KH believes the Light Doctrine??

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

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.

Hey ya, Steve. The book "United We Stand" by Arthur and Charles Clanton speaking of the Arroyo camp meeting reads as follows:

"Sitting in the congregation at this camp meeting were three who were to become staunch advocates for Oneness and baptism in Jesus’ name. The three were Frank J. Ewart, G. T. Haywood, and Harry Morse. Of this occasion,
Morse wrote, “After we listened to Brother Schaepe’s new ideas on water baptism in Jesus’ name and the Oneness of the Godhead, we agreed that we believed that he had something. We finally left one another from the camp
meeting. In the following months, God began to deal with Brother Ewart, Brother Haywood, and finally with me, and we came out on this line.”

(©1970, Pentecostal Publishing House Revised Edition 1995, Word Aflame Press Hazelwood, MO 63042-2299)

The Clantons seem to place Haywood at the meeting, Steve.

Concerning Cook's influence by the Campbellites: He writes of his Campbellite upbringing. What influence this would have had on his later theology cannot be casually dismissed.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Adino

Hey ya, Steve. The book "United We Stand" by Arthur and Charles Clanton speaking of the Arroyo camp meeting reads as follows:

"Sitting in the congregation at this camp meeting were three who were to become staunch advocates for Oneness and baptism in Jesus’ name. The three were Frank J. Ewart, G. T. Haywood, and Harry Morse. Of this occasion,
Morse wrote, “After we listened to Brother Schaepe’s new ideas on water baptism in Jesus’ name and the Oneness of the Godhead, we agreed that we believed that he had something. We finally left one another from the camp
meeting. In the following months, God began to deal with Brother Ewart, Brother Haywood, and finally with me, and we came out on this line.”

(©1970, Pentecostal Publishing House Revised Edition 1995, Word Aflame Press Hazelwood, MO 63042-2299)

The Clantons seem to place Haywood at the meeting, Steve.

Concerning Cook's influence by the Campbellites: He writes of his Campbellite upbringing. What influence this would have had on his later theology cannot be casually dismissed.

Adino,

Your historical knowledge is requested on a thread I've started on RE McAlister ... here:

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=8374

[lad]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed in a former post or not...

Concerning John 3:5, let me give this information for your consideration:

The word "and" in that particular verse can also be interpreted "even"...

"Jesus answered, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, except a man be born of water (a. - and)(b. - even) the Spirit, he cannot (ever) enter the kingdom of God. - Amplified Bible

Your thoughts......

[Sam]

Originally Posted by lad

I'm not sure if this has been discussed in a former post or not...

Concerning John 3:5, let me give this information for your consideration:

The word "and" in that particular verse can also be interpreted "even"...

"Jesus answered, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, except a man be born of water (a. - and)(b. - even) the Spirit, he cannot (ever) enter the kingdom of God. - Amplified Bible

Your thoughts......

That is known as Granville Sharp's rule which has been stated a couple of different ways:


1 Kenneth Wuest, in his _Word Studies in the Greek New Testament_ defines it this way:
"We have Granville Sharp's rule here, which says that when there are two nouns in the same case connected by a kai (and), the first noun having the article, the second noun not having the article, the second noun refers to the same thing the first noun does and is a further description of it."

2 The definition given by Curtis Vaughn and Virtus Gideon:
"If two nouns of the same case are connected by a "kai" and the article is used with both nouns, they refer to different persons or things. If only the first noun has the article, the second noun refers to the same person or thing referred to in the first."

3 Granville Sharp's rule, according to Granville Sharp, is:
"When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e., it denotes a farther description of the first named person."

[Sam]

I have looked up John 3:5 in two different Greek interlinear NT's.

The Emphatic Diaglott says:
ex hudatos kai pneumatos

and The Apostolic Polyglot also says:
ex hudatos kai pneumatos

So both hudatos (water) and pneumatos (Spirit) have the conjunctive Kai (and) but neither have the article "the" so Granville Sharp's rule would not apply here. Pneumatos (Spirit) is not a further definition of hudatos (water) but a separate entity.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Sam

So both hudatos (water) and pneumatos (Spirit) have the conjunctive Kai (and) but neither have the article "the" so Granville Sharp's rule would not apply here. Pneumatos (Spirit) is not a further definition of hudatos (water) but a separate entity.

