Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Apostles Spirit-led? | Acts 2:38 | Morant61 | 38850 | ||
Greetings Charis! It has been awhile since we have chatted my far away brother and friend! :-) If I may intrude, you said: "My friend, I completely agree with you that there is no disagreement between Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I believe that the Holy Spirit led the apostles to FULFILL the command of the Lord, in the name of Jesus! Otherwise we must conclude that exactly one (1!) 'crystal-clear' Scripture, Matthew 28:19, invalidates all of the above 'not-so-clear' (?) Scriptures. Joe!, you have said time and again that we must let Scripture interpret Scripture... This is what I am attempting to do!" I think the point that Joe is making is that we may be misunderstanding those 'no-so-clear' Scriptures. The clear Scriptures must guide our interpretation of the less clear. For instance, in another post, I noted that there are several possible ways of looking at these 'no-so-clear' Scriptures: ************************************************* "The narrative data of Acts can be interpreted several possible ways. 1) The phrase "in the name of Jesus" could be a shortened form of the longer phrase, with the longer phrase being assumed in light of Mt. 28:19. 2) The phrase "in the name of Jesus" may not have been used in the actual baptism at all, but could have referred to being baptized by the authority of Jesus. 3) The disciples may have felt that Mt. 28:19 was not meant to be a strict formula and the phrase "in the name of Jesus" was sufficent. Any of these options is possible! This is why Reformer Joe said in one of his posts that the accounts of Acts are simply not clear, while Mt. 28:19 is very clear. It is the only verse in the entire Bible which deals with how baptism should be done. The rest are descriptions, thus may not include every detail." ************************************************* My personal view is that either is fine, especially in light of the doctrine of the Trinity! :-) But, I usually practice the Mt. 28:19 pattern simply because it is a clearer statement as opposed to a narrative, and fulfills the Jesus name aspect as well. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Apostles Spirit-led? | Acts 2:38 | charis | 38921 | ||
Dear Tim, Greetings in the name of Jesus! Brother, your commentary is NEVER and intrusion! Let me begin by stating to you and Joe!, and of course all the forum saints, that my convictions regarding water baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ are NOT to the exclusion of water baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. I, too, consider both 'utterances of faith' (or 'phrases' or even 'formulae') to be equally effective. In fact, as Hank expressed so well, the words of the 'baptizer' ('baptist'?) are not nearly as important as the heart of the recipient of God's cleansing work! So please do not misunderstand my position as one of 'my way is right, all other ways are wrong.' I simply write my own convictions on this matter. :-) Now, your points about the 'not-so-clear' Scriptures: 1) I have a hard time swallowing the 'abbreviation' theory. The Word of God is that by which we know God, and this explanation implies a somewhat 'sloppy' revelation of His divine will. There are at least four places describing the baptism of believers, and though not narratives, they are quite descriptive. In addition, there are other places that the name of Jesus is invoked, and they ARE narratives. It would be difficult to imagine Peter's command to be healed 'in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit' with '...the Nazarene' tacked on. I believe that the baptismal descriptions and the other Scriptures expressing the authority of the name of the Lord Jesus must be taken together. In most of those 'non-baptism' Scriptures, replacing the 'abbreviated' phrase with the 'full' phrase does not make sense. 2) While this is possible, the same things I wrote in 1) apply. 3) This is the closest to my thinking. I would even say that the name of Jesus is not only 'sufficient,' but fully valid. Certainly, the apostles used the name of the Lord Jesus to full effect in other areas of ministry, so why not baptism? To answer my own question, I see that this is a matter of tradition to some, with some good measure of emotions involved. Many of these emotions seem to be directed to countering the doctrines of the 'Oneness' folk. Well, gotta get to the building site. We're almost done! Praise God! Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||