal signs?

I have been thinking about this for months (because of where we are) and have read through some of the many threads on the board. The only way I see around this to a valid RCC baptism is to assert that it doesn't matter if Rome is within the visible church "“ because the early church accepted the baptism of sects they had condemned as heretical and even of ministers they had anathematized. But if the visible church part matters.... then don't we have to deal with the reformation as a disciplinary process, and the covenantal implications of being cut off?

(I would also point out as far as the Trinitarian formula goes that the catechism and the documents and practice of the RCC ascribes the works of God to Mary, and of course God reveals Himself to us in His works. Isn't this to tamper with the content of the Trinity [reason for rejecting Mormon baptism], at least as much as 'Rock, Redeemer, Friend' tampers with the formula?)

[Edited on 7-5-2006 by a mere housewife]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by a mere housewife_
> I wasn't going to post here because my own thoughts are so confused and the subject has been discussed so thoroughly, but Andrew you say: "œThe proper criteria for evaluating the validity of a baptism, as I have stated, is to consider whether the baptism has been administered with water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, by a lawfully called minister who is acting, materially speaking, within the visible church."
> 
> What are the covenantal implications of the reformation seen as a process of biblical discipline (rebuke, call to repentance, final cutting off "“ the reformers are very clear in calling people to come out of the Church of Rome)? If Rome has been covenantally cut off (& if the reformers have any ecclesiastical authority, hasn't she?) - then how is part of the visible church, or able to administer covenantal signs?



This is the question that many people seem to struggle with. How can an apostate church in any sense be considered still within the visible church such that its ordination or baptism can still be considered valid, albeit sinful for anyone to seek out? I would encourage you to read the paper that I cited wherein several Francis Turretin specifically asks and answers this question, and other Reformed theologians address the issue as well.



> I have been thinking about this for months (because of where we are) and have read through some of the many threads on the board. The only way I see around this to a valid RCC baptism is to assert that it doesn't matter if Rome is within the visible church "“ because the early church accepted the baptism of sects they had condemned as heretical and even of ministers they had anathematized. But if the visible church part matters.... then don't we have to deal with the reformation as a disciplinary process, and the covenantal implications of being cut off?



I'm not sure what you mean by "doesn't matter if Rome is within the visible church." 

Yes, the Reformation involved a restoration of Biblical discipline as one of the three marks of the true church, ministerially considered. After the Council of Trent, it was clear that Rome could not be reformed from within, but it was manifest that Rome had cut herself off ministerially from the true church by anathematizing the gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone. And yes, the Reformers told Christians to come out of that harlot, the Roman church. At the same time, none asserted that the lamp of the gospel had been so utterly extinguished that all ordinances of Rome has completely lost their validity (wrt the Lord's Supper/Mass, the Reformers were in agreement that it was an abomination, but wrt ordination and baptism they considered them sinful as regards their employment by heretics, but valid as regards the appointment of Christ, albeit corrupted to greater or lesser or extent). The Reformers often appealed to the example of Christ and Caiaphas or the scribes and Pharisees, prior to the abolishment of circumcision, or the work of Augustine _Against the Donatists_. The bottom line of the Reformers' view was that it was sinful to remain in communion with Rome, but enough of the appointed ordinance of Christ in baptism objectively remained to consider it valid.



> (I would also point out as far as the Trinitarian formula goes that the catechism and the documents and practice of the RCC ascribes the works of God to Mary, and of course God reveals Himself to us in His works. Isn't this to tamper with the content of the Trinity [reason for rejecting Mormon baptism], at least as much as 'Rock, Redeemer, Friend' tampers with the formula?)
> 
> [Edited on 7-5-2006 by a mere housewife]



Yes, Rome ascribes some functions of the Godhead to Mary, saints and angels. Rome is not alone in adhering to idolatrous worship of God, however. Many churches officially adhere to positions which violate the first table of the decalogue. Many churches worship an eviscerated Christ of the Arminian variety. If one is to be consistent in opposing the baptism of Rome for its idolatry, one must as well oppose the baptism of most Protestant churches. There is great error, great sin in following the ministerial teaching of such churches. Yet, officially, they adhere to the ecumenical creeds. And they have retained the formula given by Christ for baptism. Like Baptists and other groups, they have altered the sense of the sacrament as it was intended by Christ. But they have not officially adopted a formula that includes Mary (on another thread it was asked hypothetically whether a formula that includes Mary as a fourth member of the Trinity would invalidate the Roman ordinance of baptism and my answer was, in my opinion, yes). 

