[Apologetics] Church rebuked for 'new' baptism

[Dianne Dawson]

Hi Stephen,
 
You're right about the baptisms being invalid.  One of the big conditions the Church looks at when deciding to accept another ecclesial community's baptism is whether or not they baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
 
Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier or whatever are names for what They do NOT Who They are.  Therefore any name other than Father, Son and Holy Spirit are invalid when baptizing.
 
Dianne

Stephen Korsman <skorsman at theotokos.co.za> wrote:
Hi

From: "Art Kelly" 

> I think the key phrase in what you sent me is, "It is
> not, of course, absolutely necessary that the common
> names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be used, provided
> the Persons be expressed by words that are equivalent
> or synonymous."
>
> Of course, I'm not defending the change in wording
> that were used in Australia or Boston or anywhere
> else, but it may be that the Baptisms were still
> valid.

You're right there. And the final decision would be up to the bishop. But
since the names used don't even indicate the relationship between the
Persons, and are more in line with the Hindu / New Age concept of a trinity,
I would think it needs at least a conditional baptism.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
skorsman at theotokos.co.za
www.theotokos.co.za

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA


_______________________________________________
Apologetics mailing list
Apologetics at gathman.org
http://bmsi.com/mailman/listinfo/apologetics





Like a deer that longs for running waters so my soul longs for you, O God.

Ps 42:1
 
 



		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gathman.org/pipermail/apologetics/attachments/20041127/760b4fd2/attachment.html>