Romans 6.....is there water baptism in the passage, or Spirit baptism ..primarily?

[Iconoclast]

DHK

There is an old man/old nature. It is the same old nature that we have when we were not saved. After salvation it is not eradicated! Please read any Baptist Confession of Faith under the section "Depravity of man." To say that the Old Man is now dead and cannot struggle with the new man is to deny the depravity of man. In that respect it puts one outside of orthodoxy.

Let the reader decide DHK...I post direct quotes from the word of God...you post your own ideas that are in direct opposition to what I am posting.
let the readers check your posts and mine and then they can see who is orthodox, and who is not.
It is a bit self serving to anoint yourself as the arbiter of this. You give what you believe...I will post what I believe....I have answered each one of these things several times...I will offer it again-

588 Unbelievers exist in a state of willing subservience under the reigning power of sin. Cf. Rom. 3:9, both unbelieving Jews and Gentiles are under the reigning power of sin (pa,ntaj u`fV a`marti,an ei=nai). Cf. Rom. 6:17, Unbelievers exist in a state of subservience to sin as the reigning or controlling influence of the life (h=te dou/loi th/j a`marti,aj) 589 Regeneration or the new birth necessarily consists of five realities:
(1) the impartation of spiritual life (Jer. 31:31–34; Ezk. 36:25–27; Jn. 3:3, 5, Eph. 2:4–5; 1 Jn. 3:9)

(2) the breaking of the reigning power of sin (Rom. 3:9–12; 6:1–14, 17–18, 22),

(3) the removal of the natural enmity against God (Rom. 1:18; 8:7–8),

(4) the re–creation of the image of God in principle (Eph. 4:22–24; Col. 3:9– 10), and
(5) the removal of satanic blindness (2 Cor. 4:3–7). If any of these elements is missing, regeneration would necessarily prove ineffectual! 590 In Rom. Chapter 6, there are two questions and answers. V. 1–14 deal with the first question, “Can believers continue to live in sin?” The answer is an absolute denial, due to their union with Christ in his death and resurrection–life (v. 2–14). The second question is in v. 15, and refers to [lightly] committing acts of sin, “Shall we commit [acts of] sin that grace may abound?” The first question is framed in the pres. tense, referring to living in sin; the second is framed in the aor., referring to acts of sin (v. 1, ...evpime,nwmen th/| a`marti,a|( i[na h` ca,rij pleona,sh|È..v. 15, ...a`marth,swmen( o[ti ouvk evsme.n u`po. no,mon avlla. u`po. ca,rinÈ). In 1 Jn. 2:1, the aor. subj. is used, referring to acts of sin, not living in sin, i.e., “...these things I am writing unto you that you do not commit an act of sin...and if anyone does commit an act of sin...” (...tau/ta gra,fw u`mi/n i[na mh. a`ma,rthteÅ kai. eva,n tij a`ma,rth|....). 591 Cf. the previous section on Romans Six and its implications. The believer is not a spiritual schizophrenic comprised at once of an “old man” and a “new man,” but is the “new man,” or regenerate self. The “old man,” or unregenerate self was crucified with Christ.
The source of the believer’s acts of sin do not derive from the reigning power of sin or the “old man,” as in the unconverted, but from indwelling sin and remaining corruption (Cf. Rom. 6:1–23; 7:13–8:4; Eph. 4:22–24; Col. 3:9–10). The use of the aor. inf. of result in Eph. 4:22–24 reveals that this passage is not an exhortation, but rather a statement of fact based on a past act, corresponding to the parallel in Col. 3:9–10. For a full discussion of Rom. 6:1–23; Eph. 4:22–24 and Col. 3:9–10 in relation to definitive sanctification and the crucifixion of the old man, see John Murray, Principles of Conduct, ‘The Dynamic of the Biblical Ethic,” pp. 202–228; Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, comments on chapter 6, pp. 211–226. 228

 

[Iconoclast]

There is an old man/old nature. It is the same old nature that we have when we were not saved. After salvation it is not eradicated! Please read any Baptist Confession of Faith under the section "Depravity of man." To say that the Old Man is now dead and cannot struggle with the new man is to deny the depravity of man. In that respect it puts one outside of orthodoxy.

here is total depravity;

