All Comments for: Blessed Be <i>the Name</i> of the Lord | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > May

Christianity Today, May, 2008 |

Blessed Be the Name of the Lord

Why 'Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier' is somewhere between heresy and idolatry.

A Christianity Today editorial | posted 5/08/2008 08:45AM

At about 80 words, the February 29 document wasn't much longer than the headlines it produced, like "Vatican Says Baptisms Using Wrong Words Are Not Valid, Must Be Redone."

Anyone baptized "in the name ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 45 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

Walt	Posted: May 14, 2008 3:19 PM


This Methodist Pastor will only Baptize in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

christopher

Posted: May 14, 2008 11:47 AM

I don't care if you are baptized in the name Jesus or the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Both have biblical roots. But the deeper point the editorial seems to address is the motivation behind one's choice of words and their effect. Consider Rush Limbaugh's references to "Feminist Nazis." His words are intended to be inflammatory and to highlight his view of their character and mode of operation. His repeated use of such a name not only reveals his motives but also effects some listeners' attitudes. On the other side, "pro-choice" is designed to change listeners' attitudes as well. Words are powerful. They matter. And the decision to use certain titles for God can reveal a personal agenda. God Himself revealed His agenda by choosing a masculine description of Himself—Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Now we see those among us who wish to subvert God's agenda with their own, such as their liberation theology. God is my Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. But He is so much more.

Rev. Suzi

Posted: May 13, 2008 9:09 PM

I have no problem with the traditional Trinitarian formula - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - as long as we recognize that if humanity is truly created in the image of God - male and female - and Father and Son are undeniably male in our syntax, then by process of Biblical textual integrity, the Holy Spirit is inescapably feminine and should be referred to as "She." So when our hymns, readings, prayers, and other acts of worship sing praises to the Holy Spirit using feminine pronouns, then I will be comfortable with the 'traditional' Trinitarian language. The veneration of Mary as the Blessed Mother is - in part - a wise and instinctive reaction to an overly masculine theology, patriarchal language, and a far too limited perspective on what constitutes the essence of God. I prefer to find the Sacred Feminine in the completeness of the Three in One, the Divine He and the Divine She - rather than in the Virgin Mother.

Terry L. Brown

Posted: May 13, 2008 4:23 PM

The attempt to change the way we address the Godhead is an example of how the feminist movement in the Church is attempting to emulate the success of the secular feminist movement. This is a watershed issue that will determine whether the integrity of scriptural authority is maintained within the Body of Christ or whether it will submit to the radical feminist movement, a movement that has weakened the family structure as divinely ordained by God the Father. There is no doubt in my mind that the spirit behind the radical feminist movement is satanic for the re-naming of God's revelation to us is an attempt to shape God into our image rather than the other way around. The re-naming of God is idolatry because it is the spiritual equivalent of molding and shaping gold and silver (or other materials) into an image pleasing to fallen man. The masculine terms with which God describes Himself may offend some, but that reveals as much about them as it does about Him.

Arnold

Posted: May 13, 2008 6:29 AM


No rationale can nullify a clear command from the Lord Jesus's own lips, " baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".. Matt k is wrong. The key is not "to strike a balance". The key is to obey. All else is rebellion and disobediance, no matter how we choose to adorn our reason for substituting our words for His.

Adrienne

Posted: May 12, 2008 9:39 PM

I liked the article. I noticed subtle changes in the wording in my church of origin (the Episcopal Church, USA), not so much in the liturgy, but in the priest's homily. This homily equated aversion to the homosexual lifestyle to racism. and he advocated this bland sort of feelgood message that was a bore and had no meat to it. Choice of language is one way of shifting people away from the Lord and toward the gods and goddesses that we want to worship, or who fit better into our "modern lifestyle". Changing God's name is like taking charge of Him. Parents name their children but we are His children. God has already told us His name. He gave us that name when he spoke to Moses and throughout the bible. I appreciate the reverence for God in the Jewish bible. God is G-d or Y-hw-h. The new monikers for God detract from His majesty because they try to mold God into what we want Him to be.

chris

Posted: May 12, 2008 5:41 PM

I missed the explanation, perhaps, of exactly what God's name is. The author says that the words "the name" are important, yet only gets close to revealing that name in the final paragraph, when he references Christ. How is it that Father is supposed to be a name? Or Son? Or Holy Spirit? Aren't those titles, references to positions? Furthermore, how is it that the Father, Son, Holy Ghost baptism never shows up in Acts - not once! The apostles are always baptizing people in the name of Jesus Christ. Could it be that they understood what Jesus meant?

