water/spirit doctrine inconsistencies?

[Adino]

Isn't it true that the water/spirit new birth doctrine teaches the following inconsistencies?


Of the man who is born of water yet not born of the Spirit:

1. He is risen with Christ without having received the Spirit of Life.

2. He is justified of all things yet remains condemned until he speaks with tongues.


Of the man who is born of the Spirit yet not born of water:

1. He is in possession of the Spirit by which he cries Abba, Father yet he is not a child of God. Born of the Spirit of God yet not a child of God.

2. He possesses the Spirit of Life yet remains spiritually dead in unremitted sin until water baptized. Spiritually united with God while at the same time retaining the cause of spiritual separation from God.


Can these theological inconsistencies be reconciled?

[Raven]

Originally Posted by Adino

Isn't it true that the water/spirit new birth doctrine teaches the following inconsistencies?


Of the man who is born of water yet not born of the Spirit:

1. He is risen with Christ without having received the Spirit of Life.

2. He is justified of all things yet remains condemned until he speaks with tongues.


Of the man who is born of the Spirit yet not born of water:

1. He is in possession of the Spirit by which he cries Abba, Father yet he is not a child of God. Born of the Spirit of God yet not a child of God.

2. He possesses the Spirit of Life yet remains spiritually dead in unremitted sin until water baptized. Spiritually united with God while at the same time retaining the cause of spiritual separation from God.


Can these theological inconsistencies be reconciled?

Good observations Adino! After spending my first 40 years of life in Pentecost I had to answer these questions myself. When I weighed what I believed to be the truth it came up short on the scale. I'm thankful that the Spirit of Truth did not fail me in that hour but did what was promised and continued to lead me toward the Light. To those who are thirsty and not content to stay in the spot they have occupied for years, I am convinced He will lead them to His Light also.
Raven

[Michael The Disciple]

As one coming from the Protestant faith to Pentecost There were several inconsistencies I dealt with.

Protestants were saying we were saved WITHOUT being baptized in water.

Yet Jesus said:

15: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:15-16

Our doctrine was this.

He that believeth and IS SAVED should be baptized.

And as we taught one was saved by praying a prayer to accept Jesus I noticed how different that sounded when at the first presentation of the gospel of Yeshua the Apostles told the seeking crowd:

37: Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39: For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

My goodness! I NEVER saw anyone in the Jesus movement which I was a part say those words to anyone!

When I began to say what Jesus and Peter said to seekers I was no longer welcome in my circle of Protestant friends.

But now I was saying the same things scripture was saying to the searchers of salvation.

I am amazed to this day 30 years later Protestants talking about inconsistencies in the Apostles doctrine when they dont even say what Jesus and his Apostles said to say.

What Protestant group did I see that baptized "straightway" or in the "same hour of the night" or "immediately"?

Yes I found glaring inconsistencies in their doctrine. I was glad when several Apostolics over time explained how we could actually take Jesus and the Apostles words as they were!

[Adino]

Michael,

I've given simple explanation for all the verses you raised and more many times in this forum. They do not contradict the position I hold in any way. That you refuse to accept an interpretation of those passages contrary to your own is beside the point. That you had no one in your circles to properly teach you on such matters when you were of the Protestant crowd is unfortunate. I do find it of interest that you do not consider yourself a Protestant now. What are you? Catholic?

The point is that the doctrinal inconsistencies I've posted exist. It is blatantly clear that you consider the inconsistencies as reality because you did not address a single one of them. Can you please reconcile your position with what has been posted? Thanks.

Raven! Good to see you, Bro.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Adino

Michael,

I've given simple explanation for all the verses you raised and more many times in this forum. They do not contradict the position I hold in any way. That you refuse to accept an interpretation of those passages contrary to your own is beside the point. That you had no one in your circles to properly teach you on such matters when you were of the Protestant crowd is unfortunate. I do find it of interest that you do not consider yourself a Protestant now. What are you? Catholic?

The point is that the doctrinal inconsistencies I've posted exist. It is blatantly clear that you consider the inconsistencies as reality because you did not address a single one of them. Can you please reconcile your position with what has been posted? Thanks.

Raven! Good to see you, Bro.

I consider myself a New Testament Christian. A disciple of Jesus. I may get time down the road to address your scripture references. A key is that the concept you embrace must not contradict the actual words of Yeshua or the Apostles.

This is where Protestant religon falls flat. Concepts that do not agree with words spoken of the New Testament writers.

[Joelel]

Originally Posted by Adino

Isn't it true that the water/spirit new birth doctrine teaches the following inconsistencies?


Of the man who is born of water yet not born of the Spirit:

1. He is risen with Christ without having received the Spirit of Life.

2. He is justified of all things yet remains condemned until he speaks with tongues.


Of the man who is born of the Spirit yet not born of water:

1. He is in possession of the Spirit by which he cries Abba, Father yet he is not a child of God. Born of the Spirit of God yet not a child of God.

2. He possesses the Spirit of Life yet remains spiritually dead in unremitted sin until water baptized. Spiritually united with God while at the same time retaining the cause of spiritual separation from God.


Can these theological inconsistencies be reconciled?

You will always find inconsistencies in the word if you don't understand you must eat the whole roll.Obey all the word.

[staysharp]

Originally Posted by Joelel

You will always find inconsistencies in the word if you don't understand you must eat the whole roll.Obey all the word.

Huh? God's word is not inconsistent. Our ignorance of His word is inconsistent.

[staysharp]

Can these theological inconsistencies be reconciled?

No they can't. And there is no reason to try. If God's word isn't consistent, it's because we don't understand it. Misapplying scripture and interpreting through the lens of assumption is disasterous and heretical.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by staysharp

No they can't. And there is no reason to try. If God's word isn't consistent, it's because we don't understand it. Misapplying scripture and interpreting through the lens of assumption is disasterous and heretical.

I also believe these inconsistencies cannot be reconciled. If a doctrine engenders such theological contradictions it must be false. If it is false, it must be abandoned for simple truth which does not lead to such nonsense.

I call on anyone who holds to the water/spirit doctrine to either reconcile the issues I've shown here or abandon the clearly contradictive doctrine which engenders such theological inconsistency. It would be the only honest thing to do.

Someone please explain how these contradictive ideas follow logical thought.

[Adino]

Joelel, if your doctrine engenders such inconsistency of thought it is a mistaken doctrine which should be discarded.