Sam, Bullinger in his "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible" points out the absence of an article before either "water" or "Spirit." He states, "There is no article to either of the two nouns..... That only one thing is meant by the two words is clear from verses 6 and 8, where only the Spirit (the one) is mentioned.... Hence only one thing is meant: - 'Except a man be begotten of water, yes - and spiritual water too, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' " Bullinger goes on to connect the water of 3:5 with the water further defined as the Spirit in John 7:38-39.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Adino

Hey ya, Steve. The book "United We Stand" by Arthur and Charles Clanton speaking of the Arroyo camp meeting reads as follows:

"Sitting in the congregation at this camp meeting were three who were to become staunch advocates for Oneness and baptism in Jesus’ name. The three were Frank J. Ewart, G. T. Haywood, and Harry Morse. Of this occasion,
Morse wrote, “After we listened to Brother Schaepe’s new ideas on water baptism in Jesus’ name and the Oneness of the Godhead, we agreed that we believed that he had something. We finally left one another from the camp
meeting. In the following months, God began to deal with Brother Ewart, Brother Haywood, and finally with me, and we came out on this line.”

(©1970, Pentecostal Publishing House Revised Edition 1995, Word Aflame Press Hazelwood, MO 63042-2299)

The Clantons seem to place Haywood at the meeting, Steve.

Concerning Cook's influence by the Campbellites: He writes of his Campbellite upbringing. What influence this would have had on his later theology cannot be casually dismissed.

Adino I could be wrong but I am thinking I read where Bishop Haywood said the first time he heard it was from Glenn Cook at Indianapolis? Again I doubt the Cook's association with the Campbellites I will have to read that myself to believe it. But I do KNOW he was associated with Durham and the 'finished work' teaching. The majority of Oneness men came out of that tradition rather than the '3 works of grace' tradition.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Adino

Sam, Bullinger in his "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible" points out the absence of an article before either "water" or "Spirit." He states, "There is no article to either of the two nouns..... That only one thing is meant by the two words is clear from verses 6 and 8, where only the Spirit (the one) is mentioned.... Hence only one thing is meant: - 'Except a man be begotten of water, yes - and spiritual water too, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' " Bullinger goes on to connect the water of 3:5 with the water further defined as the Spirit in John 7:38-39.

Sam gives an excellent exposition of Sharpe's rule.

Bullinger follows the "classic" Gnostic pattern of exegesis where key terms are disclosed in a body of writing and the "fuller" or spiritual meanings are given later in the text- the way "water" is being treated by Bullinger and others.

I don't argue against this interpretation, and I may be in error by taking such a minimalistic approach. However, what we were looking for here was a defense of the old PAoJC doctrine that "water baptism" followed by Holy Ghost baptism was intended by the phrase, "of the water and the Spirit..." in John 3:5.

Without doubting the importance of water baptism as it is described in so many other passages, can John 3:5 itself, be used to show the essentiality of water baptism the way the PAoJC and others have taught and still teach today?

[Adino]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Without doubting the importance of water baptism as it is described in so many other passages, can John 3:5 itself, be used to show the essentiality of water baptism the way the PAoJC and others have taught and still teach today?

I am still waiting, with you, to see someone present a reasonable case that it does.

Pelathais, without John 3:5 what passages do you rely on to connect water baptism to the new birth? Or maybe you do not and I've misunderstood some of your previous posts. Don't worry, I'll not turn this thread into a baptismal debate. Just curious.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Adino

I am still waiting, with you, to see someone present a reasonable case that it does.

Pelathais, without John 3:5 what passages do you rely on to connect water baptism to the new birth? Or maybe you do not and I've misunderstood some of your previous posts. Don't worry, I'll not turn this thread into a baptismal debate. Just curious.

Adino have you heard anything from our mutual friend?? I was thinking of him and his family today. His father asked me to preach for him I just don't know if I will? But if I choose to I would like to meet you.