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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[staysharp]

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

I've come to the conclusion they really don't care. They just don't care what the bible says. If it doesn't fit their traditions, they just make excuses and try to cover up and explain away the text.

[Joelel]

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

I believer there is inconsistency in the bible.I can show you many.We must understand man wrote the bible and yes they think they were inspired of God to write and may have been but man makes mistakes and are not perfect no matter how inspired they think they are.We see this in many different understandings of the bible.

[Adino]

Joelel, do not confuse textual controversy with doctrinal consistency. Salvational truth is not contradictive. Inconsistent theological implications of a false position are the dilemma of the errant interpreter and not of the Scripture.

[Joelel]

I've come to the conclusion they really don't care. They just don't care what the bible says. If it doesn't fit their traditions, they just make excuses and try to cover up and explain away the text.

Yes I do care,I have the mind of Christ (anointing).The Spirit teaches me all things and I need no man to teach me.

[Joelel]

Joelel, do not confuse textual controversy with doctrinal consistency. Salvational truth is not contradictive. Inconsistent theological implications of a false position are the dilemma of the errant interpreter and not of the Scripture.

Man gets their doctrin from text scripture.Right there is only one salvation truth as there is only one truth of anything.

[Adino]

Joelel, would you agree that truth is consistent and not contradictory?

[Joelel]

Joelel, would you agree that truth is consistent and not contradictory?

Yes

[tbpew]

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?
not without revisiting your viewing perspective.

The words that we read as “New birth” are a self-evident witness of a former birth.
God has purposed a deliverance from the former birth’s strongholds; the taskmaster, the body of sin that holds us captive, is to be destroyed by our crossing through the waters of baptism.

The new [wine] can abide within the former [bottle]…for a season, but the two can not continue to cohabitate. If this condition does persist, the new wine will burst the former bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.

Your scenario is attempting to highlight a logical inconsistency in your perception of a particular view involving a participant in the new birth. I am asking you to consider the principles involved when a former taskmaster has not been crucified and a new master is seeking to have dominion.

The most vivid witness of this within the temporal realm is when we see the scene revealed involving the Exodus of Israel from Egypt. So, using your two scenarios:

1. If one is delivered from the former taskmaster without the new, they would wander in the wilderness, as sheep having no shepherd; a house sweep clean but vacant and subject to a return of the old with reinforcements.

2. If they were to enter into the new, without the death of the former, the former would seek to retake them to re-establish their service (as slaves) to a former mastery. This condition would be lived as constant torment due to the instability of a double-minded person.

Can one or the other of these two conditions that define an incomplete state occur? Certainly they can, but only for a space or a season. The incompleteness will eventually cause the traveler to fall short of the destination being sought.

[Pressing-On]

not without revisiting your viewing perspective.

The words that we read as “New birth” are a self-evident witness of a former birth.
God has purposed a deliverance from the former birth’s strongholds; the taskmaster, the body of sin that holds us captive, is to be destroyed by our crossing through the waters of baptism.

The new [wine] can abide within the former [bottle]…for a season, but the two can not continue to cohabitate. If this condition does persist, the new wine will burst the former bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.

Your scenario is attempting to highlight a logical inconsistency in your perception of a particular view involving a participant in the new birth. I am asking you to consider the principles involved when a former taskmaster has not been crucified and a new master is seeking to have dominion.

The most vivid witness of this within the temporal realm is when we see the scene revealed involving the Exodus of Israel from Egypt. So, using your two scenarios:

1. If one is delivered from the former taskmaster without the new, they would wander in the wilderness, as sheep having no shepherd; a house sweep clean but vacant and subject to a return of the old with reinforcements.

2. If they were to enter into the new, without the death of the former, the former would seek to retake them to re-establish their service (as slaves) to a former mastery. This condition would be lived as constant torment due to the instability of a double-minded person.

Can one or the other of these two conditions that define an incomplete state occur? Certainly they can, but only for a space or a season. The incompleteness will eventually cause the traveler to fall short of the destination being sought.

Excellent!!!

[Adino]

TBPew, heading out for the evening. Before I get back to your response will you then tell us, for the record, that you accept the inconsistencies I've listed as being "temporal realities?" You then admit the inconsistencies exist for a time, right? Just want to make it clear to everyone where you stand.

Btw, I believe the taskmaster you speak of was crucified with Christ almost 2000 years ago. Having come to the understanding and faith that we have been delivered from this taskmaster we are to live a life accordingly. The regenerate heart will engender regenerate behavior. No one is saying it does not.

Again, you concede that the inconsistencies are real if only for a time, right?

