Carl Brumback in his book "God in Three Persons" remarked that they
very heart of the Oneness Movement is in it's doctrine of Baptism in Jesus'
Name. In a sense this is true. Baptism in Jesus' name was the
first truth recovered after the Latter Rain outpouring of 1900, and in
the words of E.N. Bell "it it was the vehicle God used to roll up to our
astonished eyes a greater vision of Jesus than we had ever seen before."
Baptism in Jesus' Name was the first step in a doctrinal chain reaction
that led to the revelation of the Truth of Oneness and the Biblical New
Birth. Therefore, it is only logical that this doctrine would receive
the fiercest assaults from our enemies, and in the case of Dr. Boyd and
other Neo-Trinitarians, the most bizarre and desperate mechanizations ever
brought forth against a Truth; arguments so desperate that many Trinitarians
refuse to endorse them. It is in his theories concerning Baptism
in Jesus' Name that Dr. Boyd has ventured the farthest; pressing the very
limits of blasphemy, he drives his leaky vessel ever onward through the
ocean of confusion and apostasy.
God has always tested and proved his people through the means of water. When the Bible opens there is water (Genesis 1:2). No mention is made of it's creation, though it surely was created. The Spirit is also there, brooding over the waters. Right from the start of the Biblical record there is a combination of water and Spirit that results in creation. Thousands of years later the Master tells Nicodemus that another combination of water and Spirit would result in a "new creation."
"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls." (Acts 2:41).
In the year 1913 a world wide camp meeting of "Spirit baptized" Pentecostal believers was held in Arroyo Seco, California. A name which means "Dry Gulley" in Spanish. How significant - "yet that valley shall be filled with water, that ye may drink" (2 Kings 3:17). God had alerted the saints beforehand through the Spirit, that he would "Do a New Thing" and proceed to do a "marvelous work among the people, even a marvelous work and a wonder" (Isa. 29:14). Therefore, an air of expectancy prevailed over the Camp Meeting. It came quietly at first. A Bro. McAllister from Canada, while preaching a sermon on water baptism, remarked that if they were to follow Apostolic precept they would baptize their candidates once by immersion in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. This sent spiritual waves throughout the assembled congregation. Shortly after that, a Bro. Sheppe, an immigrant from Danzig, Germany, received a tremendous revelation concerning the Name of Jesus and dutifully woke his fellow campers up in the midnight hour to share it. A great searching of the scripture began concerning the subject of the Name of Jesus Christ.
Bro. Frank Ewart was the first to see the relationship between Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38. Guided by the Spirit of God he clearly saw, by placing all the scriptures together, that the reason Peter commanded baptism in Jesus' Name at Pentecost was due to the fact that the name "Jesus" is the one name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit referred to by our Lord in Matthew 28:19. He immediately baptized Glenn Cook who in turn baptized him and a spiritual fire of truth was lit that now encircles the globe. From this small beginning an international movement for the restoration of true New Testament Apostolic religion exists earthwide in the Oneness Pentecostal Revival. A movement that Dr. Boyd claims he was once part of for a number of years:
The opening volley of every attack on water baptism in Jesus' Name is always an attempt to minimize the importance of baptism in general. For our opponents know that if people are taught that baptism is not "all that important," certainly not "essential for salvation," then they will not feel so compelled to give diligent search as to the proper mode or formula. And a diligent search in scripture and history is the last thing our detractors want! For they know it is fatal to their position. Dr. Boyd is no different in this respect, for he writes:
So salvation was never "seen as being directly contingent upon baptism." Conspicuous by its absence in Dr. Boyd's discussion are the extremely "contingent" words of Christ in Mark 16:16.
Dr. Boyd's omission of this passage may be due to the fact that he does not consider this portion of Mark as part of the Word of God, a view held in common with Jehovah's Witnesses, who print it reluctantly in the margin of their New World Translation. This is an old dodge often employed -- "It's not in the original Greek." But it is, and the weight of scholarship now leans ever increasingly in its favour. Phillip Schaff's Companion to Greek New Testament, page 190 proves the passage is included in 500 ancient manuscripts! Schaff says:
It is amazing to see how quickly Dr. Boyd has parted company with
the "great saints of the church" including Augustine, Aquinas, and the
Cappodocian Fathers. For they all believed strongly and fervently
in "baptism for remission of sins." They were baptismal regenerationists
to a man! Dr. Boyd is quite content to soak up their wisdom in regards
to the Trinity (and pass it on second hand to us), but when it comes to
their equally dogmatic position on water baptism for remission of sins,
they are no longer wise nor great. Surely if these fathers were so
"divinely illuminated" as to discover such teachings as the Perichoresis
doctrine, they could not have missed something so elemental as baptism.