II TOTAL DEPRAVITY OR HUMAN ABILITY
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked…” Jeremiah 17:9
The term “depravity” derives from the Latin de, “thoroughly, down to the bottom of, completely” and pravus, “crooked”. “Total depravity” denotes that every part of man’s personality or nature has been permeated by sin and negatively affected by the Fall. Total depravity is not absolute depravity, or the idea that man is as bad as he can be. The major issues concerned in total depravity are that (1) man is depraved by virtue of the inheritance of Adam’s sinful nature, and (2) that the will, as the free expression of the given nature, has been negatively affected by the Fall. Thus, man suffers from both total depravity and a spiritual, moral inability.

here is more of what I believe;
The word “dead” is not a verb, but a noun following a pres. ptc. (o;ntaj nekrou.j) giving the connotation of a continued or unchanging state. The term used in these verses is “corpse” (nekro,j), i.e., wholly and totally unresponsive to spiritual life and realities. The use of the noun rather than the verb for “dead” makes the expression much stronger. The parenthetical expression at the end of this passage emphasizes that salvation by grace is nothing less than the impartation of spiritual life. 402 evn mataio,thti tou/ noo.j auvtw/n


Lit: “in the futility of their thinking evskotwme,noi th/| dianoi,a| o;ntej. The ptc. is placed last, making the terms “darkened” and “the understanding” emphatic by pos. The term “understanding” (dia,noia) denotes the faculty of knowing, understanding or moral reflection. The entire statement (Eph. 4:17–19) demonstrates both the epistemological futility of unregenerate man and the resulting moral judgment of God upon such ignorance. th.n a;gnoian th.n ou=san evn auvtoi/j( dia. th.n pw,rwsin th/j kardi,aj auvtw/n. The term “ignorance” (th.n a;gnoian) denotes want of knowledge or perception. The reason given here is “the blindness of their own hearts”—a willful, culpable blindness. Man does not know God; man does not want to know God. 144


You keep trying to suggest or make a case that I deny total depravity, based on your narrow idea of what that is....This that I post to you is what I feed on... You never post anything close to this, and in fact you post directly opposed to this don't you?

I read this material, I have heard it preached literally several hundred times....so do not continue to suggest such an idea.
Post your ideas...I will post mine.

 

[Iconoclast]

The old man is not dead.

the text says;
552 swqhso,meqa evn th/| zwh/| auvtou/. 553 oi[tinej avpeqa,nomen th/| a`marti,a|. “Such ones as we are,” a qualitative pers. pron. “Died”. The aor. tense in v. 1–10 all refer to “having died” as a past fact that is to be reckoned as such in the present experience. 217

I see a difference here....I will stick with the text.

 

[Iconoclast]

The old man is not dead. If he were you would be sinless. Why then do you still sin. Does the new nature sin

?

The source of the believer’s acts of sin do not derive from the reigning power of sin or the “old man,” as in the unconverted, but from indwelling sin and remaining corruption (Cf. Rom. 6:1–23; 7:13–8:4; Eph. 4:22–24; Col. 3:9–10). The use of the aor. inf. of result in Eph. 4:22–24 reveals that this passage is not an exhortation, but rather a statement of fact based on a past act, corresponding to the parallel in Col. 3:9–10.

 

[convicted1]

Circumcision and baptism have nothing in common. Baptism does not take the place of circumcision. If that is your outlook on Scripture you ought to become a Presbyterian.

Baptism does not place anyone in a covenant.
Baptism does nothing to a person but get them wet.
It is purely symbolic. It is done in obedience to the Lord, and symbolizes our death to our old life and our rising again to a new life in Christ. It does not regenerate. It does not make one more holy. It simply gets them wet. It is purely symbolic done in obedience to the command of Christ, and that is what we see in Romans 6.

You need to study this more in depth. FTR, I am not a Presbyterian, but a baptist, through and through.


God gave Abram the sign of circumcision, whilst he was still uncircumcised. This was carried all the way down through Moses, Aaron, Joshua, all the way down to even Jesus Christ being circumcised. This circumcision was an outward sign that an inward work of the heart had already taken place. However, this foreskin removal was no guarantor they were part of true Israel. Not all of Israel is Israel. Many circumcised Israelites died in the wilderness due to unbelief, yet they were circumcised.

Same with baptism. It is a covenant Christ made for the church as an outward sign that an inward work of the heart had already taken place. But not everyone immersed is part of the true Church, the body of Christ.

