View Full Version : Beginning Water & Spirit Doctrine
Disciple4life
03-18-2014, 01:18 PM
Beginning Water & Spirit Doctrine
I reread Christianity Without the Cross by Fudge. Something that I noticed the second time was the start of the Water & Spirit Doctrine.
On page 120.
It appears that this connection of the Oneness Pentecostal soteriological position with conversion can be traced to the Methodist scholar Adam Clark and his widely used Biblical commentary. In their eagerness to demonstrate the necessity of the ‘new issue’ idea of baptism in Jesus Name, men like G.T. Haywood, Frank J. Ewart and Andrew Urshan discovered a ‘new’ revelation in Adam Clark’s teachings. Clarke’s theological musings brought into related considerations the water and Spirit birth idea of John 3:5 with the water and Spirit baptism idea in Acts 2:38. Given the imperative sense of the words of Jesus that such birth was essential for entrance into the kingdom of God, Haywood and Ewart drew the conclusion that the elements of their message of salvation were absolutely necessary for salvation.
On page 121 under footnote 7
David Reed who assert that the roots of this idea can be traced principally to Haywood and Andrew Urshan.
On page 332.
There is some evidence to suggest that Ewart confided to friends his doubts even about the veracity of the new birth message he had once espoused.
So this is how we got the Water & Spirit Doctrine?
Does anybody have any evidence or suggestions to the contrary?
houston
03-18-2014, 05:13 PM
Well bless Go-awd! The Apostols preached John 3:5 as the new birth of water baptism in Jesus' name FOR the remission of sins, not forgiveness, the REMISSION of sins... AND the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues!!!
houston
03-18-2014, 05:14 PM
AND they used the KING JAMES BABEL...
NOT
one of those loosey goosey modern translations!
Disciple4life
03-18-2014, 05:29 PM
I posted this to try to find out about the history of when John 3 was attached with Acts 2:38.
This is no different than asking about the first time someone spoke in tongues in America or when did we start baptizing in Jesus name in the modern age.
This kind of stuff doesn't interest anyone?
No Pentecostal History Buffs?
houston
03-18-2014, 11:43 PM
You're not going to find many here that will agree that WS doctrine was invented by Adam Clark.
Praxeas
03-19-2014, 12:11 AM
Beginning Water & Spirit Doctrine
I reread Christianity Without the Cross by Fudge. Something that I noticed the second time was the start of the Water & Spirit Doctrine.
On page 120.
It appears that this connection of the Oneness Pentecostal soteriological position with conversion can be traced to the Methodist scholar Adam Clark and his widely used Biblical commentary. In their eagerness to demonstrate the necessity of the ‘new issue’ idea of baptism in Jesus Name, men like G.T. Haywood, Frank J. Ewart and Andrew Urshan discovered a ‘new’ revelation in Adam Clark’s teachings. Clarke’s theological musings brought into related considerations the water and Spirit birth idea of John 3:5 with the water and Spirit baptism idea in Acts 2:38. Given the imperative sense of the words of Jesus that such birth was essential for entrance into the kingdom of God, Haywood and Ewart drew the conclusion that the elements of their message of salvation were absolutely necessary for salvation.
On page 121 under footnote 7
David Reed who assert that the roots of this idea can be traced principally to Haywood and Andrew Urshan.
On page 332.
There is some evidence to suggest that Ewart confided to friends his doubts even about the veracity of the new birth message he had once espoused.
So this is how we got the Water & Spirit Doctrine?
Does anybody have any evidence or suggestions to the contrary?
That sounds fishy. Protestants and Catholics came before Clark was born and many of them believe baptism is essential too (See Luther, Wesley etc)
Praxeas
03-19-2014, 12:13 AM
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/born-again-in-baptism
obriencp
03-19-2014, 06:05 AM
A good friend of mine has a very long thread on this very subject. Click if you're interested... a lot of info being thrown around. Can be hard to follow.
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=45061
obriencp
03-19-2014, 12:34 PM
Oh and I read that book too last year. Gave me a great respect for those of the PCI tradition who stood for what they believed although they were viewed as doctrinally weak and maybe even lost by some.
Disciple4life
03-19-2014, 01:38 PM
You're not going to find many here that will agree that WS doctrine was invented by Adam Clark.
I never said Clark did. I posted information that claims that Oneness Pentecostal Pioneers came to conclusions after reading his biblical commentary. There is a big difference.
At this point I have made no claims on one side or the other. All I did was ask for people's opinion on the information I read in a book.
Disciple4life
03-19-2014, 03:09 PM
A good friend of mine has a very long thread on this very subject. Click if you're interested... a lot of info being thrown around. Can be hard to follow.
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=45061
The thread started out with my initial questions. Then it got bogged down and sidetracked.