K.	Posted: May 11, 2008 9:54 PM

To the Catholics who appear on these boards and condemn Protestantism, your words are not making anyone run to join the Catholic church. In fact, you're making people look down on Catholicism, which is bad. Fortunately, I know many Catholics who know the truth that in God's eyes, a Christian is a Christian is a Christian. For we are neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, but all are one in Christ Jesus.

Daniel Ballinger

Posted: May 10, 2008 8:55 PM

God has only one name and Father,Son, Holy Spirit are titles of God but his name is JESUS, Jesus siad to baptize in the "name of" he used it in the Singular! Thats why his chosen apostles baptized in JESUS name!(Acts 2:38,8:16,10:48,19:1-6,22:16) It's time to wake up! There is only one name(Acts 4:12)! Whatever you do in word or deed do in JESUS Name!(Colossians 3:17) Jesus siad He came in the Father's name, and the Holy Ghost would be sent in his!(John 5:43,14:26)Jesus siad signs would follow them who believe and he stated things they would do in HIS name!(Mark 16:17) Please prayferly read these eye opening scriptures! (Isiaha9:6,1 Corinth. 6-11, Matt. 1:21-23) AND I COULD GO ON! Please, we need to realize that the name of JESUS reveals to us the Godhead!(colossians 2:8-9)!

Ephrem Hagos

Posted: May 10, 2008 4:07 AM

If Christians including theologians today knew firsthand, as already made possible in the crucifixion-and- death-centered teaching of the Gospel(s), who Jesus Christ really is, we would know the name of the LORD so intimately that we would be blessed by it beyond all our trinitarian expectations. Let us redirect our efforts, therefore, from speculating over what we do not know to actually knowing the LORD! The result will be a big surprise: "one God, same name" (Zech. 14: 8-10) with no room whatsoever for the never prescribed water baptism! (Matt. 28: 18-20).

Matt	Posted: May 09, 2008 8:29 PM


Essay was short and to the point. The article had a strong conclusion. I enjoyed the article and found it to contain a few good insights into Modalistic thought that predominates the minds of those wolves in our church today.

Peter F. Benson, editor UNITYINCHRIST.COM

Posted: May 09, 2008 3:34 PM

I totally agree with this article. If Jesus said to say is this way, that's what we do. There is an Old Testament command, can't remember off-hand where it is, but God commanded that his Word not be added to or diminished from. A very firm repeat of this command is found in Revelation, that not one word in Revelation is to be altered. What some of the denominations are doing is to me downright scary. Time to get back to basics. Pete

Sandra

Posted: May 09, 2008 11:29 AM


I agree with the author. Scripture gives clear direction for the "words" of baptism if not the mode; other words may be true of the functions and ministries but that does not make them correct in usage for baptism.

Irene Voysey

Posted: May 08, 2008 8:37 PM

`Whenever God reveals his name, he reveals his character' - how true! So why is it that almost all missions in Mongolia use the Mongolian `Burhan' for our God when it traditionally translates as Buddha or `burhan' meaning `idol'? The confusion in that country about the character of God is tragic. Reputable research has revealed: `the new meaning for the common usage terms slipped away from central Bible meaning, back to the original, primary anti-Biblical meaning, a fact readily discernable in the lives of those 'second generation' listeners who made claims to be believers in Christ. Instead of "old things passing away, and all things becoming new," their lives continued in the old patterns of unbelief, or worse yet, they began to develop syncretistic beliefs.' Buddhist leaders have said on TV that the Christian God is different to Buddha, yet the name of God continues to be `Burhan' in churches throughout Mongolia. God is very serious about His name. Mission leaders please note.

John Holecek

Posted: May 08, 2008 7:05 PM


As is usual in my posts, I encourage all serious Protestant Christians to consider the claims of the Catholic Church, whose teaching has never blown with the wind or with cultural trends. Pray about this.

Thomas

Posted: May 08, 2008 7:03 PM


Before making final conclusions of this subject one needs to explain why Peter gave instructions to baptize in the name of Jesus, and in Acts 10:48, Peter commanded them to be baptized in "the name of the Lord". I think the explanation is simple. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all have the same name.

deacon steve

Posted: May 08, 2008 6:12 PM

As clergy in the Anglican Church of Canada, I agree with the editorial. I think a key issue here is the substitution of words of function for words of revealed relationship. I baptize using the traditional formula and many of my colleagues use other expressions. The ultimate impersonalization of God's Holy Name was emphasized for me by an astute lay person who said that if the trend away from the traditional expression continued, we would end up with 'parent, progeny and paraclete'. I agree with 'Anonymous', the liberal mainline pastor who pointed out that while there are beautiful expressions of God's Name by Julian and Norwich and others, that we can draw on diverse traditions while still keeping Father, Son and Holy Spirit in tact.