 

[convicted1]

Satan entered into Judas.

Judas was wicked even before Satan entered into him. His fate was sealed many moons before he was ever chosen by Christ to be a false prophet.

Jesus called him the son of perdition. He was doomed from the very beginning.

Even before the foundation of the world.....

Whether or not Jesus, out of grace, gave an unregenerated person gifts of the Spirit on this one occasion is not entirely and dogmatically answered. We don't know for sure. The scriptures are silent here.

All I know is He sent them out two-by-two, and they returned rejoicing that the demons obeyed them. But I'd venture to guess Judas was right there with them all along.

I would take the opinion of no, simply on Biblical principle that God does not give His gifts to the unsaved. If you have a different opinion on that particular subject I am not going to die for it.

Saul prophesied, Balaam's mule spoke to him, there's two examples of God doing whatsoever He pleases...

That doesn't change my view on John 20:22,23 however. It is not addressing any of the problems with Judas. He was an exception. I think we need to realize that.

I used the John 20 verses to further the discussion, is all...

 

[convicted1]

Well how about Iconoclast speaks for himself! I did not say that.

What I said can be proven by this verse you offered from 1 pet3...you just bolded the wrong part....

20 who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah -- an ark being preparing -- in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water;

21 also to which an antitype doth now save us -- baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ,


The figure once again is based on the reality.....the answer of a God conscience toward God, comes from having peace with God...because of Spirit baptism ....the indwelling of the Spirit sealing us after giving us peace with God in justification.....

Jesus being raised as the captain of our salvation;

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

You cannot separate the redemptive work of God from the Covenant of Redemption that Jesus accomplishes.

The like figure....speaks of the picture outwardly of what has already taken place inwardly...{the answer of a clear conscience, a good conscience}
by the work of the Spirit, jn 3
that is the only sense in which your "baptism" saves you, as it speaks to Spirit baptism .




Sure...but the correct pictures are given in scripture....the flood waters of death
the deadly waters of the RED SEA and I will give you a bonus one...Jonah immersed in the belly of the great fish...yet comes through
:thumbsup: a type of resurrection.

39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
Jesus used the same theology....He explained it, and furthermore in psalm 69 a messianic psalm the same language is used;
69 Save me, O God; for the waters are come in unto my soul.

2 I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me.

3 I am weary of my crying: my throat is dried: mine eyes fail while I wait for my God.

4 They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away.
14 Deliver me out of the mire, and let me not sink: let me be delivered from them that hate me, and out of the deep waters.

15 Let not the waterflood overflow me, neither let the deep swallow me up, and let not the pit shut her mouth upon me.




It will be as I just suggested to you the biblical pictures of the work of Spirit baptism..
that is the only LIKENESS that is valid...Jesus was not buried in water literally after all..:thumbsup:




it is a public confession outwardly, of the Spirits work inwardly...work through it Biblicist...that is how I understand it...look at it in a fresh way.

This post was sooooo good, it was a spinning slam dunk...

 

[DHK]

?

The source of the believer’s acts of sin do not derive from the reigning power of sin or the “old man,” as in the unconverted, but from indwelling sin and remaining corruption (Cf. Rom. 6:1–23; 7:13–8:4; Eph. 4:22–24; Col. 3:9–10). The use of the aor. inf. of result in Eph. 4:22–24 reveals that this passage is not an exhortation, but rather a statement of fact based on a past act, corresponding to the parallel in Col. 3:9–10.

1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
​

Chapter 6: Of the Fall of Man, Of Sin, And of the Punishment Thereof

The corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.
( Romans 7:18,23; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:8; Romans 7:23-25; Galatians 5:17 )

http://vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc06.html

This statement on the depravity of man goes directly against what you are posting. In your posts you are denying the depravity of man.

 

[Iconoclast]

[/COLOR][/B]

1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
​

Chapter 6: Of the Fall of Man, Of Sin, And of the Punishment Thereof


http://vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc06.html

This statement on the depravity of man goes directly against what you are posting. In your posts you are denying the depravity of man.

Because you wrongly blend the terms old man and old nature does not mean everyone else does....the confession is speaking of remaining ability to sin in a body that is still able to sin......

you say what you believe .....I will post what I believe

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist



This verse and others say differently;

9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began

I am not going to micro manage God.If he says that these activities were so before the world was...I believe Him.