Why doesn't he quote them now on this position? He doesn't dare,
because he is again impaled on the horns of a dilemma. If he
quotes them on baptismal regeneration he will have to admit that it is
either a valid doctrine or that they were deceived and unenlightened!
Neither of which would be pleasant for him. The only alternative
is to let "sleeping dogs lie." But I insist on waking them and hearing
them bark!
Baptism confers "supernatural grace upon those who receive" and "expunges
the stain of original sin from them" (Encyclopedia Britanica, Vol. III,
p. 138).
Baptism is a "means of grace," "admits to membership in the visible church," and "sin, both original and actual is forgiven." (Encyclopedia Britanica, Vol. III, p. 139).
The list could go on indefinitely, and Dr. Boyd well knows it.
The unanimous testimony of every early Church document (Apostolic Fathers,
Ante-Nicene, Post-Nicene), reveals that Baptism is for the remission of
sins. All the early Church fathers, and "great saints" of the church
all proclaim with one united voice the same doctrine -- baptism for remission
of sins. The same men, and the same voices, Dr. Boyd is so happy
to refer us to on the Question of the Trinity; of them he says on page
161:
And that includes Baptismal Regeneration!
All scholarship is agreed on this point:
And what of the Creeds? These creeds, that are such doctrinal fortresses for Trinitarian Belief, also shelter within their walls the teaching of Baptismal Regeneration! On pages 172 and 173, Dr. Boyd takes great pains to point out the correct interpretation of what the "ancient confessions" really meant in regards to the Trinity, lest we become guilty of a "misapplication of the creedal language." But he is awfully silent on how to apply the "creedal language" of these "ancient confessions" where they announce such "orthodox teachings" as "we acknowledge one baptism unto the remission of sins" -- Nicene Creed.
In the first half of the Nicene Creed (which speaks of the Trinity) is true and applicable, why such "deafening silence" on the second half, which puts forth baptism for remission of sins?
Its sad but true; Dr. Boyd and other Neo-Trinitarians must bid
a reluctant farewell to "church Fathers," "church traditions," "Cappodocians,"
"Augustine," and "Aquinas." For they all held unequivocally to baptism
for remission of sins. Allies on the Trinity; enemies of baptism.
How much reliance can one place on that divided camp!
The first Gospel sermon preached in the newly opened church age was
delivered by the Apostle Peter on the Day of Pentecost and climaxed with
these immortal words:
This has always been to mean just what it says -- baptism is the means
of obtaining remission of sins. All the early writings of the Church,
Fathers and Apologists, so understood it. Church History of
1500 years knew of no other meaning. The Greek Church, in whose language
the verse was written, knows of no other meaning. Dr. Martin Luther,
founder of Protestantism knew of no other meaning. But Neo-Trinitarian
"easy-believism" advocates now of another meaning!
In other words this is the old worn out argument, "spruced up" somewhat, that the word "for" in Acts 2:38 really means "because of." Hence according to this theory we are baptized "because of" the remission of sins, which we already received when we "signed a decision card," or "slipped up a finger" or "allowed" Jesus to come into our heart. This nonsensical interpretation has been answered repeatedly in the past.
The preposition "eis" does not mean "because of" or "in
the light of." It means "in order to obtain." Thayer, in his
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, defines it:
Arndt and Gingrich, unquestionable authorities agree with Thayer:
For the Acts 2:38 passage they have to say this:
This certainly kills Dr. Boyd's innovative translation and lays it in it well deserved grave.
But if more proof is desired, it is available. In Matthew 26:28 Christ uses the exact same phrase, word for word, as found in Acts 2:38 - eis ophesin hamartion: "for the remission of sins." The context in this case is the Last Supper and the Lord is speaking of his blood. "This is my blood... which is shed for many for the remission of sins." There it is, "for the remission of sins" -- exactly the same as in Peter's sermon. Now did Christ mean his blood would be shed because the believers already had remission of sins, or did he mean that it would be shed for them to obtain remission of sins? Obviously to obtain remission of sins. Therefore, Peter's command in Acts 2:38, which is a perfect parallel to Matthew 26:28, means exactly the same -- baptism "in order to obtain" remission of sins.
