I understand that subjectively, you can't; it doesn't fit the mold of Catholicism or many of the reform positions that denounce the pentecostal experience in meaning anything other than for salvation, i.e., coming upon and indwelling to be the same in meaning.
I dont follow. Are you saying a "real Christian" has to undergo what the Apostles underwent at Pentecost (speaking in tongues?)? Paul is very clear in, I think 1 Cor 12, that not everyone receives the same gifts by the Spirit. The concept of the Holy Spirit Indwelling however is a truth all Christians partake in (Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 3:16f).
Well, they were already water baptised years before John 20:22. That should put the kabosh to that. BTW, when did Jesus ever command what it is you are referring to?
The Jn 20 gift is the authority to forgive sins given the the Apostles, not all Christians share this authority, just as not all Christians receive ordination. Jesus clearly commanded water Baptism in places like Matt 28.
"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." I don't believe the verse cited implies water baptism but rather natural birth. However, since the Disciples already were both, vs 22 can only mean that they were now newborn of the Spirit. The first ever to be Spiritually born from above.
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again" 4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
The "natural birth" interpretation in my opinion is weak. Comparing v3 and v5 we see it is teaching the same thing, especially note that "born again"
is equivalent to "born of water and the Spirit". The water and Spirit are not two separate events but one event, being 'born again'. The "natural birth" issue is what Nicodemus MISTAKENLY thought.
Another problem with the natural birth interpretation is that it is logically absurd, Jesus would be saying "you cant see Heaven unless you are physically born and then spiritually born". The physical birth is a given. It would be just as absurd for me to say I cant post on Christianforums unless I turn on my computer and create an account, turning on my computer is a given, it doesnt need to be taught.
Lastly, right after Jesus gets done talking the very next thing we see is Him with the Apostles baptizing others. That only further supports the Baptism interpretation.
Lets look at this from Peter:
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, . . . . . ". 1 Peter 1:3 (NKJV)
And again this:
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, . . . . . . . .". 1 Peter 1:23 (KJV)
Note that within the same chapter Peter uses two different expressions for the same act of God, "begotten again and born again".
In ch3 he also explicitly says "Baptism saves you", so you cant just divorce that from anything he says in ch1. If you are tying "born again" with Jn 3 then proper exegesis means linking it to the same interpretation and that, as I showed above, has nothing to do with natural birth and is infact talking about Baptism.
I believe the first expression infers that we, who are of Him, were of Him from eternity past per how Paul explains it here:
"He has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, . . . . . . . . .". Ephesians 1:4
I believe the implication here is this:
Having always been in the Mind of God; His reality from His beginnng, when we came into actual existence; when we were born into time, instead of entering this world as sinless beings, we were in need of redemption because of the fall. The fall being the act that interrupted God's intitial plan to have a vast family of sinless sons 'summed up' in the unity of the faith, filled with of the knowledge of the Christ, unto a perfect divine man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, with Him as the Head. That is Joint-heir-ship with the Father, in Christ.
In my thinking, water baptism is not a sacrament but more a testimony of commitment to become; a narrowness that speaks of either you are either in or you are out; wet or dry; a watery plumbline so to speak. "Let him who builds the house, count the cost".
I cant just divorce this from what the Bible clearly teaches about Baptism, which is a sacrament (even Protestants admit this), especially in light of clear references to its salvific results (eg Acts 22:16).