Sure believe him, but You need to read your text more carefully. This text says absolutely nothing about any spiritual union before the world began. This text is a careful explanation of the basis for our present salvation ("hath"). It was not accidental but "according to his own purpose and grace". That purpose and grace occurred "before the world began." It concerned us "given us" and its restricted sphere of application was "in Christ."

This text does not say WE EXISTED before the world began. Nor are we ETERNAL and God, as actual spiritual union with God before Creation would make us deity, eternal and not a created being. Think about this!

Isaiah 46:10-11 completely refutes your idea that purpose and reality are one and the same and that is precisely the basis of your argument concerning "in Christ" before the world began.

 

[The Biblicist]

The figure once again is based on the reality.....the answer of a God conscience toward God, comes from having peace with God...because of Spirit baptism ....the indwelling of the Spirit sealing us after giving us peace with God in justification.....

First, there is not one word about spirit baptism in this text or context. You are READING IT INTO the text. Instead he is asserting clearly that baptism is a figure of "his resurrection."

Second, the part that I did not highlight is a denial by Peter that it is to be understood literally. Baptism does not literally remove sin. However, faith in the gospel does remove sin (Acts 10:43 - Peter speaking "for remission of sins"). Hence, baptism is a figure of the gospel.

Third, certainly Baptism is based upon a literal truth and that literal truth is clearly stated, it is a figure of "his resurrection" rather than spirit baptism as you claim. Do you know the difference between spirit baptism and "the resurrection"??? Your position would require Peter to have said "by the baptism in the Spirit" AND HE DID NOT SAY THAT. So the reality in view is not the baptism in the Spirit as you claim.

Jesus being raised as the captain of our salvation;

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

You cannot separate the redemptive work of God from the Covenant of Redemption that Jesus accomplishes.

That is not the issue! By claiming that baptism is a figure of His LITERAL resurrection does not deny redemption! Again, for you position to be correct the application of the "figure" in 1 Peter 3:21 would had to read "by the baptism in the Spirit" as the counterpart reality as you claim. However, the counterpart reality to this "figure" is not spirit baptism but "by the resurrection" of Jesus Christ.

The like figure....speaks of the picture outwardly of what has already taken place inwardly...{the answer of a clear conscience, a good conscience}
by the work of the Spirit, jn 3
that is the only sense in which your "baptism" saves you, as it speaks to Spirit baptism .

Peter tells you explicitly what the Figure speaks about and what it does not speak about. It does not speak about literal inward cleansing from sin, it speaks about the literal "resurrection of Jesus Christ." This baptism is the RESPONSE of an already cleansed conscience rather than the means to clean the conscience (or your baptism in the spirit suggestion). Hence Peter is repudiating the very suggested interpretation you are attempting to READ INTO this text. Its LITERAL counterpart is not spirit baptism but "the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

It will be as I just suggested to you the biblical pictures of the work of Spirit baptism..
that is the only LIKENESS that is valid...Jesus was not buried in water literally after all..:thumbsup:

If Peter had said the literal counterpart of the figure of baptism was spirit baptism you would have a point, but he did not provide that as the literal counterpart! The literal counterpart to this "figure" is "the resurrection of Jesus Christ" and so water baptism is a figurative "LIKENESS" to the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[Iconoclast]

First, there is not one word about spirit baptism in this text or context. You are READING IT INTO the text. Instead he is asserting clearly that baptism is a figure of "his resurrection."

Second, the part that I did not highlight is a denial by Peter that it is to be understood literally. Baptism does not literally remove sin. However, faith in the gospel does remove sin (Acts 10:43 - Peter speaking "for remission of sins"). Hence, baptism is a figure of the gospel.

Third, certainly Baptism is based upon a literal truth and that literal truth is clearly stated, it is a figure of "his resurrection" rather than spirit baptism as you claim. Do you know the difference between spirit baptism and "the resurrection"??? Your position would require Peter to have said "by the baptism in the Spirit" AND HE DID NOT SAY THAT. So the reality in view is not the baptism in the Spirit as you claim.




That is not the issue! By claiming that baptism is a figure of His LITERAL resurrection does not deny redemption! Again, for you position to be correct the application of the "figure" in 1 Peter 3:21 would had to read "by the baptism in the Spirit" as the counterpart reality as you claim. However, the counterpart reality to this "figure" is not spirit baptism but "by the resurrection" of Jesus Christ.