I was asking about the history of when we ask Pentecostals used John 3 as our backup verse. First Acts 2:38 then if anyone wants to question our belief we say well Jesus said you have to be born again in John 3.
Disciple4life
03-19-2014, 03:16 PM
I believe in Acts 2:38. I believe everybody should repent be baptized in Jesus name and receive the Holy Ghost by the evidence of tongues.
But why do we always go back to John 3. Look at all the verses that say John baptized with water but Jesus will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.
Jesus said in Acts 1:4-5
Being assembled together with them, he charged them, "Don`t depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which you heard from me.
5 For John indeed baptized with water, but you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
Also in the New Testament the term Kingdom of God/Heaven is used 99 times. But we are obsessed with it being use twice in John3.
KeptByTheWord
03-19-2014, 03:38 PM
There is obviously more than one baptism, as Hebrews 6 says not laying again the foundation of "baptisms" ... plural. Baptism by water, and baptism in the spirit.
It is very important to note that Jesus' earthly ministry did not begin until he was baptized by John, and then the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. Jesus was baptized by water, and by the Holy Spirit, as an example for all believers.
For the apostles, there is no record of how they themselves were baptized, so we know it was not a simultaneous experience (both water and spirit occurring at the same time). No doubt they were baptized unto Jesus during the earthly ministry of Jesus, and later went on to be spirit baptized on the Day of Pentecost, (obviously because the Holy Spirit could not come upon them until the time appointed).
Today, we know that being baptized in water, and receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit can be a single event with both water and spirit baptism happening together, or they can take place separately, but regardless.... if one wants to be a part of the body of Christ, a baptism of both water, and spirit is necessary to truly become part of the body of Christ, according to the doctrine of the apostles, and exampled by Jesus himself.
navygoat1998
03-19-2014, 03:40 PM
My church last Sunday morning!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOl70e5WlA8
Disciple4life
03-19-2014, 03:50 PM
My church last Sunday morning!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOl70e5WlA8
Beautiful! I don't care what name is on the sign outside.
Disciple4life
03-19-2014, 03:52 PM
There is obviously more than one baptism, as Hebrews 6 says not laying again the foundation of "baptisms" ... plural. Baptism by water, and baptism in the spirit.
It is very important to note that Jesus' earthly ministry did not begin until he was baptized by John, and then the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. Jesus was baptized by water, and by the Holy Spirit, as an example for all believers.
For the apostles, there is no record of how they themselves were baptized, so we know it was not a simultaneous experience (both water and spirit occurring at the same time). No doubt they were baptized unto Jesus during the earthly ministry of Jesus, and later went on to be spirit baptized on the Day of Pentecost, (obviously because the Holy Spirit could not come upon them until the time appointed).
Today, we know that being baptized in water, and receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit can be a single event with both water and spirit baptism happening together, or they can take place separately, but regardless.... if one wants to be a part of the body of Christ, a baptism of both water, and spirit is necessary to truly become part of the body of Christ, according to the doctrine of the apostles, and exampled by Jesus himself.
So the argument goes that you can not base everything on one scripture. Why do we base everything on John 3?
justlookin
03-19-2014, 04:51 PM
So the argument goes that you can not base everything on one scripture. Why do we base everything on John 3?
Well, it's based on only part of John 3. In other words, it's not based on these John 3 scriptures:
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Rather it's based on one section of John 3 while ignoring those scriptures above:
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Joh 3:5 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.
Your question of why everything is based on John 3 isn't a valid question. The question is, why is everything based on just a few scriptures of John 3 while ignoring the others.
I don't have an answer to that.
Disciple4life
03-19-2014, 05:05 PM
In the Pentecostal Herald December of 1945 it was stated-
Article on such subjects as "The New Birth" will be accepted whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consist of baptism of water and spirit.
This is in the section Our Paper The Pentecostal Herald by Oscar Vouga. It is on page six and in the third paragraph of the article.
In 1945 you could hold either view. You could even submit an article to the Pentecostal Herald as long as it was not in the spirit of controversy.
My, My, How times have changes!
KeptByTheWord
03-19-2014, 05:05 PM
John 3:5 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.
If Jesus' earthly ministry did not begin until he was baptized in water, with the Holy Spirit baptism descending upon Him, then why should we think it would be any different for us as believers?
I don't believe this is basing everything on "one scripture". There are a multitude of scriptures to correlate together that Jesus himself was baptized in water, and received the Holy Spirit. There are multiple scriptures that show that baptism in water took place, and that infilling of the spirit also took place in believers throughout the NT.
I do believe that the evidence of the infilling of the spirit should not rest only in "tongues", but ALSO in the fruit of the spirit. Tongues can and mostly are a sign of the indwelling of the spirit in one's life, but the fruit of the spirit remain the real test as to whether a life has the spirit indwelling it.... or not.
