Baptismal Regeneration?

[bkstokes]

TR

Let me also say that I by no means was writing about this in a manner to bash you or anyone else over the head. Beside all of the doctrinal inconsistencies that I see with the doctrine, I believe that the oneness pentecostal churches would be able to influence and thereby see more people baptized in Jesus name if they did not preach it as regenerational. Although Kevin J. Conner is a trinitarian (and he does not believe in baptismal regenration), he has influenced many more denominal leaders to be baptized in Jesus name then any oneness preacher that I am familiar with. A good example of his influence is the book "The Name of God".

[SDG]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Thank you Encryptus. At least YOU see the point I was making.
As you pointed out, I made it clear that I had no desire to debate the doctrine itself, but I've found that for some folks, that's not enough...

That's why I actually try to limit my comments on certain topics here.

What I have found is that there are some among us who seem to almost live for these topics to come up, so they can come out of the woodwork and lecture us on how wrong the "3-stepper" salvation doctrine is. Clearly some of these people here have have an agenda, and frankly, I cant really be bothered arguing with them any more. I've heard virtually all their arguments, and find them unconvincing and flawed. I'll let them suck some other unsuspecting person into their vortex of endless and circular debates. As for me, I'll just sit on the sidelines and watch.

When it comes to the essentials of Bible doctrine, I already know what I believe; I have nothing to prove to them, and am not going to be convinced by what they're trying to prove to me and the rest of us.

Blessings.

TR ... let you in a little secret ...

this ain't about convincing you. Some of us are just married to doctrines.

I would like to see you address your affinity for Justin Martyr's teachings on regeneration... but perhaps another day?

[bkstokes]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

TR ... let you in a little secret ...

this ain't about convincing you. Some of us are just married to doctrines.

I would like to see you address your affinity for Justin Martyr's teachings on regeneration... but perhaps another day?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

TR ... let you in on a little secret ...

this ain't about convincing you. Some of us are just married to doctrines.

I would like to see you address your affinity for Justin Martyr's teachings on regeneration... but perhaps another day?

Dan, allow me to let you in on a little secret.

Some of you guys here are really not as wise and clever as you think yourselves to be.

------

And the mere fact that you think I have "an affinity for Justin Martyr's teachings on regeneration" either shows just how much you're missing the point of what I've said, or perhaps it's just another cynical attempt on your part to bait me into a debate on the issue.

Anyway...carry on, sir.

[bkstokes]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Dan, allow me to let you in on a little secret.

Some of you guys here are really not as wise and clever as you think yourselves to be.

------

And the mere fact that you think I have "an affinity for Justin Martyr's teachings on regeneration" either shows just how much you're missing the point of what I've said, or perhaps it's just another cynical attempt on your part to bait me into a debate on the issue.

Anyway...carry on, sir.

I know that his remark is cynical but I think it has some merit. It could be said that the Catholic church slowly evolved into what it is today. There is no doubt that part of this evolution has been an inordinate amount of dependance upon their church's sacraments.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by bkstokes

I have read a few things. To be honest with you, I skip over those parts because he says that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all their own spirit forms. I do not agree with that.

What did you think of his trinity statements?

It's been a long time since I read anything in that Bible.
It's just gathering dust.
I may not remember this correctly but I think I read in one of his notes that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each had individual body, soul, spirit. This way the trinity was three separate beings and each being had a body, soul, and spirit. Maybe I quit reading too soon but this just seemed "off" to me.

I realize trinitarians and oneness may use the word "person" differently but what little I read by Dake seemed almost like tritheism.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

...
As an aside, in the first century converts to Judaism were baptized for the remission of sins and even they debated whether it was to remit sins or because sins had been remitted. I believe all TR was trying to say "without getting into a debate on the merits of the doctrine" is that BOTH beliefs were debated, perhaps as early as the FIRST century.

And here we are in 2008, still discussing whether the "for" or "eis" in Acts 2:38 means "in order to obtain remission/forgiveness of sins" or "because of remission/forgiveness of sins." Maybe there really is nothing new under the sun.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Thank you Encryptus. At least YOU see the point I was making.
As you pointed out, I made it clear that I had no desire to debate the doctrine itself, but I've found that for some folks, that's not enough...

