Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
AS I said before Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
|
Light, I'm sure that you're really a swell person to be around in person and that your antagonism isn't intended to be as rough as it comes across.
I'm curious though; I was raised in the "Water and Spirit" camp and preached it that way for decades. Finally, at one point someone graciously asked me to really break down
John 3 and show them how the statement "born of the water" was intended to mean water baptism. I was stuck. I couldn't. I hadn't honestly looked at the passage with the carefulness that I should have. There are so many things that consume our time and study hours that we just take so many other things for granted. And I was guilty of that with
John 3:5.
I still believe in the importance of Jesus name baptism (in water, by immersion) and the infilling of the Holy Ghost. But I can no longer honestly say that John 3:5 is a verse that contains the "whole package."
What amazes me is the way some still will fight tooth and nail for seeing water baptism in
John 3:5. It seems that they are clinging more to the traditions of men and not doing the real work that I was finally forced to do. Without sending me to hell, calling me "swine" or a "false brother," can you show me how
John 3:5 gives the absolute and unequivical command to be water baptized that you insist it does? Give me some "light" here. Thanks in advance.
Threaded Mode