Mormonism officially though is a polytheistic religion, unlike Rome or Arminian churches. Pentacostel oneness churches, or Unitarian churches, for example, err in the other direction like the Arians whom Turretin cited earlier. These groups, unlike Rome, officially deny the Trinity; thus, they fall into the category of having departed even from the ecumenical creeds. 

The altering of the formula by the PCUSA is not completely without precedent, as I have shown by Turretin's citation of the Arian formula, but it is as Bruce rightly stated a major departure from orthodoxy, one that cannot be overlooked, and that concerning a non-negotiable bare minimum component of the sacrament, such that it ceases to be considered valid. The words count. Not in a magical way but in a way that speaks to the esse of the sacrament. Likewise, if a true or false church decided to use milk instead of water (see Hodge on this point), I would argue that the use of such an element, despite whatever spin was put on it, would disqualify the act as a valid sacrament. 

It is not even necessary to determine in this case whether the PCUSA is apostate to see that an essential element of baptism, the Trinitarian formula, has in the examples under discussion been so clearly and objectively destroyed as to make it unrecognizable as being Trinitarian. I add this because while most will point to the Council of Trent as the demarcation line between true and apostate church wrt Rome, but when asked to show the historic demarcation line between true and apostate church wrt the PCUSA, the answers I have heard range from the 1924 Auburn Affirmation to the trial and excommuncation of Machen to the 1967 Confession to the founding of the PCA or even "its not yet apostate if some true congregations yet remain." Without the objective criteria of water, the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and lawful ordination within the visible church materially considered, everyone who comes out of a church which has possibly or probably or certainly apostasized will require investigation, which can't help but be subjective inquiry, which puts the onus of efficacious baptism on the worthiness of the baptizer. All such inquiry, which fails to rely on the objective standards set forth by the Reformers and Puritans and Presbyterians prior to Thornwell, will necessitate the following (from the 1981 RPCES Report on the Validity of Baptism):



> If a baptism within a Christian tradition is not objectively valid, then research into many avenues that just cannot be researched must ensue. Baptism must have validity on some basis. A heavy burden will fall upon the sensitive and conscientious pastor who wants to avoid breaking symbolism but who still believes in a subjective determination of validity. Roman priests may have died or moved or become unavailable for interview.
> 
> And some may have had faith! Some may have been in Christ at the time they gave the rite. The process of investigation through the dim past, searching out such things as faith or the lack of it in deceased priests or parents will convince one that only God knows the heart. The difficulties of investigation will also lead, in practicality, to a policy of second baptism without the often impossible research. Subjective validation will spread to all other baptisms also. If an RPCES pastor is shown to be unregenerate, all his "œbaptisms" could fall with him. Dr. Buswell wisely wrote of participation in the other sacrament. "œThe value of participation depends wholly upon its institution by Christ, and not in the slightest degree upon the human channel by which it is administered."[8] If we are not careful, none of us will know for sure if we have been baptized. Likewise, if our salvation rested on the quality of our faith rather than faith´s perfect object, we could not truly know if we are saved. The committee believes God has not left us in such confusing positions. We can know we are saved and we can know we are baptized.



You may have already done so, but it may be helpful to read this previous thread in which some of these issues were addressed, and further resources, on both sides, presented for consideration. 

It is a challenging issue to consider. But it is important not to unchurch or call for the rebaptism of those whose baptism was valid to begin with for such is sin. John Calvin was never rebaptized or reordained, and the same can be said of many throughout history who converted from Romanism or PCUSA'ism. The right understanding of this issue has implications for many areas, not the least of which is how to understand what converts should do. The Peru Mission had to investigate this issue for its practical implications for reasons not unlike yours. I think their take, which is based on the historic Protestant position, answers the questions that need to be answered and is careful to not condemn itself by that which it allows, and vice-versa (Rom. 14.22).

