KH believes the Light Doctrine??

[SDG]

Originally Posted by tbpew

Would Israel have been delivered from Pharoh if they had not participated in the way of escape provided?

We participate by placing our faith in Jesus Christ ... the Way Maker ... and our Lamb.

And yes ... baptism is an act resulting from obedient faith ... but we digress ... the questions have always been what constitutes our New Birth and what happens at baptism ... moreover ... Adino and Pelathais have asked for a W&S exegesis.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Sure, but I'm getting ready to be kicked out of the office so first- just the precis: Jesus is comparing the natural birth with the supernatural birth "from above." When he says, "You must be born again of the water and the Spirit..." he is comparing the two. "The water" is the amniotic and natural birth from the womb. "The Spirit" is the supernatural birth from above.
...

That is also my understanding of John 3:5. Jesus is answering the question that Nicodemus asked. Jesus is explaining that there are two births: a first birth of water and a second birth of Spirit. He is contrasting the two and showing that the first birth (from the mother's womb) cannot be repeated so a new birth or a rebirth or a second birth or a birth from above is necessary.

[Sam]

FYI, here is the Roman Catholic view of John 3:5

This is from

"The Holy Bible
Douay Version
Translated from the Latin Vulgate
(Douay, A.D. 1609: Rheims, A.D. 1582)
With a preface by
H.E. The Cardinal Archbishop of Wesminster
This edition contains notes compiled by Bishop Challoner (1691-1781)"

This particular copy was distributed by The Catholic Truth Society and I have had it for over 40 years.

Here is how John 3:5 reads in this particular version
"Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Then there is a note which says:
"By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism;..."

So, the sacramentalists who see water baptism in John 3:5 are in agreement with an ancient Roman Catholic doctrine.

P.S. The Campbellites also teach a similar doctrine

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Sam

FYI, here is the Roman Catholic view of John 3:5

This is from

"The Holy Bible
Douay Version
Translated from the Latin Vulgate
(Douay, A.D. 1609: Rheims, A.D. 1582)
With a preface by
H.E. The Cardinal Archbishop of Wesminster
This edition contains notes compiled by Bishop Challoner (1691-1781)"

This particular copy was distributed by The Catholic Truth Society and I have had it for over 40 years.

Here is how John 3:5 reads in this particular version
"Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Then there is a note which says:
"By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism;..."

So, the sacramentalists who see water baptism in John 3:5 are in agreement with an ancient Roman Catholic doctrine.

P.S. The Campbellites also teach a similar doctrine

Yes, and I think a lot of our teachings about baptism are cloaked in Campbellite/CoC language. Both our holiness forebears and the Campbellites were developing at the same time in the same environment. Other similarities abound (despite their "anti-Pentecostal" stands) like how we name our church orgs- the old AoG was named in the same spirit as the CoC.

tbpew: just for clarification- Daniel Alicea and I have different views on this. I don't think DA is "wrong," I just lean in a little different direction than he appears to. I think am in agreement with you about all you've said concerning baptism. I agree with the importance you've placed upon baptism itself.

My point is: John 3:5 simply doesn't convey the "whole package." And when we try to force the old PAoJC "water and Spirit" meaning into it - we're doing ourselves and John 3:5 a disservice.

What I'm looking for is a discussion on John 3:5 and its context; not a platform for eliminating the need for baptism.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Yes, and I think a lot of our teachings about baptism are cloaked in Campbellite/CoC language. Both our holiness forebears and the Campbellites were developing at the same time in the same environment. Other similarities abound (despite their "anti-Pentecostal" stands) like how we name our church orgs- the old AoG was named in the same spirit as the CoC.

Pelathais, good point. Do not forget, also, that Glenn Cook, the man who baptized Ewart and Haywood, had been raised under the influence of men who followed the teachings of Alexander Campbell. Campbellites stressed baptismal sin remission rather than justification by faith alone by disregarding very plausible and grammatically sound alternative interpretations of Acts 2:38. The extreme emphasis of the saving Name of Jesus during the New Issue controversy would have melded beautifully with Cook's very possible internal leanings toward baptismal sin remission.