[tbpew]

TBPew, heading out for the evening. Before I get back to your response will you then tell us, for the record, that you accept the inconsistencies I've listed as being "temporal realities?" You then admit the inconsistencies exist for a time, right? Just want to make it clear to everyone where you stand.

Btw, I believe the taskmaster you speak of was crucified with Christ almost 2000 years ago. Having come to the understanding and faith that we have been delivered from this taskmaster we are to live a life accordingly. The regenerate heart will engender regenerate behavior. No one is saying it does not.

Again, you concede that the inconsistencies are real if only for a time, right?
I concede that the supposition you espouse would engender inconsistencies in a subsequent logical extension such as you propose.

How's that for my effort to quickly agree with you!

I said all that because I wanted to be clear that supposing or proposing point-in-time; salvation, forgiveness, regeneration, justification is POINTLESS! It serves no profit in the soul of a man. It genders strife, and distracts from the main witness that God's transformational handiwork is a continual process within the hearts of men.

What matters is the principle; I am hopeful that others will consider the main things that are recurring throughout the scriptural witness that establishes our hope:
Former and new
Outer and inner
carnal-mindedness and spiritual-mindedness
birth of the flesh and birth of the spirit

IMO, your thread-start misses the main thing and instead elects to drill down into specifics that, at best, can only be concluded with intellectual conjecture and/or hypothesised....and to what end? the clouding or elimination of teaching pertaining to God's provision of separation through water.

Adino, you be transparent and bold enough to state plainly that you teach WATER BAPTISM is just a show, for men, by men...some kind of ritualistic sacrament for folks who look at the outerward stuff

AND

I will be bold enough to say:
JESUS' death did NOT separate me from the body of sin of my old man, but rather, made a way for my old man to be crucified with him, when my faith leads me into the waters of baptism.

[Adino]

I concede that the supposition you espouse would engender inconsistencies in a subsequent logical extension such as you propose.

How's that for my effort to quickly agree with you!LOL... good job!
I said all that because I wanted to be clear that supposing or proposing point-in-time; salvation, forgiveness, regeneration, justification is POINTLESS! It serves no profit in the soul of a man. It genders strife, and distracts from the main witness that God's transformational handiwork is a continual process within the hearts of men.Ooooohh.... and you were doing so well! So you don't believe there is a point in time at which a person passes from death unto life? Just can't bring myself to agree with you on that one. The way I see it, the only strife engendered by suggesting what I have proposed is among those who reject it... wouldn't you agree? I think the water/spirit doctrine causes me strife.

That we are created unto good works is accepted by both of us. I seem to stand alone in saying one must first be newly created in order to engender the good works.

What matters is the principle; I am hopeful that others will consider the main things that are recurring throughout the scriptural witness that establishes our hope:
Former and new
Outer and inner
carnal-mindedness and spiritual-mindedness
birth of the flesh and birth of the spirit

IMO, your thread-start misses the main thing and instead elects to drill down into specifics that, at best, can only be concluded with intellectual conjecture and/or hypothesised....and to what end? the clouding or elimination of teaching pertaining to God's provision of separation through water.I think it better said that the thread just might point out some of the reasons no one prior to the 20th century taught the new birth as you propose. I think the purpose of water baptism is not clouded by this questioning but clarified.

Adino, you be transparent and bold enough to state plainly that you teach WATER BAPTISM is just a show, for men, by men...some kind of ritualistic sacrament for folks who look at the outerward stuff.I will say that baptism is the time at which one was to make his public confession concerning Christ and be welcomed into the Christian community as being saved. This was the first century practice. Man believes with the heart unto righteousness before God and confesses with his mouth unto salvation before men (Romans 10:8-10). Christ's church was to be built on a confession of him (Matthew 16:16-18). Baptism was the time at which an inquiry (eperotema) was made concerning man's faith in Christ and his good conscience toward God (1Peter 3:21). The man who expressed a faith in the finished work of Christ on the Cross was to be accepted in the Christian community at large as being saved. Since only God knows the heart (which believes unto righteousness) and man does not, an external public confession is needed for a man's peers to consider him part of the body of Christ. Only believers are to be welcomed into the Church. Baptism is the drama of decision externally picturing and declaring that which took place in the confines of the soul. It is a "likeness" of burial into death and a "likeness" of resurrection (Romans 6:5).

