Well, we don't seem to be getting anywhere, so what say I just cut out the evasive middleman (TrueJew) and cut to the chase -- the fundamental problem
of this belief. I suspect that Reckart came up with this so that he'd have something to "lord over" the UPCI, particularly its leader David K.
Bernard, whom Reckart seems to have a specific dislike for (I ran across a post by Reckart the other day, condemning Bernard to hell, how Christian of
Anyway, what you've claimed is that the real name of God is the English "Jesus", pronounced "gee-zus", and this name must be used in all prayers (or
else God won't know that you're calling on him) and rites (or else it's an invalid rite.) This is, I suppose, to counter the UPCI's statement that
In other words, Jesus is the Lord Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, manifested in flesh to be our Savior.
as well as their baptism of people "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ", which Reckart associates with Trinitarianism (because it's three words, I
guess, I can't see any other reason to come to that conclusion.)
So, out of a need to show the UPCI that Reckart is right, and they are wrong (sending the whole lot of them to hell, along with heathens and
Trinitarians,) it must be demonstrated that "gee-zus" is God's only name, and if you refer to him by any other means, you're out of luck. But is this
I'm going to make three assertions that logically prove it is not. You are welcome to refute them, but not by making vague statements like "we teach
what the Apostles taught" (because they never would have taught what these assertions evidence that you teach) or "stop making false statements about
us" -- you disprove these statements with theology, not vague emotional claims
, or you're just admitting that you do not worship the God of the
First assertion -- Your claim that if one does not "call on the name of God, pronounced correctly", God will not know that you are calling on him
refutes God's omniscience.
O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou
compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it
altogether. (Psalm 139:1-4 KJV)
If your claim is correct, you do not worship the God of the Bible.
Second assertion -- Your claim that if one does not use proper words, God will ignore your request, refutes God's love and compassion
The Bible is filled with passages of God's love for us, his compassion, and his desire to be in communion with his children. Because God knows what is
in our hearts (Proof #1) he knows that a person is sincere in their calling to him, regardless of whether they know his "real name" or not. Your
assertion is that God knows you, knows your sincerity, but intentionally ignores you, because you used the wrong word.
If your claim is correct, you worship a petty tyrant of a god, not the God of the Bible.
Third assertion -- Your claim that, if one uses the wrong name, a baptism won't "work" because it's done in the name of another god, assumes salvation
by works, refutes God's omniscience, as well as his love and compassion.
Bronisław Malinowski, in Coral Gardens and their Magic (1935), suggests that this belief is an extension of man's basic use of language to
describe his surroundings, in which "the knowledge of the right words, appropriate phrases and the more highly developed forms of speech, gives man a
power over and above his own limited field of personal action."Magical speech is therefore a ritual act and is of equal or even greater importance to
the performance of magic than non-verbal acts. (Source)
This belief of yours is both non-Biblical and consistent with teachings that are condemned by the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. God knows our
intentions in baptism, marriage and all other acts, he doesn't need a specific performance to accept what is done in faith.
If your claim is correct, you worship a god of magic spells and incantations, not the God of the Bible.
And that, as they say, is that. If you have any wisdom or independence of thought left in you, you will think long and hard about what Reckart is
teaching, and whether it is consistent with the Bible or not. Because those three assertions and proofs blow his theology out of the water, and it
has absolutely nothing
to do with Trinitarianism.
Though you refused to answer my direct question, my memory is that you have claimed to be a pastor. In that, recall James 3:1 -- you will be held
accountable for those you have been given charge of, and if you are teaching them to worship a god other than the God of the Bible, that will be on
edit on 27-2-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)