Drjay1941

Posted: May 08, 2008 6:10 PM

Far too often metaphysics intrudes in matters of faith and practice. "The Trinity" could equally be called "The name of God," To insist that a term which arose from metaphor become substantial to the degree called for by Rome (and seemingly, the editorial) is to place far too much weight on human thought and far too little on faithful response to God's call. The "name" of God, at least in my Bible, is the Tetragrammaton. But I do not baptize in that name; rather, I baptize by the authority of--which is what "in the name of" means.

Keith

Posted: May 08, 2008 5:50 PM


Perhaps the most destructive idol in evangelical churches is patriphobia. Patriarchy is on every page of the Bible in some form and the modern attempts to sanitize the Bible of it via "gender neutral language" run counter to orthodoxy and are a form of syncretism with Western Secularism

Newheart

Posted: May 08, 2008 5:18 PM

On the other end of the scale, when I came to the Lord some thirty years ago I was quite excited and called a dear friend to invite him to the baptism. He hung up the phone, got in his car and drove 200 miles to set me straight. He explained that I was about to baptised using the wrong words and my eternal salvation hung in the balance. Rather than the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" expression of my church it should have been "In the Name of Jesus," following the strictest possible reading of the Great Commission. (He was at least relieved that I was immersed and not sprinkled.) After 10 days of agony, I opted for "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." To this day, my friend, with whom I have lost touch, probably still believes I am unsaved. While I am not a fan of "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier", to question the salvation, or the marriage, of those so baptised, seems to me to miss the heart of the sacrament and perhaps over-reach church authority.

bill LtCol(USAR)

Posted: May 08, 2008 4:18 PM

Roman Catholocism destroyed its credibility with power; forced the Protestants to leave without a "church". Listen to the comments! Everybody's got an opinion. Anarchy reigns. Denominations, cults, sects, individuals: there's no difference. Nobody's in a position to teach. Everybody teaches. When everybody knows- and all are in contradiction- nobody knows. Relativity reigns. But nobody sees a problem? It doesn't matter? Chaos reigns. Time to shut down folks. Individualism reigns. Pilate has conquered: "What is truth?" God help you when you think your opinion matters! Don't you get it? That's what it means to be a Protestant. forestphilosopher.blogspot.com

Christi

Posted: May 08, 2008 4:10 PM


I'm glad to see evangelicals defending Sacred Tradition!!

Dakotahgeo

Posted: May 08, 2008 3:47 PM

I again have no question as to why the poor, persecuted Fundies and Catholic church get picked on so often...they literally ask for it!!! What an assinine position to take in this day and age where we have lost 2+ generations from Christianity and what the church is supposed to stand for. Just to satisfy the upper echelon of the Catholic church who probably haven't changed underwear since their last centuries-old doctrines. And then to take into consideration the various translations of the Bible...oops, I sorry ...the "HOLY Scripture" for you "more-saved-than-you-are" chirstians! Disgusting! God help us. Pastor George M Melby

Jeanie

Posted: May 08, 2008 3:41 PM

There are no humanly known or formed words that can adequately describe God. All attempts are, at best, our weak, human creations. Surely no idolatry or modalism was intended when other descriptive words are used to address or describe God! That is never my intent! I find other names help me remember that God cannot be placed in a gender-specific, or any other box. A larger concern that I have is that we have often neglected to include Spirit in our prayers. At times it almost seems that we worship Jesus alone--and forget that Jesus was thoroughly human and thoroughly God and God, the Creator is still present, as well as Spirit or Word. When John the Apostle began his epistle referring to Spirit as "Word," we didn't get all accusatory and huffy, and accuse him of being idolatrous or irreverant or heretical! One of the most wonderful prayers I have heard began, "Strong Mother, Tender Father..." I used that once when ministering to a woman who had been molested by her father.

David T.

Posted: May 08, 2008 3:40 PM

This article and the church teaching on which is comments are right on target. The personal nature of God and the clarity of the Lord's revealed name are significant and must be respected. I am a pastor in one of those supposedly progressive denominations (Lutheran - ELCA), but I never lead worship nor baptize without using the name which Jesus himself called us to use. The modalism heresy of "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier", the almost wiccan nature of this and other "new" names, and the arrogant attempt to create new names for God are a sad symptom of the decline of the Church in the US. Regarding the comment by Jim about Holy Ghost vs. Holy Spirit, please know that the issue of the name of God used in baptism is dramatically different than the translation and slight possible theological issue of Holy Ghost vs. Holy Spirit.

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment