KH believes the Light Doctrine??

[pelathais]

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.

One commentator spoke of John 3:5 in this way:

5. of water and of the Spirit--A twofold explanation of the "new birth," so startling to Nicodemus. To a Jewish ecclesiastic, so familiar with the symbolical application of water, in every variety of way and form of expression, this language was fitted to show that the thing intended was no other than a thorough spiritual purification by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Indeed, element of water and operation of the Spirit are brought together in a glorious evangelical prediction of Ezekiel ( Eze 36:25-27 ), which Nicodemus might have been reminded of had such spiritualities not been almost lost in the reigning formalism. Already had the symbol of water been embodied in an initiatory ordinance, in the baptism of the Jewish expectants of Messiah by the Baptist, not to speak of the baptism of Gentile proselytes before that; and in the Christian Church it was soon to become the great visible door of entrance into "the kingdom of God," the reality being the sole work of the Holy Ghost ( Tts 3:5 ).

Jamieson, Robert; A.R. Fausset; and David Brown. "The Gospel According to John." Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Blue Letter Bible. 19 Feb 2000. 27 Sep 2007.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Jhn/Jhn003.html.

[Sam]

And, in speaking of the new birth to Nicodemus, Jesus said, "We're talking about things which we have seen and we are testifying about things that we know about." So Jesus and His disciples had seen people born again and knew of people who had been born again at that time. Jesus then went on and explained how folks were born again in the words recorded in verses 14-21.
He's talking about the same folks that John speaks of in verses 12 and 13 of chapter 1 of his Gospel. There he speaks of those who had been born of God because they had received Jesus and believed in His name.

This also agrees with John's explanation of the new birth in 1 John 5:1 where he writes, "If you believe that Jesus is the Christ --that he is God's Son and your Savior-- then you are a child of God."

Originally Posted by Sam

And, in speaking of the new birth to Nicodemus, Jesus said, "We're talking about things which we have seen and we are testifying about things that we know about." So Jesus and His disciples had seen people born again and knew of people who had been born again at that time. Jesus then went on and explained how folks were born again in the words recorded in verses 14-21.
He's talking about the same folks that John speaks of in verses 12 and 13 of chapter 1 of his Gospel. There he speaks of those who had been born of God because they had received Jesus and believed in His name.

This also agrees with John's explanation of the new birth in 1 John 5:1 where he writes, "If you believe that Jesus is the Christ --that he is God's Son and your Savior-- then you are a child of God."

You are a butcher by profession, right?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Joseph

You are a butcher by profession, right?

No, actually I am a retired paper pusher from GE.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Sam

Just curious,
who on this forum do you consider to be dogs and pigs?
Care to name some names?

Bump for Light

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I partiallly quoted Adino when referring to a plausible interpretation of John 3. The post is mine. Happy refuting. And please pass over the 3 step magic decoder ring when you do.

I happen to like Adino and you also but the stretches you guys go to?????

So water is Spirit and Spirit is Spirit.

Yes in scripture there are passages where water types the Spirit. But in this verse to make it redundant. I don't think so. The passage in Ezk. has not been fulfilled yet it does not apply at all.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I happen to like Adino and you also but the stretches you guys go to?????

So water is Spirit and Spirit is Spirit.

Yes in scripture there are passages where water types the Spirit. But in this verse to make it redundant. I don't think so. The passage in Ezk. has not been fulfilled yet it does not apply at all.

Oh ... okay.

[Light]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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.

Yes the words are harsh but they are not my words, they are the words of Jesus. Jesus also said in the same chapter beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Anyone that has know the truth and then goes back on it are in that category. Heb:6:4 says it is impossible for someone that has tasted this wonderful truth and then falls away to find repentance. (fall away is not backsliding, but going back on truth)

As Jesus prayed to the father he said I have given them (apostles) your word ,your word are truth and they have received them. I pray not for the world but I pray for them (apostles) and those that will believe on me through their words. The first words out of Peters mouth when the people ask what shall we do was repentance, water and spirit. The water was not the Spirit and the Spirit was not the water but two different actions. The only way to salvation is through water and Spirit just as Jesus said in John 3. When Cornelius received the Holy Ghost immediately Peter baptized him. Water and Spirit. There wasn’t a man that was more repented that Cornelius yet he was not saved. The angel told Cornelius call for Peter (Acts 11:14) Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

Paul met with men who believed in Jesus yet they were lost. Paul ask them if they had the Spirit. They said they never heard of the Spirit. Paul ask “HOW WERE YOU BAPTISED” Paul baptized them (water) then they received the Spirit.

To say that Jesus didn't actualy mean water baptism in John 3 means that the apostles realy didn't understand the words that Jesus told them.
Romans through Rev. is written to the church and not to sinners. The words written in these books were written to people that had already obeyed Acts 2:38. To use verses from these book to try to prove your point is folly.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Light

To say that Jesus didn't actualy mean water baptism in John 3 means that the apostles realy didn't understand the words that Jesus told them.

This is a silly statement. That baptism was an important part of the early church does not prove it is the topic of Christ in John 3. It most certainly does not prove it was considered by the Apostles as part of the new birth. There are important non-salvific reasons for the practice. I would like you to exegete John 3 for us as well. Do not give us your interpretation of the purpose of baptism. I personally think your interpretation of its purpose falls under the teachings of the "false prophets" you mentioned.

Please, exegete, John 3 as if it was the only text you had available. What do the words "born of water" mean in textual context? Show me why you feel the author means baptism in this passage. Why do you reject the possibility that the author simply uses the word "water" metaphorically as he does soon afterwards in chapters 4 (v10-16) and 7 (v37-39)? Why not allow the author to define his own terms?