John 3: The Difference between PCI and PAJC on New Birth

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Daniel
1. What is your interpretation of John 3?
2. What does being born again really mean?
3. What was the New Birth view of early PCIers and PAJCers?
4. How did early Oneness pioneers interpret John 3 pre the merger?
5. When Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God ... is he speaking of the present, future, both? Must a distinction be made between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven?
6. If we interpret it differently are we part of the same Apostolic movement?

As I am wiped out, and my brain is fried after the events of the day, I will only attempt to explain John 3:5. I will specifically address numbers one and two on your list.

1. John 3 is what it is. A Pre-resurrection outline of cross-dispensational Truth. Even Matthew Henry recognized the import of Christ's words to Nicodemus.

2. It is probable that Christ had an eye to the ordinance of baptism, which John had used and he himself had begun to use, "You must be born again of the Spirit," which regeneration by the Spirit should be signified by washing with water, as the visible sign of that spiritual grace: not that all they, and they only, that are baptized, are saved; but without that new birth which is wrought by the Spirit, and signified by baptism, none shall be looked upon as the protected privileged subjects of the kingdom of heaven. The Jews cannot partake of the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom, they have so long looked for, unless they quit all expectations of being justified by the works of the law, and submit to the baptism of repentance, the great gospel duty, for the remission of sins, the great gospel privilege. Secondly, It is compared to wind: The wind bloweth where it listeth, so is every one that is born of the Spirit, v. 8. The same word (pneuma) signifies both the wind and the Spirit. The Spirit came upon the apostles in a rushing mighty wind (Acts 2:2), his strong influences on the hearts of sinners are compared to the breathing of the wind (Ezek 37:9), and his sweet influences on the souls of saints to the north and south wind, Song 4:16.

I believe the current mainline Apostolic understanding of the New Birth is correct, in that it teaches a singular regeneration resulting from the dual action of the ordinance of baptism, and the work of the Spirit, in a newly repentant believer's life.

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

As I am wiped out, and my brain is fried after the events of the day, I will only attempt to explain John 3:5. I will specifically address numbers one and two on your list.

1. John 3 is what it is. A Pre-resurrection outline of cross-dispensational Truth. Even Matthew Henry recognized the import of Christ's words to Nicodemus.



I believe the current mainline Apostolic understanding of the New Birth is correct, in that it teaches a singular regeneration resulting from the dual action of the ordinance of baptism, and the work of the Spirit, in a newly repentant believer's life.

Excellent post, Brother.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

Excellent post, Brother.

Thanks friend.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Thanks friend.

Please post the whole commentary, PP.... and how do you equate import with ...It is probable that Christ had an eye to the ordinance of baptism

Lastly ... CS why the high fives??? .....All he did was restate what we already know is the PAJC view.

That's like high-fiving your teamates when your team is losing in a blowout.

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Please post the whole commentary, PP.... and how do you equate import with ...It is probable that Christ had an eye to the ordinance of baptism

Lastly ... CS why the high fives??? .....All he did was restate what we already know is the PAJC view.

That's like high-fiving your teamates when your team is losing in a blowout.

Losing?

Copying and pasting Gillespie doth not a victory make.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

Losing?

Copying and pasting Gillespie doth not a victory make.

Whatevah ... as for your oldtime PCIers and PAJCers were New Birth twins comments ... do you recant????

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Whatevah ... as for your oldtime PCIers and PAJCers were New Birth twins comments ... do you recant????

You persist in saying I said something i did not say.

They were not twins; I never said they were.

I said that they were far more focused on and passionate about the Acts 2:38 message than the guys who claim their title today.

Are you deliberately blowing smoke, or are you just having trouble with reading comprehension?

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Please post the whole commentary, PP.... and how do you equate import with ...It is probable that Christ had an eye to the ordinance of baptism

Lastly ... CS why the high fives??? .....All he did was restate what we already know is the PAJC view.

That's like high-fiving your teamates when your team is losing in a blowout.

I don't get it. ???

My only point was that even a non-Apostolic, such as MH sees the "probability" that being "born of the water" assumes baptism. I would go further than "probable", I would say it is exactly what Jesus meant.

Look Guy, you asked for commentary here. I was only obliging.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

...
That's like high-fiving your teamates when your team is losing in a blowout.

Nobody is winning and nobody is losing here.
We are brothers and sisters who believe in and practice the two commands and one promise of Acts 2:38. We just discuss this over, and over, and over.