I will be bold enough to say: JESUS' death did NOT separate me from the body of sin of my old man, but rather, made a way for my old man to be crucified with him, when my faith leads me into the waters of baptism.I sincerely hope you do not fall into the trap of thinking your justification relies on your ability to live above sin. We are to consider ourselves as having been crucified with Christ (2000 years ago). We are to reckon ourselves alive unto God and yield ourselves to his service, but we can never be righteous enough to merit our right standing before God. Baptism does picture our resurrection unto new life, but I think it a mistake to think resurrection of the soul is effected in the baptismal tank.

I enjoy your thoughts. Thank you for your input.

[Adino]

TBPew, in answer to your first thread. To believe the inconsistencies I posted exist even temporarily is to be in theological impossibility.
It is not theologically possible for a man to, even temporarily, be risen with Christ without having received the Spirit of Life.

It is not theologically possible for a man to, even temporarily, be justified of all things yet remain condemned until he speaks with tongues.

It is not theologically possible for a man to, even temporarily, be in possession of the Spirit by which he cries Abba, Father yet not be a child of God. Born of the Spirit of God yet not a child of God.

It is not theologically possible for man to, even temporarily, possess the Spirit of Life yet remain 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.

These things simply cannot happen... even temporarily. I wholly believe that any doctrine which implies such theological impossibility is mistaken.

[Raven]

That's correct Adino, ... not even temporarily! This should also dispel the foolish notion that God sometimes gives his gifts "on credit". Good thoughts and I'm glad you posted this thread.

Raven

[tbpew]

Adino,
Your assessment of the purposefulness and functionality of a person's participation in water baptism is fully predicated on the role of a man with men, I find such a view related to God's designs and commands, as being preposterous.

Baptise has its root word in ‘bapto’. Bapto is a transformational event. Commentators direct the reader that it is a word that would be used for the 'dying of a garment'.

I have submitted (for the readers of this discussion) my understanding that the operation of baptism is to separate us from the body of sin, by the circumcision of Christ. Sin has no more dominion in death; the potency required to accomplish this separation is death.

Death is participated in when we are buried with him in baptism. I can not even attempt to explain the mechanism by which this union or 'yoking' is established. I can only respond to Good News that it is available, and as my spirit finds agreement, I act upon this agreement with my following of this instruction.

the larger scriptural witness includes:
1.The death of animals to provide a covering to nakedness provides a type and shadow.
2. The Ark of Noah's family's deliverance being separated from the water-covered earth
2.The Red Sea's judgment upon Egypt bears witness as a type and shadow.
3. Calvary bears witness of the substance.

Your teaching of water baptism's purpose has no agreement with the efficacious and beneficial outcomes that DEATH provides those whose hope is our loving saviour's sacrifice.

Adino writes:
I will say that baptism is the time at which one was to make his public confession concerning Christ and be welcomed into the Christian community as being saved
.....
Since only God knows the heart (which believes unto righteousness) and man does not, an external public confession is needed for a man's peers to consider him part of the body of Christ. Only believers are to be welcomed into the Church. Baptism is the drama of decision externally picturing and declaring that which took place in the confines of the soul. It is a "likeness" of burial into death and a "likeness" of resurrection (Romans 6:5).
-----end of excerpts from Adino's post-----

With all sincerity, I believe your teaching completely misses the mark. Your understanding of water baptism has been relegated to a work by man, for man. The witness of the functionality that water provided to enable a saving separation for Noah and Moses is completely void in your teaching, and presumably, your understanding.
Note: I do thank you for sharing your understanding, it does serve clarity for those who will read this thread

I do not dispute that there is a great opportunity for water baptism [in the name of the one who died for you] to be taught and encouraged for reasons of vain compliance with human directive. But the witness of the Ethiopian Eunuch is a true witness of the urging of the Spirit of God when the heart of hearer is in agreement with the voice of way-maker.

[Pressing-On]

Adino,
Your assessment of the purposefulness and functionality of a person's participation in water baptism is fully predicated on the role of a man with men, I find such a view related to God's designs and commands, as being preposterous.

Baptise has its root word in ‘bapto’. Bapto is a transformational event. Commentators direct the reader that it is a word that would be used for the 'dying of a garment'.

I have submitted (for the readers of this discussion) my understanding that the operation of baptism is to separate us from the body of sin, by the circumcision of Christ. Sin has no more dominion in death; the potency required to accomplish this separation is death.

Death is participated in when we are buried with him in baptism. I can not even attempt to explain the mechanism by which this union or 'yoking' is established. I can only respond to Good News that it is available, and as my spirit finds agreement, I act upon this agreement with my following of this instruction.

the larger scriptural witness includes:
1.The death of animals to provide a covering to nakedness provides a type and shadow.
2. The Ark of Noah's family's deliverance being separated from the water-covered earth
2.The Red Sea's judgment upon Egypt bears witness as a type and shadow.
3. Calvary bears witness of the substance.

