The Value of Preserving Historical Memory

Bio-ethicist Leon Kass[1] warns us that in the near future, pharmaceuticals will exist that will enable a person to edit their memories in order to achieve happiness. The advancing field of neuroscience is working to discover chemicals that will alter human memories. Society will welcome this drug as humane since it will relieve people of the pain of personally traumatic events. But Kass protests that any drug that interferes with memory formation, directly impacts character formation. Since one’s identity is connected to one’s memory, using such a drug transforms who one really is. In the process of remembering one’s life, without the painful or negative parts, one produces a different soul.

My concern is not with the advancing ethical issues of biotechnology. My concern is with the historical memory of Oneness Pentecostals. It is disturbing how historical editors of the UPCI have interfered with its historical memories in order to shape the UPCI identity. As the present generation seeks to define its distinctiveness, it is tempted to redact its history in order to remove some of the painful, negative or unflattering facts, events, or persons, of the past.

Image via Wikipedia

More subtly, some distant or deeper roots are “forgotten” to make the past look like the present. Kass maintains that memory altering drugs would allow a person to uncouple past events from current emotions, so that the person is able to recall negative, even traumatic events as though they really were not so bad or important. Nonetheless, one does not need such a drug to alter one’s memory. If the keepers of a group’s history (even with good intentions) embellish the favorable memories over time, and little by little remove or marginalize the unfavorable memories, the character and identity of the group will change almost unconsciously. More than a few facts are being altered. The very identity, character, and soul of the movement are being made over.

We should expect any group to defend their group history against any attempts at revision by a malicious redactor (perceived or actual). It is only right for them to safeguard the character of the UPCI. Nevertheless, outside voices are needed to bring to consciousness those memories and voices from the UPCI past, which do not resonate with the present version of UPCI history. The members of a group should challenge factual error and misrepresentations of their past. At the same time, it is incumbent upon the historians to not reject out of hand data that conflicts with present day assumptions. Instead, they are responsible to preserve all their memories honestly, and that means to acknowledge and come to terms with elements of the past that challenge long-held conventions or traditions. They must hold the memories of their group in sacred trust. This means listening to voices from their past, which bring to light facts that dispute the present accepted “gallery of pictures” of their historical family album.

---

[1] Leon Kass, Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness, (Regan Books, December 1, 2003).

1 Peter 3:21 “Water Baptism and Salvation”

Image via Wikipedia

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: (1 Peter 3:21 KJV)

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:21 ESV)

Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:21 NASB)

[A]nd this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:21 NIV)

Does Peter Teach That Water Baptism Saves?

Baptismal remission is buttressed primarily by three specific verses in the Bible. The first is Acts 2:38, the second is 1 Peter 3:21, and these are linked to Jesus’ words in Mark 16:16. These three verses are cited as though they exist in a mutually supportive bond, and as proof that the apostolic teaching is baptismal remission.

One writer, Talmadge French[1] asserts that the case for baptismal remission is made by a proper understanding of the word eis, and the proper connection of Acts 2:38 with 1 Peter 3:21:

Peter, to the contrary, makes such a strong case for baptism that he says Noah was “saved,” not by the Ark, but “by water”! God, of course, saved them, but it was through the agency of water, in that the water lifted them above the judgment. The Apostle points out that the water is the antitype of water-baptism that “doth also now save us.” Why? Because of the Name of Jesus! Baptism in Jesus’ Name (Acts 2:38) is “for the remission of sins,” or, as indicated by the work eis (Gk). In order to access remission. This literally means into the remission of sins, but not because, or as a result, of sins already remitted.[2]

First, before we look at the exegesis, one thing that stands out to me, French uses circular reasoning to prove baptismal remission. He first assumes that water-baptism is the means of sin’s remission. In order to prove that “for” in Acts 2:38 means that sin is remitted by baptism, he cites 1 Peter 3:21, as further support that water-baptism saves. But, in his conclusion about 1 Peter, he circles back to Acts 2:38 to prove that Peter teaches water-baptism saves us. Both verses are interpreted in a way that appears to support French’s a priori assumption – baptismal remission. It seems baptismal remission is automatically assumed to be true. Only then, are all the verses of Scripture interpreted as confirming that assumption.

