Unity & Diversity - Howard Goss

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Matthew Shaw wrote:

>Many Oneness believers that were affiliated with the Pentecostal Church
>Incoroporated (PCI) did not believe in the essentiality of baptism for
>salvation.... Baptism was an act of faith and
>obedience, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost was an added blessing.

Yes, on this issue the PCI was the more moderate of the two bodies that
merged to form the UPC. This is not to say, however, that the PCI took a
soft approach to the importance of water and Spirit baptism. Regardless of
whether they specifically equated the dual baptism with the new birth, all
Apostolics were united in their belief that this was the only proper way of
Christian initiation.

>Bro. Howard Goss DID emphatically believe in the full salvation
>experience of repentance, baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for
>the remission of sins and the infilling of the Holy Ghost.

The key words here are "full salvation." Both the PCI and the PAJC found
this an acceptable description of the Acts 2:38 experience. As previously
noted, a motion at the merging conference to drop the word 'full' from the
Fundamental Doctrine was defeated. To quote in more detail from Bro. Daniel
Segraves, "The significance of this is obvious. Without this word, the
Fundamental Doctrine would have read, 'The basic and fundamental doctrine of
this organization shall be the Bible standard of salvation....' The word
*full* is an adjective which modifies the noun *salvation*. While it may be
difficult for those who were not present to understand or appreciate the
importance of this word to those involved in the merger, it obviously
suggests that the majority present and voting viewed 'full salvation' as one
thing and 'salvation' as another."

So yes, Bro. Goss certainly did believe that repentance, water baptism in
Jesus' name and Spirit baptism constituted a "full salvation" experience.
But whether he regarded believers who had experienced less than "full
salvation" as lost is another question altogether.

>His belief in the salvational aspect of baptism in the name of the Lord was
>very strong indeed.

Consider these words of Bro. Goss concerning baptism in Jesus' name: "Some
interpret water baptism as a means of getting sins remitted, but Peter said
'for' (in Acts 2:38), which, as used here, means because your sins have been
remitted" (Apostolic Herald, June 1941).

>My pastor, Elder F.R. Martin, was a friend of the late Bro. Goss.  I
>asked him about Bro. Goss's belief.  He said that Bro. Goss did believe in
>the necessity of baptism....

Seems like we shall have to get together with Bro. Goss in glory to obtain
the definitive answer to this! :) My understanding of Bro. Goss's belief is
based on his own writings, along with interviews with several key people
such as the Cross family, close friends of the Gosses who ahve been, since
its inception, leaders in the Oneness movement in Ontario, where Bro. Goss
lived and ministered for much of his life. I made two calls yesterday to
re-confirm my information and was told again that, while Bro. Goss certainly
stressed the importance of baptism and necessity of obedience to the Word,
never taught or believed baptism was essential to enter heaven.

>Really, all that matters in the end is not what Apostolics in the formative,
>organisational years thought, but what the Lord Jesus has taught us through
>the Word.  Clearly, the Bible teaches that baptism is essential and effectual
>if administered in the all-powerful name of the Lord Jesus Christ!

Certainly the position equating water and Spirit baptism with the new birth
has become the predominant view in the UPCI, and is also the view of many
other Oneness organizations. But differing views cannot be dismissed as
simply <<what Apostolics in the formative organizational years thought.>>
Many other Oneness believers *today* strongly emphasize the Acts 2:38
message, yet hold a different interpretation of baptism in relation to
salvation. To disregard this, whether we agree or not, is to deny the
diversity of the Apostolic movement.

I am certainly not suggesting it's irrelevant how we believe regarding
baptism and the new birth. But I would suggest that what <<matters in the
end>> is that Oneness believers (regardless of differing views on the new
birth) proclaim the gospel of the grace of God, and Acts 2:38 as the only
acceptable response of faith.

Thank you for your comments, Bro. Shaw!

Cary Robison