[Edited on 7-6-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 5, 2006)

I'm not a pastor but is not the name of the Trinity which is the name of God paramount. For is not baptism the giving of God by God His name even in spite of the instrument (the pastor) and the receivers validity. That is to say to have baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is to have and be given God's name, upon which it rests and finds true reality, and thus He attends His name in holy Baptism. In a since is not one's baptism one's "adoption papers" and even "wedding clothes" of Christ. To have "other papers" would be to be illigetimate. God has ordered baptism be given in His name, to do it, is to do the Lord's mandate. And to do the Lord's mandate is exactly the same as Him doing it. Such a baptism that is not given in His name is firmly unmandated by God and as such cannot be His baptism, but false.

Is not the giver (pastor), church or recepient irrelevant rather than the Name given? Even though Luther is not "reformed" as in Calvin it seems relevant something similar he said of the Lord's Supper, "that one can receive the holy supper from the devil's steaming claw", for it rests not in ANY of the players but upon the Word of God and His name.

So, it would seem that ANY baptism that is not given in the Lord's Name, which He attends and has promised to attend would be a false and even a Satanic baptism.

Ldh


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> > It is not words, but substance and intent.
> ...





> VirginiaHuguenot:
> Contrary to some of the opinions stated above, the motives of the one who administers the sacrament of baptism are essentially irrelevant when considering the validity of the sacrament. It is a Romish view to think that the intentions of the minister play a role in its validity.



Just to make sure we are on the same page - examining the *motives and intent* of the administrator on the point of *changing* the orthodox administration of the sacrament is valid.

The validity of the sacrament is not the question in my mind. That is the work of the Lord.

-pax-

-JD


----------



## a mere housewife (Jul 5, 2006)

Andrew, thank you. I will carefully read all the things you cited.

Yes there is real turmoil involved in some of this -- trying to explain to dirt poor people who have not had the mental advantages that many have in the Western world, that the RCC had authority to baptize them, but in order to faithful to that baptism they have to reject that authority. This while these baby Christians in very difficult situations are already in anguish, questioning whether they should not simply return to the RCC if it can administer the sacraments and just read their Bibles in private, because of the pressure of family members.... And knowing that some who accept RCC baptism lose more people to Rome than some who do not.... And Rome is, is is, a harlot. It makes me physically ill to hear people calling Mary the 'wife of the Holy Spirit' and believing that if they only beseech her enough, they can get their dead relative out of torment. They bear the torment of the dead, as well as the miseries of this life. It is awful. But Ruben and I are trying to think through this very carefully and make sure our reasoning is Biblical, and will continue to do so. Thanks again.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 5, 2006)

This is interesting to say the least. But are they still orthodox? What is the point of falling away? Even as antichrist sets himself up as another Christ, he sets forth his blaspheming parody of the holy Trinity without technically denying a trinity. Paul warns of other christs, other spirits and other gospels, demonic parodies of the truth. So the number three is not the issue but who are the Three and is the Gospel behind it or not? What is behind each name rock, redeemer and friend? The only indication we have is the parallel mother, child and womb. Obvious blasphemies given, what is communicated here? Is it a sovereign Christ alone, is the name given the name God has given, "œI will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy"? No, absolutely not. The clear indication in the satanic "œmother, child and womb" is not a communication of the Father who elects, the Son who with His own blood does the Father´s will and the Holy Spirit who effects the rebirth purchased by the Son. Rather we see a kind of "œevolution" or salvation by change involved here, not imputation, the CRUX of the matter, but a change unto what is salvation.

The Lord´s prayer is "œOur FATHER who art in heaven"¦" That opening is crucial to the believer´s understanding that God is actually for Christ´s sake not a task master but the heavenly Father. "œOur Rock who art in heaven"¦" is entirely different. "œ"¦hollowed be THY NAME"¦" It is hardly hollowed when it is so trifled with. The name that is hollowed is "œFather". The Holy Spirit within the believer cries out "œabba father", not "œpetros rock". It is the Father who gave us HIS SON, being His Son implies Father as well. Jesus was HIS Son and the Father was HIS Father not His Rock. The Father adopts us through and for Christ His sons sake, the rock does nothing. Jesus was in fact Redeemer but He was first and foremost the Son of God, God the Son who redeemed. The Father says of His Son upon the dissension of the Holy Spirit at Baptism, "œThis is MY SON in Whom I am well pleased". It cannot be emphasized enough that redemption cost the Father His Son, not a nebulous rock a nebulous redeemer. We close in prayer often, "œwe pray in THIS Jesus Christ, thy Son our Lord", or some similar closing, so that NO mistake is made about Whose name we come in.

