Quote:
Originally Posted by missourimary
Yes, that's what I just said. He was telling what Ananias told him right after his Damascus road experience. Ananias told him to call on the name of the Lord in baptism, not to make sure someone baptized him in Jesus' name.
Exactly. And doesn't that verse still mean the same today?
The thing is, if the exact formula needed to be stated, wouldn't the verses read with quotations as follows:
Acts 8:16 "(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus ".)
Acts 10:48 "And he commanded them to be baptized "in the name of the Lord ". Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."
Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized 'in the name of the Lord Jesus '."
Of course, we aren't reading the text in the original, and I understand that. It's just that the verses are grammatically incorrect if they were intended to direct a specific phrase invoked over candidates at baptism.
I have also wondered why, if it was so important what was said at baptism, none of the epistles were written including a reminder about baptizing a certain way or in a certain formula.
We certainly are off topic.
For the record, I was baptized in Jesus' name. I'm not arguing for a Trinitarian formula. But sometimes I think our logic on why we do certain things is off. We get so good at hitting "play back" and spouting off a few verses on certain topics, we sometimes forget to really look at them in depth. |
Acts 2:21 "And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Acts opens up the beginning of the New Testament church - a phenomenal event.
Acts 2:21 speaks to me of simply "acknowledging" and "understanding" who Jesus Christ was, what He came to do and why I need Him in my life.
Acts 22:16, IMO, is saying the same thing. To turn that into introducing the idea that it is talking about a baptismal wording for the person being baptized is bad interpretation, IMO.
Why? Because
Acts 22 is Saul/Paul speaking here. We understand his actions in
Acts 8:3 because of his pedigree (
Philippians 3:4-6).
In Hebrew, if you have a plural noun followed by a singular verb, the noun must also be singular. So, this is what Saul/Paul knows:
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God/Elohim (plural noun) created/bara (singular verb) the heavens and the earth.
That makes God singular and the only creator. We will never find out, at any other time, that anyone created anything but God alone.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (
John 1:1-3)
The writer is identifying God, who created all things, as Jesus Christ himself!
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;."
I John 1:1
They heard Him speak, saw Him with their own eyes and handled him with their own hands - the WORD of life - God himself - Jesus Christ!
To overlook the glory of this revelation and say that it's okay to baptize in the FS&HG is to not recognize the powerful, wonderful and majestic truth of who God is and what He has done.
This is what Saul experienced on the road to Damascus and he never looked back! Glory to God!!!!! He perfectly understood what Ananias was instructing him to do - Call on His name, believe in His name - God Almighty - God manifested in the flesh - Jesus Christ.
Matthew 28:19 are very powerful words and a revelation of Jesus Christ. It is not a baptismal formula. Never has been, never will be.
Threaded Mode
