BATTLE LINES ARE DRAWN

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

                        BATTLE LINES
        
             I seldom go exploring (surfing) on the InterNet, but when I do
 I  find  that definite battle lines have been  formed  within  the
Pentecostal community.  
        
             When  I  submit articles to the various  newsgroups,  I  can
read  the titles, and tell that a fierce battle is raging, over  whether our
 God is one or made up of three.  This also entails  the  matter of  the mode
of baptism in water-- whether in the Name  of  Jesus, or in the more popular
way.
        
             Also, among those who opt for the Oneness formula,  there is
another battle raging.  It is a fierce exchange over whether baptism  in
 Jesus Name accomplishes the Remission of Sins,  and  is, therefore vitally
essential to salvation.
        
             One  group  maintains  that ONLY  those  who  have  been
baptized  in  Jesus Name will make it into Heaven.  I  quote  from the
 InterNet:    The writer has quoted two of  the  prominent  Reformers of the
1500's.
        
                  The  belief(that  baptism  in the Name  of  Jesus  is  not
essential to salvation) certainly is not grounded in Scripture nor in church
 history.  Unfortunately there are  multiplied  millions  that believe it and
virtually all of them will go to their graves believing a  false doctrine. As
a result they will stand in judgment  and  discover  that  their sins have
not been remitted. When we  too  stand before  the  Judge what answer will we
give when asked  what  we did to penetrate the veil of deception and darkness
with the light of truth?
        
           Further, I quote his article from InterNet: (Emphases are mine)
        
                  The  first serious attack upon baptism for the  remission
of sins occurred early in the Reformation. While one can find isolated
 incidents  of views on baptism which were not  orthodox  (in harmony with
Trinitarian theology) these incidents were  insignificant  in  formulating
 baptismal theology. The  first  serious  event which  had  lasting  impact
came  with  Huldrech  Zwingli  (1484-1531).  He was born in Switzerland. The
district was  substantially autonomous  from  Rome. This relative
independence  made  revolt from Rome easier than in other places.
        
                  Jack   Cottrell  says,  "Zwingli  began  his   theological
career  exactly  where Luther and other Reformers  did--as  a  true son  of
the Roman Catholic Church. As such he first believed  that the water of
baptism washes away sins, including the inherited  sin present  in infants.
 (THIS IS CALLED  BAPTISMAL  REGENERATION,  AND  MAKES  IT  MANDATORY  TO
  BAPTIZE INFANTS, TO EXORCIZE THE DEVIL) MF.
        
             However, by 1523 he had repudiated this understanding  of
baptism.   Although he acknowledged that all teachers before  him held  to
 this view, he rejected it. 'In this manner of  baptism,'  he said, 'all the
doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles....For  all  the
 doctors have ascribed to  the  water  a  power which  it does not have and
the holy apostles did not  teach.'  'The Fathers  were in error...because
they thought that the  water  itself effects cleansing and salvation.'"
        
                  Armour  quotes  Zwingli's FALSA  RELIGIONE  (1524-1525)  as
 saying,  "These  ceremonies  are  external  signs  which demonstrate  to
others that the recipient has pledged himself  to  a new  life  and  will
 confess Christ even unto  death."  In  the  end Zwingli concluded that
baptism did not have any effect at all  upon its  recipient. Baptism was only
for the sake of the  audience.  Cottrell quotes him as saying, "For baptism
is given and received  for the sake of fellow-believers, not for a supposed
effect in those who receive it.
        
                  Cottrell  says,  "John Calvin  (1509-1564)  owes  much more
to Zwingli than is usually recognized. This is especially  true with  regard
 to  his understanding  of  the  sacraments,  including baptism.  Calvin
followed Zwingli's lead in rejecting  the  Biblical consensus  regarding the
meaning of baptism, and he accepted  the Zwinglian  idea of covenant unity as
the basic framework  for  his own explanation of the purpose and result of
baptism." In Calvin's theology,   salvation is received at the moment a
person  believed. Thus only adults were capable of believing. Cottrell
further quotes Calvin,  "After  we  have embraced Christ by faith,  that
 alone  is sufficient for salvation....Baptism must, therefore, be preceded
 by the  gift  of  adoption, which is not the cause merely  of  a  partial
salvation,  but bestows salvation entire, and is afterwards  ratified by
baptism." This view of baptism spread.
        
             Years ago, I took my Robert Young's Analytical Concordance and
made a detailed study of the word "For" the remission of sins, in Acts 2:38
 (Strong's doesn't deal with it at all.)
        
             I  was  not concerned about whether it be in  the  Name  of
Jesus, or not, for that had been settled long ago.  But "for"-- what did it
mean when it was spoken by the Apostle Peter?
        
             I  was  amazed at what I found.  Walter Swier  had  taught me
how to ascertain the true meaning of a Greek or Hebrew word, by  looking at
how many times it was translated into English,  and the different ways it was
used.  It has been a very profitable  practice for me.
        
             The  word  which  is translated "for" in  Acts  2:38  is  the
lowly Greek word "Eis"
        
             It  is used well over a thousand times, and is  translated  in
over a dozen different ways.  Take your pick.
        
             The ones I like best, and which I think are most fitting  are
"unto"   (John  baptizing  unto  repentance),  and  toward,   which means the
destination at which we hope to arrive at a future time.
        
             Matthew  3:11  I  indeed baptize  you  with  water   UNTO
repentance:  but he that cometh after me is mightier than I,  whose shoes  I
am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the  Holy Ghost, and [with]
fire:
        
             I Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism  doth also
now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,  but the answer
of a good conscience TOWARD God,) by the  resurrection  of Jesus Christ:
 (This is the same Peter that is  translated  as saying "for" the remission
of sins in Acts 2:38
        
             But, I must admit, however, that my thoughts are  flavored by
 my understanding of the Mosaic ceremony known as  the  Day of  Atonement,
 which  has  not been  completely  fulfilled  in  the Church  yet.  The
ceremony was divided into TWO  parts.   Those parts  were  DIVIDED  by  the
time of  ministration  of  the  High Priest  in the Holy of Holies.  OUR HIGH
PRIEST IS  STILL  IN THE HOLY OF HOLIES.
        
             The  ceremony of the SCAPEGOAT (Azazel--  a  complete removal,
according to Mr. Vine) FOLLOWED the ministration in the Holy of Holies.  
        
             Azazel  (scapegoat)  means Remission of Sins  (a  complete
removal.)   It  awaits  a further development in  the  Plan  of  The Ages.
 It is still in the future.
        
             And so, the battles rage, mostly carried on by men who are more
 under the influence of the "man" spirit than they are  of  the "Holy"
Spirit.  The spirit of man is stronger in their lives than  the Holy Spirit
is.
        
             Men  and women who are under the influence of  the  Holy Spirit
do not argue with one another. There is too much of it  being done, on
InterNet.