And with this conclusion agree all major Greek scholars, all "apostolic
Fathers," all "the great saints of the Church," all reputable historians
of Early Christianity, The Greek Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church,
the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, etc.; the same sources,
by the way, that are appealed to by Dr. Boyd and other Trinitarians, in
support of the Doctrine of the Trinity. In his section on "Baptismal
Regeneration" (pages 134-139), Dr. Boyd doesn't mention even one time "the
church," "the fathers," scholars, theologians, church history, or orthodox
tradition -- sources he is so fond of appealing to in his Godhead discussions.
Why? He knows he's "changed hats" for awhile and can't use them;
for they oppose his doctrine of baptismal efficacy, with a vengeance!
Next the statement of Christ himself must be attacked in order to depose Baptism from its scriptural essentiality. Those who relegate baptism to a mere "outward sign of an inward work" are always nervous around John 3:5 -- almost never quoting it when mentioning the New Birth.
Through the years I have heard that "water" refers to the birth fluid surrounding the fetus, or the Word of God, or the preaching of the Word, or waters of salvation, or Christ's "belly," -- anything but baptism in water! Jesus in John 3 talks about births involving Spirit, water, and flesh. All agree flesh is literal, all agree Spirit is literal, but when we come to water it suddenly becomes symbolic in some people's minds. In almost any Bible the marginal references will direct you to Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, and Titus 3:5; all water baptismal references. Again, all the early church fathers and apologists, ante and post Nicene writers, interpreted it to mean water baptism. There is no other viewpoint in the early church. The Cappodocians, Augustine, and Aquinas would be quick to explain it as baptism and would be "astonished beyond measure" at any other interpretation, and would brand as a heretic anyone who taught otherwise!
But, of course, Dr. Boyd must again bid them Adieu, for he has yet another
interpretation:
What is the reason? Why, Nicodemus would not have understood,
that's why!
The implication is that Nicodemus had no experience with the practice
of baptism, and hence would never have made the connection between "born
of water" and "baptized in water." Therefore Christ certainly would
not have brought up something, still future, that Nicodemus couldn't possibly
comprehend. This is absolutely untrue. John the Baptist had
just finished a mass water baptismal campaign in preparation for the Messiah's
arrival (Luke 3:3) in which a "multitude" of Jews "Came forth to be baptized
of him" (Luke 3:7), and "went out to Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all
the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing
their sins" (Matt 3:5-6). In addition, Nicodemus would have been
very familiar with the practice of baptizing in water all proselytes to
the Jewish faith:
Gore also quotes the distinguished Hebrew scholar Eldrsheim who adds:
And what does Dr. Boyd offer as an alternative interpretation to "born
of water" as a reference to water baptism? Ever the innovator, he
says:
This leads to the truly bizarre conclusion that what Jesus actually
said was: "Unless a man be born of the Spirit and of the Spirit
he cannot enter the Kingdom of God!" And of course, "Nicodemus would
have readily picked up on this." (Boyd, p. 139). And so have
we!
The passage in 1 Peter 3:21 is next on the "hit" list:
The connection between water baptism and the salvation it produces is so strongly linked here ("contingent" if you please) that "they who labour, labour in vain" to refute it. But Dr. Boyd says it means the "opposite" (p. 137), in other words it proves Baptism does not save! To turn back this Niagara of proof he resorts to two different maneuvers. First he mentions that Peter, "is here talking symbolically" and this is "clear not only from the fact that he explicitly says he is talking symbolically, but also from the fact that he goes on to clarify that he is not talking about any literal washing or 'removal of dirt from the body...'" (Boyd, p. 138).
That there is symbolism is true; but it is not the symbolism Dr. Boyd
would have you believe. It is the flood of Noah that symbolizes
baptism. The flood is the symbol, not baptism! His beloved
NIV translation brings it our clearly:
We teach exactly what Peter expresses in this passage: that when
the external rite of baptism is accompanied with "the answer of a good
conscience," in other words, repentance and belief in Christ, then baptism
will save or produce remission of sins. The "answer of a good conscience"
is absolutely essential, otherwise all you are left with is an ineffectual
bath of the "filth of the flesh". Dr. Boyd reverses the Bible completely
when he says:
Once years ago when I was teaching school I got involved in a discussion with some students on salvation. I made the comment that baptism was necessary for salvation. The next day one of the girls remarked to me that her preacher had told her the Bible never says you have to be baptized to be saved. I quoted 1 Peter 3:21 where it states, "Baptism doth also now save us" and asked her to show it to her preacher. The following day she returned to class and I asked her what her preacher had to say. She replied: "He said not to talk to you anymore." That ended that!
