11,153
edits
Water baptism: Difference between revisions
→In what Name should Christians be baptized?
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
Christians should be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, provided that it is made clear that the person is doing this on the basis that they have believed on Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins. | Christians should be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, provided that it is made clear that the person is doing this on the basis that they have believed on Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins. | ||
The reason that baptisms in the Book of Acts were "in the name of Jesus" is not because it was a formula, but because the | The reason that baptisms in the Book of Acts were "in the name of Jesus" is not because it was a formula, but because being baptized “into” (εἰς, eis) the name denotes incorporation into the Lord and his community, declaring one’s allegiance and implying the Lord’s ownership.<ref>Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 331.</ref> | ||
We can see proof of this in Acts 4:7-10: | We can see proof of this in Acts 4:7-10: | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
So "in Jesus' name" is not a magical formula for what must be specifically stated when baptizing a person. "In Jesus' name" simply means by Jesus' authority or power. To baptize in Jesus' name simply means to do so in obedience to His power or authority. His authority is the authority of God , which is the same power as that referred to in Matthew 28:19 - the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So to baptize in accordance with Jesus' name is to baptize according to His power or authority, which is the same as baptizing according to the name or authority or power of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Either formula would appear to be acceptable from scripture. | So "in Jesus' name" is not a magical formula for what must be specifically stated when baptizing a person. "In Jesus' name" simply means by Jesus' authority or power. To baptize in Jesus' name simply means to do so in obedience to His power or authority. His authority is the authority of God , which is the same power as that referred to in Matthew 28:19 - the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So to baptize in accordance with Jesus' name is to baptize according to His power or authority, which is the same as baptizing according to the name or authority or power of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Either formula would appear to be acceptable from scripture. | ||
We also see this from Acts 8:14-17: | |||
:''When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.<ref>The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Ac 8:14–17.</ref> | |||
Given the promise that those who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ will have their sins forgiven and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38–39), are we to conclude that there was something deficient in the faith of the Samaritans? | |||
Luke seems to be at pains to stress the orthodoxy of Philip’s preaching, the close attention paid by the Samaritans to what they heard, and the genuineness of their response (Acts 8:5–6, 12; contrast the ‘disciples’ in Acts 19:1–5). Was it because there were no apostles present? Luke later makes it clear that the Spirit can be given when the person baptizing is not an apostle (Acts 9:17–18). | |||
Was it because they needed to receive the Spirit in a fuller sense, for inspiration, or for the reception of charismatic gifts? Was it because they specifically needed the Spirit to be given to them in this way to empower them for mission? The idea that they needed more of the Spirit is ruled out by Luke’s insistence that the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them. With the words not yet (oudepō), Luke indicates that the Samaritan incident provides ‘a clear break with the “norm” we might expect from Acts 2:38–39. | |||
The best explanation is that God himself withheld the Spirit until the coming of Peter and John, in order that the Samaritans might be seen to be fully incorporated into the community of Jerusalem Christians who had received the Spirit at Pentecost. | |||
The apostles simply needed to be there as reliable witnesses on behalf of the Jerusalem church, not to impart the Spirit because of their office. Significantly, in Acts 8:25 they return to Jerusalem to report what God has been doing. The delay in the sending of the Spirit put the Samaritans somewhat in the position of the Jewish disciples before Pentecost. They had a genuine faith in the risen Lord, but had not yet received the promised Holy Spirit. Neither the experience of those first disciples nor the experience of the Samaritans can be made the basis for a two-stage view of Christian initiation, in the two-stage view of salvation in the Pentecostal sense. '''William Branham's insistence that as long as someone is baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ", they are entitled to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, does not work here either.''' | |||
These were unique events in salvation history, not the normal pattern of salvation known to Luke.<ref>David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 286–287.</ref> | |||
=Is baptism required for salvation?= | =Is baptism required for salvation?= | ||