History of the Water and Spirit Doctrine
 

I am not aware of any groups in the history of Christianity before early Oneness believers in the first part of the 20th century who have taught that salvation is a process that involves water baptism and Spirit baptism with the sign tongues, and that until a person has been baptized and spoken in tongues, he has no salvation. All other groups that I'm aware of have taught that salvation occurs at a particular point, either at baptism or at faith alone.

Are you aware of any other groups who have taught the water and Spirit doctrine embraced by the majority of Oneness believers? There is of course debate over whether the apostles and the first believers did, so I'm not asking about whether you think they did. What groups post-New Testament have taught this?

Re: History of the Water and Spirit Doctrine
 

Frank Ewart considered the Arroyo Seco camp meeting revelation as something new. I cannot think of anyone claiming to have already practiced or believed the new birth message.

That referred to the Oneness of God.

Re: History of the Water and Spirit Doctrine
 

People who read their Bibles outside of any organized movement. :)

Re: History of the Water and Spirit Doctrine
 

Re: History of the Water and Spirit Doctrine
 

Just to make sure I understand, you're saying that what Ewart said about the revelation at Arroyo Seco had to do with the Oneness of God?

From what I've read so far is seems like the teaching that connected John 3:5 and Acts 2:38 and considered the new birth, or initial salvation, as a process and not a point in time originated in the 1910s and 1920s and is unique in the history of the Christianity. I am very interested to know if any other groups may have taught this as well.

Since I attend a UPCI church, I am in particular interested in how two organizations (PAJC and PCI) formed a merger though no unanimity existed regarding how Acts 2:38 was to be understood, though all practiced it. (Now there is, officially at any rate, unanimity: the PAJC view has prevailed, that is, the doctrine of water and Spirit. It interests me a great deal that it was not always so.)

Re: History of the Water and Spirit Doctrine
 

To my knowledge no groups that were large enough to be noticed by historians taught the true new birth message since the great falling away of the early Church.

Catholics teach being born of water and spirit. They say it means the same as we say it means except they practice baby baptism and Trinity baptism. They believe one is born of the Spirit at confirmation far as I know. Obviously no tongues or prophecy.

The Church of Christ teaches born of water and spirit. Born of water is baptism. But in their belief the Spirit birth also occurs WITH baptism. They discount any thought of God manifesting himself personally.

There are groups or Churches that do teach being born of water and Spirit but NOT the Oneness of God.

James Lee Beals Charismatic Church in Detroit taught born of water and Spirit both in Jesus name and with tongues. Yet they were Trins.

Re: History of the Water and Spirit Doctrine
 

Did you ever read William Chalfant Ancient Champions of Oneness or Oneness Pentecostalism: History of the Jesus Name Movement by Daniel Butler?

Re: History of the Water and Spirit Doctrine
 

It was not unique in the history of Christianity. The original Church started by Jesus taught this. I believe there were small groups over the years that taught it also but apparently were to small to be noticed by historians.

Ewart was used of the Lord to further along the restoration that began by Charles Parham in 1901. His is a great story. He gets almost no credit among Oneness believers. Hardly any of them ever heard of him.

Re: History of the Water and Spirit Doctrine
 

I have posted excerpts from newsletters published by Pentecostals prior to the 1913 Arroyo Seco campmeeting demonstrating that many Pentecostals understood receiving the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking with tongues as the initial reception of the Spirit in regeneration. Also, again prior to Arroyo Seco, many did baptise in Jesus name instead of using the trinitarian formula. So the "water and spirit" concept was already floating around Pentecostal circles pretty much from the beginning. Those ideas were argued against by prominent pioneer leaders which proves those ideas existed and were gaining traction.

Further, there is not a single distinctive Protestant doctrine that can be traced historically in continuous fashion from the first century to the present. Nor is there a single distinctively catholic doctrine that can be similarly traced although most catholic doctrines predate any Protestant groups.

But the records DO show that Oneness was at one time the predominant view, that immersion in the name of Jesus of believers (not infants) was at that same time the predominant mode and that baptism was considered at least part of regeneration, that John 3:5 was understood as including water baptism, and that receiving the Holy Spirit was at least near universally understood as an ecstasis with accompanying oral charismata, again during the same period of time. And those records are largely found in the anteNicene writings.

Re: History of the Water and Spirit Doctrine
 

:thumbsup