Water/Spirit - Page 12

bkstokes · #**111** 06-05-2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sept5SavedTeen

I thought OldPath's second to last post was really good. JT may disagree, but I thought it had some substance to it.

In all the Scripture I see quoted here, I've still yet to see Mark 16:16- my favorite (and my church of Christ friend's favorite) baptism verse. Actually, when it comes to hearing about the need for baptism I enjoy listening to coCers explain it, they're all organized, rational and systematic, there's going to be a lesson titled, "What's the big deal about baptism?" at the coC Gospel Meeting next week- I might go. Anyways, we're not the only ones that understand baptism as necessary for salvation, and even without John 3:5 I can't understand how anyone can call themselves a Christian without being baptized, and as for my experience in churches that didn't teach baptism for salvation (AOG), the biggest thing that bothered me was how baptisms were all done in the summer or something like that, it really bugged me. I know a Midwest Pilgrim Holiness pastor who has pastored for 10 years and has STILL not been baptized... HE'S AFRAID OF WATER! Pul---eezee! And then when you see JESUS' name baptism in Scripture, you've got that clearly as the command, that you baptize in JESUS' name, all the other arguments are futile.

As for "leaving standards" and the relationship to WS salvation. I am fully persuaded of WS but not of all the standards (or way they're presented), and myself and my assembly have a different view of 1 Cor. 11 than most OP assemblies, but we're still very much WS. I can think of two preachers in Maine alone who are WS preachers but don't teach all the standards. So, does getting rid of WS also cause one to lose standards? Or does further Scriptural study cause one to keep WS and lose some standards? Perhaps to the first question, a resounding YES to the latter.

GOD BLESS!
Bro. Alex

Before I received the Holy Ghost, I was baptized according to Matt 28. I was rebaptized according to Acts 2. Thus, I have practiced baptism and I command new converts to be baptized. Of course we must be baptized because the Lord commanded it.

The point I was bringing out is when regenration takes places.

Baron1710 · #**112** 06-05-2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rico

Ya welcome.

Kinda like the emphasis in Matt 5:28 is on the "to". One word can make all the difference in understanding scripture.

When I am elected president Rico I will nominate you for the Supreme Court, you would be a good originalist. Just look at what the text of the Constitution says.

Rico · #**113** 06-05-2008, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

When I am elected president Rico I will nominate you for the Supreme Court, you would be a good originalist. Just look at what the text of the Constitution says.

Only if they don't have rules against beards for the judges! I ain't shavin fer no one!

Baron1710 · #**114** 06-05-2008, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rico

Only if they don't have rules against beards for the judges! I ain't shavin fer no one!

And here I thought I would be appointing a Christian.

Sam · #**115** 06-05-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkstokes

Here is the thing about the Water/Spirit doctrine: If regenration takes place at baptism, then it cannot take place at Spirit Baptism. It must be one or the other. Therefore, it is illogical to say that one is born again - at baptism and then later born again at Holy Gost baptism. This would mean that a person was actually born 3 times.

So if one says that a person is born again at baptism -- then that person does not believe Spirit Baptism is essential. If the person says that one is born again at Spirit baptism -- then baptismal regenration does not occur.

Some OP's consider regeneration to be two separate experiences, two separate baptisms, which can occur miles apart geographically and years apart time wise. These two separate baptisms, one in water and one in Spirit, are considered "one baptism" in much the same way trinitarians consider three separate persons to be "one God." It all depends on what the meaning of the word "one" is. Some also teach that water baptism is the birth of water spoken of in John 3:5 but cannot be referred to as baptismal regeneration.

rgcraig · #**116** 06-05-2008, 02:20 PM

This has been an exceptional thread - - discussion without attitudes!

Just wanted to throw that in there for good measure.

Cindy · #**117** 06-05-2008, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

This has been an exceptional thread - - discussion without attitudes!

Just wanted to throw that in there for good measure.

Yes it has, a good spirited thread for a change, and no personalities. Even if we disagree.

Praxeas · #**118** 06-05-2008, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

No the first time I heard someone explain John 3:5 as not being about baptism it actually made sense to me. I feel like you have to bring a lot of baggage with you to get baptism out of that passage. So I kicked the W/S doctrine first.

When Jesus explains it he compares a natural birth to a spiritual birth...that which is born of the flesh is flesh that which is born of the spirit is spirit.

Water = natural birth
Spirit = spiritual birth

(but that's a separate thread)

What do you mean bring a lot of baggage?

Jesus was giving requirements for entering the kingdom of God...it is redundant to say one of them is natural child birth. He was giving two requirements that YOU must do. This is why I can never see water as natural child birth and it is an unused analogy. Meaning no where else does water symbolize natural child birth.

Additionally when he does make the comparison he says "Flesh gives birth to flesh" so why not say "except a man be born of flesh and Spirit he can not enter the kingdom of God"?

rgcraig · #**119** 06-05-2008, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

What do you mean bring a lot of baggage?

Jesus was giving requirements for entering the kingdom of God...it is redundant to say one of them is natural child birth. He was giving two requirements that YOU must do. This is why I can never see water as natural child birth and it is an unused analogy. Meaning no where else does water symbolize natural child birth.

Additionally when he does make the comparison he says "Flesh gives birth to flesh" so why not say "except a man be born of flesh and Spirit he can not enter the kingdom of God"?

Preconceived ideas, past experience = extra baggage.

Baron1710 · #**120** 06-05-2008, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

What do you mean bring a lot of baggage?

Jesus was giving requirements for entering the kingdom of God...it is redundant to say one of them is natural child birth. He was giving two requirements that YOU must do. This is why I can never see water as natural child birth and it is an unused analogy. Meaning no where else does water symbolize natural child birth.

Additionally when he does make the comparison he says "Flesh gives birth to flesh" so why not say "except a man be born of flesh and Spirit he can not enter the kingdom of God"?

I have said all that I have to say about it. I am not being rude, I just have exhausted all the explanations I have. I f you read my response you will know how I interpret these verses. And there is already a very good explanation for baggage. If you have a question about something I said that I haven’t already tried to explain fire away.