Almost every text of scripture that touches on the subject of baptism
indicates that it is essential to salvation. Baptism, coupled with
repentance and faith, is the means by which the erring sinner is pardoned
of his transgression. This is the New Testament message and the original
plan of salvation. Also that this is the only plan recognized by
those who wrote immediately after the close of the New Testament canon;
some of whom were contemporary with John and Paul. It is the ancient
teaching of the primitive Church.
There are other scriptures which bear this out. When Paul converted,
he was instructed by Annanias in the following words:
Baptism in conjunction with repentance ("calling on the name of the
Lord") leads to "washing away of sins." Paul never forgot or deviated,
from the deposit of Truth he received that day in the house of Judas, on
a street called Straight.
We hear him telling Titus:
He likened baptism to a "bath" or "washing" of regeneration which was
made possible "through Jesus Christ our Saviour" (v. 6). How much
more evidence is needed to establish the saving efficacy of baptism?
Paul further teaches that we "put on Christ" by being "baptized into Christ" (Galatians 3:27). Do you want to be in Christ? Be baptized into Him! Do you want to put on Christ? You put him on through water baptism. Therefore if you are not baptized "into Christ" you are still "outside" him.
Water baptism is a pre-requisite for "newness of life" and participation
in the future resurrection from the dead at his coming:
Paul also compares baptism with the Old Testament rite of circumcision.
In the Old Testament circumcision removed part of the literal flesh of
the male and incorporated him into Israel. But in the church age,
baptism (the "circumcision of Christ") removes or "puts off the body of
sins," and simultaneously incorporates us into the church, the new "Israel
of God." This is brought out clearly in Colossians 2:11-12,
The writer of Hebrews says the same thing. Our hearts are "sprinkled
from an evil conscience" through repentance. Then our bodies are
"washed" with pure water . Without this we cannot "draw near" to
God "with a true heart," or have "full assurance of faith." (Heb.
10:23-24).
If God wanted to say that baptism is absolutely essential for securing
remission of sins and obtaining salvation, what more could he possibly
have said? Every word conceivable, every metaphor imagined, every
example observable is brought before us to drive home the point.
Jesus said he that "believes and is baptized shall be saved," unless
a man is "born of water and Spirit he cannot enter God's Kingdom."
Peter said to be baptized "for the remission of sins," because "baptism
doth also now save us." Paul was told to be baptized to "wash away
his sins." He therefore called it a "washing of regeneration" which
"saves us." Baptism is the only means to "put on Christ," to get
"in Christ," and to "rise with Christ." It puts off the "body of
sins," and puts us in the "body of Christ." Did the Bible leave anything
out? I think not.
Even Dr. Boyd is forced to admit that after such a scriptural bombardment that these passages
He uses the word "essential" which means "necessary; indispensable"
(Webster's unified Dictionary). Therefore baptism was
a necessary and indispensable "aspect of the ordinary saving experience,"
according to what Dr. Boyd states! Now having said that baptism
is essential or "indispensable" to salvation, he spends the rest of the
chapter dispensing with its essentiality! And this he begins to do
on the following page:
How the modern day "evangelicals" with their waterless "dry cleaning" salvation wish they had the scriptural armory that we Oneness Pentecostals have. They would love to have just one text where the apostles coaxed someone to "accept Jesus as their very own personal Saviour"; but like old Mother Hubbard, they find that cupboard is bare! They search in vain where the Apostles told the people to "just slip up a hand" ("I see that hand, God bless you!"). But the Apostles were too busy telling people to "Repent and be baptized in Jesus' Name" for such nonsense. Now the 20th Century preachers even have Jesus running "for election" and the people are "to make a decision about Christ!" Or better still, they send in their "absentee ballot" by signing a decision card! (Can you imagine Peter passing out decision cards on the Day of Pentecost?). Then they plead with the unrepentant prospect to "allow Jesus to come into his heart and live." Reluctantly the new "convert" does this, but with the understanding that repentance is not needed (and is almost never even mentioned in these "plans of salvation"). And of course, no cleaning up or changing of lifestyle, for this would be "legalistic" and "bondage". You may keep smoking, drinking, acid rocking, wife swapping, living together "without benefit of clergy," -- this will all "drop off" eventually, if ever, as you "grow" and "mature". But don't worry about it. There's "no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus" (as long as you don't finish reading the verse, that is!) Yes, its all as simple as ABC -- Accept, Believe, Confess -- that's it! You're as good as signed, sealed and delivered.