If you would like to read the rest of this article go to "1 Peter 3:21 'Water Baptism and Salvation'"

You might also be interested to read Does Baptism Save? from Q & A.

[1] Author of Our God is One, Talmadge is a former ordained minister of the UPCI and teacher at the Indiana Bible College (a UPCI school). He is now Education Committee Chairman of the World Pentecostal Fellowship and teaches at the Apostolic School of Theology in Sacramento, CA.

[2] Talmadge French, Theology Column, Indiana Bible College Perspectives, Vol. 13, No. 3, p. 7.

"Re-justification"

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I am fascinated by the creative ways that theology students in the UPCI are handling the doctrine of justification. Because their doctrine of Acts 2:38 is-the-New Birth rejects the historic teaching of justification by faith there is an attempt to redefine or caricature justification into something the Bible or orthodox Christianity has never believed. This is leading to a few novel terms or phrases that reveal a misguided understanding of the biblical teaching of justification by faith.

One of those is the phrase “repetitive justification”. The problem with this phrase is that the word repetitive is unnecessary. Why? Because ‘repetitive justification’ is a tautology (redundant). The very nature of justification makes it necessarily ongoing. Thus, the word ‘repetitive’ is superfluous.

A companion phrase I see being used is “re-justification.” This is really another way of saying repetitive justification. Instead of re-justification a more descriptive phrase for the same idea is “transformational justification.” I posted this on my website (at: http://inchristalone.org/TheFullGospelError.htm):

Re-justification?

A gross misconception of justification is too often seen among “full Gospel” advocates. It is the mistaken idea that, after a Christian has a serious lapse of faith or behavior, that one would need to be re-justified in the form of a second conversion. At the heart of this whole issue is the question of the status of the lapsed Christian. It appeared to those of the Roman Catholic tradition that the answer is to view justification as synonymous with sanctification. This means the believer cooperates with Christ’s grace by obedience to cause justification. Justification would not occur until one is completely transformed into the image of Christ. Of course, this would only occur (except for some saints) at the Consummation. Thus, no one (again, except for a few rare saints) is truly justified in this life. In their view, the lapsed Christian would need the sacraments of Confession, Penance, and the Mass in order to be restored, if they had not committed the unpardonable sin. Justification is viewed as the process of transformation, the “renewing of the Holy Ghost,” by which a person is actually made righteous.

This teaching of “transformational justification” is the opposite of what the Reformers saw. They saw justification as the state of the believer by which he is right with God because of the merits of Christ. Rather that being made perfectly righteous, the believer is counted righteous on Christ’s behalf. This enables the sinner to enter into favor and right standing with God, so that the work of the Spirit can proceed within the one who is justified. This made it possible for the Holy Spirit to transform the believer. This transformation is called sanctification and not justification. This transformation would advance, never perfect in this life, to a perfection received at the Coming of Christ. It is justification that makes sanctifying transformation possible and not the other way around.

The error of the term “re-justification” is the same as the mistaken idea of “transformational justification.” Justification is a once-for-all-time reality that has vital, ongoing consequences in the future life of the Christian. The justified person does not need to be re-justified. Just like in our natural, physical birth, a person is born once. This event is the beginning of a long life of being a “born” person. But there is no need to be born (in the natural sense) again or repetitively. This fact is so obvious that it sounds ridiculous to even state it. But, the idea of “re-justification” is just as ridiculous as saying a person has to be repetitively born.

Justification is like regeneration. Initially regeneration occurs when God plants a new heart or nature in a sinner and makes him or her alive to God. When a person is born again they do not need to be “born again” again. The Bible teaches that when a person is born of the Spirit it is a one time event that provides a new creation or new nature that continues on in the remainder of one’s life. The presence of the new creation or nature continues through the believer’s life, but the believer does not need to be born again over and over. Therefore, using the phrase “re-justification” is as unnecessary as saying one must be “born again” again.

View article pdf at "Re-Justification"