Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent [change your old way of thinking, turn from your sinful ways, accept and follow Jesus as the Messiah] and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. |
Subject: Apostles Spirit-led? |
Bible Note: 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 |