KeptByTheWord
03-19-2014, 05:14 PM
In the Pentecostal Herald December of 1945 it was stated-
Article on such subjects as "The New Birth" will be accepted whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consist of baptism of water and spirit.
This is in the section Our Paper The Pentecostal Herald by Oscar Vouga. It is on page six and in the third paragraph of the article.
In 1945 you could hold either view. You could even submit an article to the Pentecostal Herald as long as it was not in the spirit of controversy.
My, My, How times have changes!
Looking at the physical example of how Jesus was water baptized, and then received the baptism of the Holy Spirit before his earthly ministry begins, is a very clear picture of how it is for the believer also, without trying to read more or less into it through various scriptures.
If water baptism isn't necessary, why was Jesus baptized by John?
If spirit baptism isn't necessary, then for what purpose did the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus?
In all reality, the act of Jesus being baptized, and the Holy Spirit descending upon him, correlating to the beginning of his earthly ministry, paints a very clear picture for the rest of believers to follow.
Disciple4life
03-19-2014, 05:16 PM
John 3:5 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.
If Jesus' earthly ministry did not begin until he was baptized in water, with the Holy Spirit baptism descending upon Him, then why should we think it would be any different for us as believers?
I am not saying it should be any different for us.
I don't believe this is basing everything on "one scripture". There are a multitude of scriptures to correlate together that Jesus himself was baptized in water, and received the Holy Spirit. There are multiple scriptures that show that baptism in water took place, and that infilling of the spirit also took place in believers throughout the NT.
So if there is multiple scriptures (which there is) we shouldn't only use John 3.
I do believe that the evidence of the infilling of the spirit should not rest only in "tongues", but ALSO in the fruit of the spirit. Tongues can and mostly are a sign of the indwelling of the spirit in one's life, but the fruit of the spirit remain the real test as to whether a life has the spirit indwelling it.... or not.
One of my points is if you are going to preach baptism of water and spirit there are better scriptures to do it than John 3.
KeptByTheWord
03-19-2014, 05:21 PM
One of my points is if you are going to preach baptism of water and spirit there are better scriptures to do it than John 3.
OK, I see your point. I have heard many and various scriptures used to teach baptism of water and spirit.
For me, the most effective answer for all questions I had regarding the subject was to see the reality of the picture of Jesus being water baptized, and receiving the Holy Spirit BEFORE beginning his earthly ministry. That picture, to me, spoke much louder than all the culmination of scriptures that can be taken one way or another.
Disciple4life
03-19-2014, 05:24 PM
Looking at the physical example of how Jesus was water baptized, and then received the baptism of the Holy Spirit before his earthly ministry begins, is a very clear picture of how it is for the believer also, without trying to read more or less into it through various scriptures.
If water baptism isn't necessary, why was Jesus baptized by John?
If spirit baptism isn't necessary, then for what purpose did the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus?
In all reality, the act of Jesus being baptized, and the Holy Spirit descending upon him, correlating to the beginning of his earthly ministry, paints a very clear picture for the rest of believers to follow.
What the bible says-
Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Pentecostals read it like this-
Except a man be baptized in water and of the Spirit, he connot go to Heaven.
OP take great liberties to insert and decipher where they want with this scripture.
No need to do this. Preach Acts 2:38. Preach Acts 1:4-5.
justlookin
03-19-2014, 05:28 PM
Looking at the physical example of how Jesus was water baptized, and then received the baptism of the Holy Spirit before his earthly ministry begins, is a very clear picture of how it is for the believer also, without trying to read more or less into it through various scriptures.
If water baptism isn't necessary, why was Jesus baptized by John?
If spirit baptism isn't necessary, then for what purpose did the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus?
In all reality, the act of Jesus being baptized, and the Holy Spirit descending upon him, correlating to the beginning of his earthly ministry, paints a very clear picture for the rest of believers to follow.
If we wish to use Jesus as a model, the question becomes was Jesus a child of God before His baptism and the Spirit descending on Him? The second question is does the Spirit birth a child of God in the sense of "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit?
Both legitimate questions.
Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
Acts 2:38, John 3:5, Luke 24:47,49, ...
KeptByTheWord
03-19-2014, 06:26 PM
If we wish to use Jesus as a model, the question becomes was Jesus a child of God before His baptism and the Spirit descending on Him? Of course He was. It was just that his earthly ministry didn't begin until after he was baptized.
The second question is does the Spirit birth a child of God in the sense of "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit?
Both legitimate questions.
Yes, I believe so.
justlookin
03-19-2014, 07:13 PM
Of course He was. It was just that his earthly ministry didn't begin until after he was baptized.
Yes, I believe so.
We agree. :)
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.