KH believes the Light Doctrine??

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Light

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.

You said all of that while ignoring John 3.

Dude, dust off the Bible and open to John 3. I'm asking about John 3.

I already said that I agree with the Apostle's teaching on baptism - but again, my question to you was on John 3:5. Show me from John 3:5 where "BORN OF THE WATER" means "water baptism." Can you do that? I don't want to get into a nasty fight. I just want to hear your exposition of John 3:5 and the context.

You really can't do it can you? And yet you call people "pigs and swine" when they admit that they can't do the same thing that you cannot do- again it's John 3:5. Turn there and enlighten me.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You said all of that while ignoring John 3.

Dude, dust off the Bible and open to John 3. I'm asking about John 3.

I already said that I agree with the Apostle's teaching on baptism - but again, my question to you was on John 3:5. Show me from John 3:5 where "BORN OF THE WATER" means "water baptism." Can you do that? I don't want to get into a nasty fight. I just want to hear your exposition of John 3:5 and the context.

You really can't do it can you? And yet you call people "pigs and swine" when they admit that they can't do the same thing that you cannot do- again it's John 3:5. Turn there and enlighten me.

Pelathais,

Can you show what you believe John 3:5 means? maybe I missed it in a prior post. Could you give me a link if I did?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Pelathais,

Can you show what you believe John 3:5 means? maybe I missed it in a prior post. Could you give me a link if I did?

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.

In an earlier post I said:

Originally Posted by pelathais

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."

Baptism in Jesus name as practiced by Apostolics today is, in my opinion, the valid reproduction of an ancient rite of baptism practiced by the 1st century Apostles. However, I don't think John 3:5 contains the "whole package" the way Acts 2:38 does.

In fact, to continue to use John 3:5 the way we do is really weakening our case. A Baptist (or whoever) will look at John 3:5 and conclude that if we're wrong about that, then we're probably also wrong about Acts 2:38. People are busy. Just like I was too busy to look beyond my own prejudices until someone finally corned me and called me out on it, so also are the "Evangelicals" and etc. We need to serve them a nice and clean, well defined message that doesn't have a lot of holes in it.

My point here is that we tighten up our belts (gird up our loins) and get rid of the extraneous stuff that so easily besets us. I was wrong for years about John 3:5. No big deal, we all live and learn. It's an important part of life.

[SDG]

Pela ... the parallel of being born of the flesh and born of the Spirit is also a plausible interpretation of John 3. This view is also widely accepted by many ... for the right reasons ... surely Jesus is speaking of a spiritual birth ...

In effect, we agree that John 3 is referring to being being born from above

[tv1a]

Anyone believe in the Bud Light Doctrine of Less Filling Taste Great?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Pela ... the parallel of being born of the flesh and born of the Spirit is also a plausible interpretation of John 3. This view is also widely accepted by many ... for the right reasons ... surely Jesus is speaking of a spiritual birth ...

In effect, we agree that John 3 is referring to being being born from above

I thought that's what I said. Clumsily perhaps.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I thought that's what I said. Clumsily perhaps.

Never. You articulated it quite well ... most Protestants either believe the water in John 3 is either a metaphor for the Spirit ... or Jesus making a parallel with his previous statement of being born of a woman w/ being born of God.

The result is the same ... Both interpretations agree that Jesus was not referring to water baptism but in placing our trust in the Son of God ... this is the context OF HIS WORDS.

Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.[e] 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

John the Baptist ... reinforces this w/ his disciples later in the chapter when they brought to him the question of ceremonial washing/baptism .. that this birth is from above ... not a result of a religious rite.

31"The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. 34For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God[k] gives the Spirit without limit. 35The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."[l]

The Water and Spirit PAJC view requires too many assumptions not present in this chapter.

or as I like to say the W&S Soteriological secret decoder ring.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by tv1a

Anyone believe in the Bud Light Doctrine of Less Filling Taste Great?

Don't get me started on "beer." I've got a book's worth of material about the evils of that particular brew. I can document its deleterious effects upon civilization going back to the dawn of time.

Have a little wine instead if you've got "oft infirmities." Beer is just plain evil.

(My own crazed soapbox sermons on the evils of beer should be verified with your own health care provider who will probably agree with me).

[tv1a]

I think I may have had oft infirmnities today. I did the breakfast buffet at Golden Corral. I spent the rest of the day regretting it.

Originally Posted by pelathais

Don't get me started on "beer." I've got a book's worth of material about the evils of that particular brew. I can document its deleterious effects upon civilization going back to the dawn of time.

Have a little wine instead if you've got "oft infirmities." Beer is just plain evil.

(My own crazed soapbox sermons on the evils of beer should be verified with your own health care provider who will probably agree with me).

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

The Water and Spirit PAJC view requires too many assumptions not present in this chapter.

or as I like to say the W&S Soteriological secret decoder ring.

The thing that gets me is that the importance, even the essentiallity of water baptism still has a strong case from other passages of scripture. There's really no need to force a "water baptism" into John 3:5.

And there's certainly no need to call people "pigs and swine" because they disagree with the awkward PAJC exposition of John 3:5. But if it's really that important, I'm sure "Light" is concerned enough and capable enough to show me where I'm wrong. All I ask is that we focus on John 3:5 and its context when discussing John 3:5. Don't make grand and presumptuous statements about everything else while ignoring what's right in front of us.

Light?