I know of an incident in Florida where a "worker" went into the laundromat
and asked 16 people there, who were busy doing laundry, if they believed
Jesus was the Son of God and their Saviour. They all said "yes" and
he proudly came out and announced that 16 people had just been born again!
- Now if someone would just go in and inform them of the fact (before their
clothes dry and they leave), I'm sure they would be quite surprised!
Dr. Boyd criticizes the Oneness Movement in a number of places because
we espouse a God who actually has requirements and conditions, starting
with baptism, for those who would serve him:
And we have
We are therefore very wrong for not accepting people "unconditionally"
into our church membership, fornicators, blasphemers, prostitutes and drug
dealers! No conditions, just come in! God doesn't require anything
-- (we are told). But our God does require repentance and change
of life (And we do too!) Dr. Boyd's God does not.
He further states:
And this spills over into Church discipline. We are told:
The results of this philosophy of God and salvation is tragic. The so-called "church" of today tolerates every abhorrent behaviour and sinful lifestyle in the name of "love" and "acceptance". The plan of Salvation is reduced to a smile in God's direction. The only standard most preachers require today is that you impose no standard, on yourself or anyone else. Love, mercy, acceptance, tolerance, unconditionality are in. Repentance, judgment, accountability and holiness are out. And hell, of course, is never mentioned!
David Wilkerson, who preaches a clear message of repentance and change,
recently mentioned meeting so-called "born again believers" who could
not see anything wrong in continuing in their jobs as "topless" dancers
in a "nudie bar." After all, Christ had accepted them just as they
were (topless and all!). And, naturally, they could "witness" for
Christ at work! This kind of "mentality" is the direct result of
the type of salvation Dr. Boyd advocates. After all, "it is not even
related to our performance" (Boyd, p. 196). --And that must
include those Go-Go Cages and on bar tops as well!
"Doing the will of the Father" certainly sounds like a condition to be performed. How does it sound to you, dear reader?
Much is said about the love of Christ, and the mercy of God. And this is certainly scriptural. But they have no use for the Christ who said: "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3), or "if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out ; it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire" (Mark 9:47). "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:48).
Though they love to quote Paul, selectively that is, they refuse to
preach his gospel that men "should repent and turn to God, and
do works meet for repentance" (Acts 26:20). For it contains two
words that do not fit into their "cheap grace" gospel, namely "repentance"
and "works". Paul's audience didn't like it either, "For these causes
the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me" (v.21).
Any preacher who does set that forth as a true requirement for salvation
will be killed in the jumbo church ecclesiastical temples of today.
"Faith and faith alone" is all they want to hear. It may be
a "fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:31),
but please don't mention it! For they like to picture God as a loving
"Grandpa" in Heaven who tolerates any behaviour in the name of love.
And even though we shall "not escape if we neglect. so great salvation,"
it would not be polite to mention it. It would run contrary to their
idea of a very "understanding" God. I recently talked to one of these
new type "Christians," a lady who owns a Christian bookstore, in which
she offers for sale two blasphemous books. One of which offers the
idea that Jesus' conception may have resulted from Mary having sex with
Zecharias the Priest!! And the other book advocated the church accepting
and blessing pre-marital fornication and homosexual marriages!! When
I pointed out to her the blasphemous contents of these books, she quickly
informed me she had read them and was surprised that I was not as broad
minded as she, or as tolerant! She then proceeded to inform me that
the Holy Spirit guided her in the selection of these books! Perfectly
good books for evangelical Christians to feed upon according to her, because
God "gave us brains," and we are "free" to decide what to believe!
And this my friends is the end to which all such unapostolic, "just
believe," "faith alone" preaching leads to -- People that cannot
be disciplined, won't be disciplined, and insist on their right to believe
anything that supports their corrupt lifestyle. And we must, according
to Dr. Boyd, accept them unconditionally into the church. "Our performance
is not the issue" remember.
|
|