Unity & Diversity - Howard Goss

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

Hello Bro. Litteral,

You quoted from my previous post:
>> 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).

You responded:
>Don't know the rest of it, but this is 100% wrong....

First, let me clarify the context of the excerpt from my post. I did not
present it to argue a doctrinal point. It was presented only to document the
position on baptism held by Bro. Howard Goss (first general superintendent
of the UPC), which was specifically under discussion.

>The wording is "...name of Jesus Christ "for" the remission of sins..." 
>There is no lexicological magic here.  If I say I give you a dollar
>"for" the remission of John's debt, it is the dollar that pays the debt.

Actually, there are some important interpretive issues involving the Greek
construction of the verse. One of them is the whether the preposition *eis*
here means "in order to obtain" or "because of" remission of sins. Using an
analogy based, like yours, on our common English usage of the word, some
would argue that one is baptized for ("because of") remission of sins, just
as one is imprisoned for ("because of") committing a crime.

But, I'm digressing. I'm not trying to defend this interpretation, or to
debate the proper exegesis of the passage at all. I'm simply establishing
that there have always been differing views among Apostolics on the exact
salvational significance of baptism, yet always with the common ground of
emphasizing Acts 2:38 as the only full and proper response to the gospel.

>If you don't believe this, you don't believe the Apostolic
>doctrine and it doesn't matter who you are.

Brother, I truly hope you will give your statement some further reflection.
The core distinctive beliefs common to all Apostolics have long been the
Oneness of God in Jesus Christ, and repentance, water baptism in Jesus' name
and Spirit baptism as the first steps of the Christian life. Interpretive
variations naturally exist regarding each of these doctrines. To exclude all
other Apostolics holding a different understanding of the word *for* in Acts
2:38, surely you are using a rather arbitrary definition of "the Apostolic
doctrine."

>Don't want to hurt anyone but these is da facts.

Could it be that what is hurt is the cause of Christ, when we more readily
build walls, rather than bridges, between blood-washed brethren?

Bro. Goss also once wrote: "Though we do not compromise, and though we have
convictions of our own, we will not force our convictions on our brethren,
but let love, as well as doctrine, be the chief factor in governing the
conduct of all."

Cary Robison