That's why I actually try to limit my comments on certain topics here.

What I have found is that there are some among us who seem to almost live for these topics to come up, so they can come out of the woodwork and lecture us on how wrong the "3-stepper" salvation doctrine is. Clearly some of these people here have have an agenda, and frankly, I cant really be bothered arguing with them any more. I've heard virtually all their arguments, and find them unconvincing and flawed. I'll let them suck some other unsuspecting person into their vortex of endless and circular debates. As for me, I'll just sit on the sidelines and watch.

When it comes to the essentials of Bible doctrine, I already know what I believe; I have nothing to prove to them, and am not going to be convinced by what they're trying to prove to me and the rest of us.

Blessings.

Bro. French,
I don't know if you are UPC or not, but when the UPC was originally formed allowance was made for both doctrinal stands that we now call "one-step" and "three-step" on these forums. The idea was that "one-steppers" and "three-steppers" would respect one another and fellowship one another. Over the years the "three-steppers" marginalized the "one-steppers" and tried to silence them or squeeze them out. This pretty well happened through the revision of fundamental doctrine statement in 1973 and then the affirmation statement in 1992. I'm sure there are many "closet" one-steppers in the UPC but they are afraid to let it be known for fear that they will be considered heretics. This is not the original intent of the elders who established the UPC over 60 years ago.

Today in 2008, as a "one-stepper" I need to remind myself that these old timers in 1945 meant for "one-steppers" and "three-steppers" to get along together and to respect one another. Some times in my posts I act as poorly as some of the "three-steppers" have over the years. That attitude isn't right. Nor is it right to respond in the same manner that I as a one-stepper have been treated.

[bkstokes]

Originally Posted by Sam

It's been a long time since I read anything in that Bible.
It's just gathering dust.
I may not remember this correctly but I think I read in one of his notes that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each had individual body, soul, spirit. This way the trinity was three separate beings and each being had a body, soul, and spirit. Maybe I quit reading too soon but this just seemed "off" to me.

I realize trinitarians and oneness may use the word "person" differently but what little I read by Dake seemed almost like tritheism.

Yes that is what I didn't like about his comments. You are correct. He wrote that all of them had spirit body, soul and spirit. That also seems like tritheism to me.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by bkstokes

The question that I am about to post is not to provoke strife and I would really prefer a 1 stepper to answer it so that there would be no contention in the matter. I joined the forum in Feb., so I have not discussed a lot of these issues with people here. This being said the question is:

How do 3 steppers deal with the passage of the Ethiopian Eunich? Phillip the Evangelist was taken from the Eunich and he was still not filled with the Holy Ghost.

In the first part you said you would prefer a one stepper to answer, then in the latter part you asked for a three stepper explanation.

As a one stepper, my explanation is as follows. Philip is called an evangelist, actually the only person called an evangelist in our New Testament. Philip had a way of preaching that got folks saved. He also had a ministry of healing and miracles. But, did not seem to have a ministry of ministering the HGB (Holy Ghost Baptism). In Acts 8 it speaks of all the folks who were saved, healed, delivered, and baptized in water but they had not received the HGB. Peter and John were sent down from the Jerusalem assembly to minister the HGB to those folks. Later in the chapter Philip was sent into the desert. He obediently went. Someone has dubbed this "from Samaria to the Sahara." When he came upon an Ethiopian Eunuch the Spirit told him to "go near and join (stick to, adhere) to his chariot. He accepted the invitation to come up into the chariot and began to explain the portion of Scripture (Isaiah chapter 53) the Ethiopian was reading and "preached unto him Jesus" (Acts 8:35). They came to some water, probably the Wadi el-Hesi north of Gaza and the eunuch requested baptism. Philip did not want to baptize someone who was not converted so he stated, "If you believe with all your heart, you may be baptized." The eunuch made a profession of faith, "I believe that Jesus is the Messiah and is the Son of God." Based on this confession of faith, the chariot was stopped, and they both went down into the water, and he (Philip) baptized him (the eunuch). Then, according to some old manuscripts, the story continues. "And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord fell upon the eunuch, and the angel of the Lord snatched Philip away..." So, it seems that the eunuch received the HGB in the water without the customary laying on of hands.