Your teaching of water baptism's purpose has no agreement with the efficacious and beneficial outcomes that DEATH provides those whose hope is our loving saviour's sacrifice.

Adino writes:
I will say that baptism is the time at which one was to make his public confession concerning Christ and be welcomed into the Christian community as being saved
.....
Since only God knows the heart (which believes unto righteousness) and man does not, an external public confession is needed for a man's peers to consider him part of the body of Christ. Only believers are to be welcomed into the Church. Baptism is the drama of decision externally picturing and declaring that which took place in the confines of the soul. It is a "likeness" of burial into death and a "likeness" of resurrection (Romans 6:5).
-----end of excerpts from Adino's post-----

With all sincerity, I believe your teaching completely misses the mark. Your understanding of water baptism has been relegated to a work by man, for man. The witness of the functionality that water provided to enable a saving separation for Noah and Moses is completely void in your teaching, and presumably, your understanding.
Note: I do thank you for sharing your understanding, it does serve clarity for those who will read this thread

I do not dispute that there is a great opportunity for water baptism [in the name of the one who died for you] to be taught and encouraged for reasons of vain compliance with human directive. But the witness of the Ethiopian Eunuch is a true witness of the urging of the Spirit of God when the heart of hearer is in agreement with the voice of way-maker.
Once again - Excellent!

[Joelel]

Joelel, would you agree that truth is consistent and not contradictory?

Yes again,We must understand that the apostles didn't write in detail and because they didn't the lack of understanding on our part think there are contradictions.I can show many contradictions because of lack of detailed writtings.

2Pet.3
[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

This is why we have so many false teachings in the church.

[Joelel]

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 want to talk about inconsistencies ? You said,2. He is justified of all things yet remains condemned until he speaks with tongues.(What scripture says this ?)

[Joelel]

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?

I guess Paul didn't write things close enough to each other for some people.In Rom.chapter 6 he writes you must be baptized,then in chapter 8 he writes you must have the Spirit.Paul preached the same gospel as Peter.

Rom.6:1: What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2: God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3: Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4: Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5: For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7: For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8: Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him



Rom.8: 1: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2: For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3: For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5: For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6: For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7: Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8: So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9: But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10: And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11: But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12: Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13: For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14: For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15: For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16: The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

[Adino]

Busy night. I will see if I can get back to this later. I can't help but see the inconsistencies still stand. Analogies and all... they still stand.

Question to help later:

Tbpew, do you believe baptism effects repentance in the heart?

Btw, thank you for your thoughts thus far. If we continue I might even get you to deal with the inconsistencies I posted whether temporal or not ;)

[mizpeh]

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.

Adino, can you point to a scripture that speaks of the new birth as being born of water and born of the Spirit? Water and Spirit are ONE birth not two births. The proper phrase would be "born of water and of the Spirit" I don't know if it's correct English to distribute the word, born, in such a way. To be born again is to be "born of water and of the Spirit" and not "born of the water and born of the Spirit"

Also to be 'born of the Spirit' in other contexts like Gal 4:29 and John 3:8 is speaking the total New Birth of water and of the Spirit (the baptisms) which is a work of the Spirit ( or born of the Spirit) in which we are born of God (the Spirit). John 1:13 Those verses are not talking about just Spirit baptism alone.

I'm under the impression you would like the Spirit's new birth experience to be done in a moment of time similar to natural birth which is usually assigned an exact time, but that is not the case we find in the Bible. In Acts 8, the Samaritans did not receive the Holy Spirit until later. The complete work of the new birth, becoming part of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13), was not finished until both baptisms were fulfilled. Many times in a natural birth the water breaks long before the first breath of the baby is every taken.
Comparing the born again experience literally to the natural birth experience isn't a perfect analogy and perhaps it was not meant to be.

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


1) You're first statement is somewhat of a strawman argument because who equates "risen with Christ" with water baptism?

Water baptism is a type of burial. Repentance is a type of death (death to our old sinful lifestyle). And the baptism of the Spirit is likened unto Christ rising from the dead. You seem to have your metaphors mixed-up. :)

2) No one is condemned until they kneel before the judgement seat of Christ.

And you know we don't say that speaking in tongues saves us but it is receiving the Spirit which is salvational, Rom 8:9. Tongues is a sign that we have received the Spirit of God. You make it sound like God doesn't want to give repentant believers who have obeyed Him by being baptized in His name, Matt 28:19, His Spirit or that it isn't His good pleasure to give them the kingdom otherwise why would you imply that those who have been water baptized are condemned still because they haven't been Spirit baptized as though God is against them in some way and is not lovingly desiring to fill them with His Spirit? Or as though God doesn't want to FINISH the process of the new birth.

Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

How are we washed, sanctified, and justified according to 1 Cor 6:11? You could easily justify your position if all these things were done "by the Spirit of our God" BUT how does the "name of the Lord Jesus" fit in? Why is this the 'name whereby we MUST be saved"? How and when is the 'Name' involved in the salvation of our souls?

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?

1) All those saints in Rome to whom Paul wrote and were calling out, Abba, Father, had been baptized in Jesus name for the remission of their sins and filled with the Spirit. It would have been unheard of in the early church not to. So they could call God their Father and truly be the children of God because they had already obeyed the gospel and were born again.


The scripture you have pulled from Romans 8 was not written in the vacuum of Roman 8 but has to fit in with all the rest of the scriptures as well. What did Paul, who wrote the book of Romans, teach at Ephesus in Acts 19? Do you think Paul would teach the same things in Rome when he went there?

2) Spiritually dead, how does the Bible define that. We know that our spirits are not literally dead.

Colossians 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

I wonder if there is a difference between the remission of sin which is the circumcision of the heart made without hands at water baptism and the forgiveness of sin in Col 2:11?

Does forgiveness of sin have two aspects? One at repentance and one at water baptism...something like what bro Elpey teaches?

[tbpew]

Busy night. I will see if I can get back to this later. I can't help but see the inconsistencies still stand. Analogies and all... they still stand.

Question to help later:

Tbpew, do you believe baptism effects repentance in the heart?

Btw, thank you for your thoughts thus far. If we continue I might even get you to deal with the inconsistencies I posted whether temporal or not ;)

Adino,
In response to your question (bolded above), my understanding would presently answer..."No".

I continue to teach (and advocate) that baptism is a way provided to cut away, to separate, from a former bondage. The bondage is the body of sin, the captive is my soul. This formidable taskmaster has occassion to govern me by the operation of my carnal-mind.

I do not consider my separation from the former taskmaster as meaning I will NEVER AGAIN do the things that were commonplace when the former master had me bound. Baptism accomplishes my release from being a slave to it; my actions (post-separation from taskmaster) are now established by my own heart's choosing.

When godly sorrow leads me to to choose a new course (repentance), and this new course leads me to salvation, my actions/words are revealing the desires of my own heart. For me to have an opportunity to act upon a new course, I need to be free from the former taskmaster, else all I have is despair and frustration that my desires for turning away from the world can not be realized.

Adino, this is why I teach that salvation is a destination, a result, an outcome, of the completed journey. It is a journey that is guided by God's spirit but ACTED UPON by my choices concering which mind I will be in agreement with. God has made a way that the journey can be traveled without the former taskmaster having any dominion in my opportunities to chose.

[Pressing-On]

Adino,
In response to your question (bolded above), my understanding would presently answer..."No".

I continue to teach (and advocate) that baptism is a way provided to cut away, to separate, from a former bondage. The bondage is the body of sin, the captive is my soul. This formidable taskmaster has occassion to govern me by the operation of my carnal-mind.

I do not consider my separation from the former taskmaster as meaning I will NEVER AGAIN do the things that were commonplace when the former master had me bound. Baptism accomplishes my release from being a slave to it; my actions (post-separation from taskmaster) are now established by my own heart's choosing.

When godly sorrow leads me to to choose a new course (repentance), and this new course leads me to salvation, my actions/words are revealing the desires of my own heart. For me to have an opportunity to act upon a new course, I need to be free from the former taskmaster, else all I have is despair and frustration that my desires for turning away from the world can not be realized.

Adino, this is why I teach that salvation is a destination, a result, an outcome, of the completed journey. It is a journey that is guided by God's spirit but ACTED UPON by my choices concering which mind I will be in agreement with. God has made a way that the journey can be traveled without the former taskmaster having any dominion in my opportunities to chose.
Another excellent post, tbpew!

[Adino]

Busy week, guys. I will try to get to your thoughts when I can. Maybe later today.

Tb, it seems you have a roadie ;)

[Pressing-On]

Busy week, guys. I will try to get to your thoughts when I can. Maybe later today.

Tb, it seems you have a roadie ;)

:thumbsup

He articulates his words much better than I! Being that I agree with him, I'm giving him the thumbs up. I can't add anything that sounds better, so I just agree. lol

I do appreciate your input as well. My ideas are more in line with tbpew's on this subject, though. ;)

[LadyEva]

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj261/EvaHealing/BORNAGAIN.jpg