I would argue that such a church is no longer orthodox at all for it has denied Christ alone just as much if not more than Rome at Trent and it has cleverly denied the Trinity. The name is everything in this case and not a trifle. Satan is full of tricks. To have God´s name is not an unimportant thing, it is to have all that He is, especially salvation. This appears to be a rather especially sinister denial of the Trinity, not of the number as in Islam, but of the name of God. If I adopt a child into my name he/she has all that my name has, such as it is on the human level. The very rebellion, which is obvious, is itself a denial of the name of God which is "œI will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy". To deny His name is to deny God and His mercy which is His name.

ldh


----------



## turmeric (Jul 5, 2006)

I don't think even Rome would actually countenance the idea that Mary was "the wife of the Holy Spirit", one doesn't want to contemplate the implications!

Maybe you and Ruben should do a teaching series on the book of Hebrews with these new converts and stress the need to not turn back!!! We will pray for you.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 6, 2006)

Meg, the prayer book that is used here in Mexico for funeral services definitely calls Mary the wife of the Holy Spirit. Yes, it is a blasphemous idea --but there it is, both and I a friend have distinctly heard it read out, as a title given to her (along with "mother of the patriarchs") in a series of petitions, which involve obtaining grace for us. At some point the distinction between hyperdulia and latria got rather fuzzy in my mind....


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> I'm not a pastor but is not the name of the Trinity which is the name of God paramount. For is not baptism the giving of God by God His name even in spite of the instrument (the pastor) and the receivers validity. That is to say to have baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is to have and be given God's name, upon which it rests and finds true reality, and thus He attends His name in holy Baptism. In a since is not one's baptism one's "adoption papers" and even "wedding clothes" of Christ. To have "other papers" would be to be illigetimate. God has ordered baptism be given in His name, to do it, is to do the Lord's mandate. And to do the Lord's mandate is exactly the same as Him doing it. Such a baptism that is not given in His name is firmly unmandated by God and as such cannot be His baptism, but false.
> 
> Is not the giver (pastor), church or recepient irrelevant rather than the Name given? Even though Luther is not "reformed" as in Calvin it seems relevant something similar he said of the Lord's Supper, "that one can receive the holy supper from the devil's steaming claw", for it rests not in ANY of the players but upon the Word of God and His name.
> ...



 Well put, Larry!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by a mere housewife_
> Andrew, thank you. I will carefully read all the things you cited.



You're welcome, Heidi. I hope they are helpful.



> Yes there is real turmoil involved in some of this -- trying to explain to dirt poor people who have not had the mental advantages that many have in the Western world, that the RCC had authority to baptize them, but in order to faithful to that baptism they have to reject that authority. This while these baby Christians in very difficult situations are already in anguish, questioning whether they should not simply return to the RCC if it can administer the sacraments and just read their Bibles in private, because of the pressure of family members.... And knowing that some who accept RCC baptism lose more people to Rome than some who do not.... And Rome is, is is, a harlot. It makes me physically ill to hear people calling Mary the 'wife of the Holy Spirit' and believing that if they only beseech her enough, they can get their dead relative out of torment. They bear the torment of the dead, as well as the miseries of this life. It is awful. But Ruben and I are trying to think through this very carefully and make sure our reasoning is Biblical, and will continue to do so. Thanks again.



I hear you. It is very awful. May God grant grace and wisdom to those struggling with these issues, and bless your witness.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> ...



I agree there is a place to explore the motives of those who would change the Trinitarian formula. My point is simply that their motives do not affect the validity of the baptism at all one way or the other, which is I think the issue under discussion (validity), whereas the Trinitarian formula itself is vital.



> The validity of the sacrament is not the question in my mind. That is the work of the Lord.
> 
> -pax-
> 
> -JD


----------



## Richard King (Jul 9, 2006)

I think this is relevant to the topic:

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/14997995.htm


----------

