That's why when he asked the disciples at Ephesus, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" and they said unto him, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost," he was compelled to ask, "Unto what then were ye baptized?" (Acts 19:2,3).
They'd only been baptized unto John's baptism. That's why it was possible for them not to have heard about the Holy Ghost. But had they been baptized with Christian baptism, they would most likely have heard about the Holy Ghost.
This implies that it was common to make mention of the Holy Ghost during Christian baptism.
When it says Paul baptized them "in the name of Jesus", that doesn't necessarily mean the Holy Ghost wasn't mentioned. Paul expected that the Holy Ghost should most likely be mentioned during baptism. It just meant that in contrast to having been previously baptized with the baptism that John was sent to baptize with, he now baptized them with the baptism that Jesus, not merely John, commissioned. That is, baptism in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore a baptism done in response to Jesus' command to be baptized is not illegitimate if it mentions anything other than the phrase, "in the name of Jesus".
For example, saying "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" at the moment of baptism doesn't make a baptism illegitimate.
Doing something in someone's name doesn't necessarily mean saying, "in the name of..." and nothing else. It means to do it with that person's authority or command.
So in Jesus Name I can baptize in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost - without having to exclusively say, "in the name of Jesus" only.
I can say, "in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost," and still be baptizing in the name of Jesus".
No comments:
Post a Comment