It's been said that Frank Ewart, Glenn Cook, and G.T.Haywood were in attendance during R.E. McAlister's famous sermon on Jesus Name baptism in 1913 at a camp meeting in Arroyo Seco, California. A sermon, I should add, which was given to confront a growing heresy of requiring men to be dipped three times when baptized. A dip for the Father, a dip for the Son, and a dip for the Holy Ghost. With Cook's predisposition toward baptismal sin remission and Ewart's likely influence by E.W. Kenyon concerning a legal and vital side of redemption and justification it can be seen how the idea of water baptism in Jesus Name Only came to carry such salvific importance when these two men put their minds together.

On April 15, 1914, soon after hearing the Jesus Name baptismal message, Ewart rebaptized Cook, and Cook rebaptized Ewart. These two men very likely had a great influence on the early oneness movement concerning changed views of the time of sin remission. G.T. Haywood, under the influence of Ewart and Cook turned his back on his initial thoughts penned in 1914 that "as soon as we believe, they [our sins] become as white as snow." He was rebaptized by Cook about a year later, in 1915, and eventually took on the Campbellite view.

When Haywood mixed his newly found baptismal views with his developing thoughts on the reconnection of Spirit baptism to being born of the Spirit the three step message of salvation came into formulation. Since he had failed to return to the initial Pentecostal view of two separate Spirit baptisms, one at conversion and one subsequent to conversion accompanied by tongues, he unfortunately drew the Pentecostal second experience, which had become connected to tongues speech, into initial conversion. John 3:5 was a convenient passage to support this newfound formula. Thus all other plausible interpretations concerning "born of water" were discarded. They simply did not fit the template.

[SDG]

Thank you Adino for the informative backdrop info ... very interesting to see the development of the W&S doctrine.

[SDG]

Adino,

Is there a transcript, sermon notes or an outline of McAllister's message? Or is it all anecdotal information?

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Adino,

Is there a transcript, sermon notes or an outline of McAllister's message? Or is it all anecdotal information?

I do not know. If they exist, I would be interested in seeing these notes as well.

[Adino]

I think it should be mentioned also that without John 3:5 there is no connection of water baptism to being born again. The passage is of great importance to the water/spirit new birth position. Yes, baptism is important, but to say it is part of the new birth is outside the support of Scripture.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Adino

Pelathais, good point. Do not forget, also, that Glenn Cook, the man who baptized Ewart and Haywood, had been raised under the influence of men who followed the teachings of Alexander Campbell. Campbellites stressed baptismal sin remission rather than justification by faith alone by disregarding very plausible and grammatically sound alternative interpretations of Acts 2:38. The extreme emphasis of the saving Name of Jesus during the New Issue controversy would have melded beautifully with Cook's very possible internal leanings toward baptismal sin remission.

It's been said that Frank Ewart, Glenn Cook, and G.T.Haywood were in attendance during R.E. McAlister's famous sermon on Jesus Name baptism in 1913 at a camp meeting in Arroyo Seco, California. A sermon, I should add, which was given to confront a growing heresy of requiring men to be dipped three times when baptized. A dip for the Father, a dip for the Son, and a dip for the Holy Ghost. With Cook's predisposition toward baptismal sin remission and Ewart's likely influence by E.W. Kenyon concerning a legal and vital side of redemption and justification it can be seen how the idea of water baptism in Jesus Name Only came to carry such salvific importance when these two men put their minds together.

On April 15, 1914, soon after hearing the Jesus Name baptismal message, Ewart rebaptized Cook, and Cook rebaptized Ewart. These two men very likely had a great influence on the early oneness movement concerning changed views of the time of sin remission. G.T. Haywood, under the influence of Ewart and Cook turned his back on his initial thoughts penned in 1914 that "as soon as we believe, they [our sins] become as white as snow." He was rebaptized by Cook about a year later, in 1915, and eventually took on the Campbellite view.

When Haywood mixed his newly found baptismal views with his developing thoughts on the reconnection of Spirit baptism to being born of the Spirit the three step message of salvation came into formulation. Since he had failed to return to the initial Pentecostal view of two separate Spirit baptisms, one at conversion and one subsequent to conversion accompanied by tongues, he unfortunately drew the Pentecostal second experience, which had become connected to tongues speech, into initial conversion. John 3:5 was a convenient passage to support this newfound formula. Thus all other plausible interpretations concerning "born of water" were discarded. They simply did not fit the template.

Two points:
1. Haywood was not at the California camp.
2. I seriously doubt Cook and the Campbellites of course we have discussed this before. He was a disciple of Durham. He and Ewart.