Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

The foundation of the whole forgiveness at baptism is the way John 3 and the "New Birth" is interpreted.
John used a parallelism to explain to Nicodemus AND us what Jesus meant by being born of WATER and the Spirit.

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."
The emphasis here to Nicodemus is the word, "AND"

John..3:6
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
IOW, your are born once (of water: note Nicodemus' response about having to go back into his mother's womb), but Jesus emphatically said that wasn't enough.
You have to be born of the Spirit.
Jesus likened the Spirit of God to the wind.
You can't see the wind, you can't tell how the wind comes, (iow, it's invisible) but it's a reality.

The entire doctrine of the "New Birth" as espoused by A.D. Urshan and others rests upon this scripture.

It's been mentioned on other threads: water baptism in other references in the NT deal with death and burial. Only in Jn three can it be configured into a "birth" experience.
THAT view, with context provided proves that Jesus was stressing the need for an invisible God to work a work in individual hearts; spiritual "re-birth".

John 3 is the linchpin that all former PAJCers (3 steppers, etc) rely. If this "proof text" is removed, then it changes the entire discussion about what water baptism means to the believer. I do believe the command for baptism is an imperative, but then, so is loving our neighbor as ourselves. So is feeding the hungry, clothing the poor and providing for widows and orphans, and praying for the sick.
One is not "unsaved" by NOT doing these things, neither are they saved by doing them. Imperatively, They SHOULD be done, there is no doubt.

The other aspect is the diminuation of the efficacy of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The teaching of H2O salvation puts the onus of salvation on US!
We have NO ability to provide FOR ourselves repentance, forgiveness, justification or atonement with God outside of the sacrificial Lamb of God.

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

In the Apostolic church of the Bible water baptism was when the convert was asked to call upon the Lord to have their sins washed away.

Acts 22:16 (King James Version)
16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

The effectual element that washes away the sinner's sin was the sinner's calling upon the name of Jesus at their water baptism.

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

I thought the effectual element was the blood of Christ.

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

This symbolic "washing" was similar to that of John's baptisms as well. This might show "us guys" on the ground something to testify of a spiritual encounter with God but has nothing to do with what happened in the spirit world the moment of personal repentance when the high priest in heaven sprinkled His own blood on the heavenly mercy seat.

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

John 3:5 is epexegetical to verse 3.


The Spiritual birth is not a natural birth of the flesh THEREFORE "water and Spirit" in verse 5 does not refer to the natural birth but both terms refer to a Spiritual birth.


This is a very important passage of scripture and so is getting it right. And not only did Urshan and his company get it wrong, according to you but so did much of the early church.

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...he-Holy-Spirit

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...he-Holy-Spirit

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...he-Holy-Spirit



The biblical writers apply more than one symbol/type/metaphor to water baptism...burial, cleansing, circumcision, initation into the body of Christ, Noah's flood, the Red Sea, and the water of new birth.


A little wishy-washy aren't you? So if someone disobeys the command of Jesus Christ to be baptized, you're saying that it is okay, they are still saved.


I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying here. Salvation is synergistic. We have to appropriate the atonement that Christ has made for us by the grace of God through faith. Part of the process of appropriation is water baptism. It's our obedience to the gospel which doesn't detract from Christ's sacrifice at all, imo.

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

:yourock

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

A question:

All of the above reflects the events prior to Calvary, and only to the Jews. Therefore, how is that the seventy already had their names recorded in heaven even prior to the giving of the Holy Ghost? Luke 10:18-24.

As disciple of the Rabbi Jesus, I can say with certainty that they were all baptized in the name of Yeshua Natzeret (Jesus of Nazareth) prior to going out on their mission, as that baptism tradition (ritual) was already a common Hebraic custom between a Master and his Student.

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

I still love you.

You cannot use John 3 as a default regenerative water baptism scripture unless you are eisegetically using it for backup.
Thank you for seeing my point re: Urshan. That said, Bro. Urshan did more FOR advancing the apostolic movement than you or me.

Noone will be "saved" until we see Jesus. It's a process and been mentioned numerous times on different threads how this walk is a journey.
Of COURSE salvation is synergistic. That goes without saying!
You're implying something I never said or don't understand what I said. Water baptism is an imperative. Forgiveness/remission of sin is found ONLY in the blood of Jesus Christ. Only His sacrifice (NOT our works of obedience) forgives sin. When you hear this gospel preached, what is your response? It SHOULD be to be baptized. That is the point Jesus is making in Matthew 28. Go and disciple, baptize and evangelize this world. If someone repents and is discipled, they will be baptized because part of discipleship is baptizing a believer.

Your point of view has as many "references" as mine.
I obviously feel my theology removes any "work" for salvation, whereas you disagree and cite your many sources.
If I posted my scriptural proof texts, you would do the same and neither of us will agree with the "when" remission is applied. :beatdeadhorse

As far as your slime (whether you meant it to come across that way or not) about me being "wishy washy". If that were the case I wouldn't have a developed Bible study on Jesus' name baptism, would not urge people to get baptized in His name once they have repented and would not spend hours teaching the importance of having His name applied to them in baptism.

Your accusation of being "wishy washy" is akin to the old saw "you're weak on the message" that hardliners have used consistently over the past 30 years. I hold the same position the PCIers had, and one IMO the apostles did as well. The apostles preached Christ and him crucified. And when He was preached and folks had a change of heart about Him, they were baptized as instructed. The baptism was a direct result of repentance and forgiveness.

I disagree with your position on "when" remission is "given". I agree that the gospel is much more than a single verse (YOU said it is synergistic). You are right on. It is all about Jesus Christ.

It's all about Jesus' sacrifice. You can label this as "baptistic" or whatever you want. It's as biblically sound (if not more than) as your position, and I am sure that having been baptized in Jesus' name, filled with the Holy Ghost and doing my all for Him that one day, Lord willing, we will meet, and THEN we will know who's right. But then again, it won't matter.

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

Mizpeh, I have one question for you regarding John 3:5. At the time that Jesus said what he did in John 3:5, neither Nicodemus nor any other man could have been born of the Spirit since the Holy Ghost was not yet given. So I ask, did Jesus just condemn everyone to being outside the kingdom of God (aka heaven) that died between the time he spoke those words to Nicodemus and the time the Holy Ghost was given in Acts 2? I don't think so. So, since the Spirit part of John 3:5 cannot refer to the Holy Ghost that was given in Acts 2 then why do you think that the water refers to baptisms administered in Acts?

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

The blood of Christ is effectual as a result of the one being baptized calling upon the name of the Lord. We and the Trinitarians have "formulized" the process. To the Apostolic church of the Bible, baptism was when the convert was to call on the name of the Lord for remission of sins.