Peter tells you explicitly what the Figure speaks about and what it does not speak about. It does not speak about literal inward cleansing from sin, it speaks about the literal "resurrection of Jesus Christ." This baptism is the RESPONSE of an already cleansed conscience rather than the means to clean the conscience (or your baptism in the spirit suggestion). Hence Peter is repudiating the very suggested interpretation you are attempting to READ INTO this text. Its LITERAL counterpart is not spirit baptism but "the resurrection of Jesus Christ."






If Peter had said the literal counterpart of the figure of baptism was spirit baptism you would have a point, but he did not provide that as the literal counterpart! The literal counterpart to this "figure" is "the resurrection of Jesus Christ" and so water baptism is a figurative "LIKENESS" to the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Peter did not say many things here...he did not say we must be born from above either, but we both agree that is needful.

I enjoy most of your posts and more often than not we agree...but certainly not here.:thumbsup: I can only be faithful to truth as I have come to understand it as you are also doing.

As time permits read the links I include because any one of these men are way ahead of me in so many ways.

It might be different than you have heard before so take time to consider the link from the actual to the figurative......what causes the figurative?
The figurative does not cause the actual

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

 

[The Biblicist]

DHK



The believer is not a spiritual schizophrenic comprised at once of an “old man” and a “new man,” but is the “new man,” or regenerate self. The “old man,” or unregenerate self was crucified with Christ. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]

No wonder you cannot properly interpret or understand Romans 6-8. Let me point some very simple things out to that should demonstrate why your interpretation is completely wrong.

1. New birth, new creature does not describe the whole man, as the whole man has not been saved, born again - particularly "the flesh...this body.." where Paul restricts "the law of sin."

2. Romans 7:14-25 is not the only passage that teach this (Gal. 5:17-25; Eph. 4)

3. Exhortations to "put on" the new man is absurd if that is the condition of the saint already. Exhortations to put to death, self-crucify or "put off" the "old man" is absurd if such a condition does not exist.

4. However, another problem is that anyone reading Romans 6 can clearly see that what Paul claims what they have in one sense (positionally) is the very thing he exhorts them to acquire in another sense (experientially - Rom. 6:11-23). The exhortations "let us"

11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

The very wording necessarily infers there is a battle between their POSITION in Christ versus their PRACTICE in Christ or otherwise no exhortations would be necessary. That is the basis for interpeting Romans 7:14-25 as the obstacle within true believers that makes this exhortation necessary!

5. The lost unregenerated man does not "delight in the law of God" (Rom. 7:21) especially after "the inward man" but is at war with God and is not submissive to His Law (Rom. 8:7)

6. Paul makes a very careful but a very clear distinction within his own human nature in regard to the source of sin - "it is no more I that do it" verus "that is in my flesh...this body of death...my members".

Your position is promoted by bias rather than objective exegetical based interpretation.

 

[The Biblicist]

Peter did not say many things here...he did not say we must be born from above either, but we both agree that is needful.

I enjoy most of your posts and more often than not we agree...but certainly not here.:thumbsup: I can only be faithful to truth as I have come to understand it as you are also doing.

As time permits read the links I include because any one of these men are way ahead of me in so many ways.

It might be different than you have heard before so take time to consider the link from the actual to the figurative......what causes the figurative?
The figurative does not cause the actual

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

Why can't you recognize the obvious in 1 Peter. 3:21?? Your theory demands that the LITERAL counterpart of baptism as a FIGURE is Spirit baptism while Peter says it is "the resurrection of Jesus Christ." If your position was correct he would have said "by the baptism in the Spirit." It is that simple and that clear!

The parenthetical is a NEGATIVE not a postive! He is denying that baptism has any LITERAL application to the very thing you claim is the counterpart to water baptism as a figure! Can't be more simple or clear!

 

[The Biblicist]

Peter did not say many things here...he did not say we must be born from above either, but we both agree that is needful.

I enjoy most of your posts and more often than not we agree...but certainly not here.:thumbsup: I can only be faithful to truth as I have come to understand it as you are also doing.

As time permits read the links I include because any one of these men are way ahead of me in so many ways.

It might be different than you have heard before so take time to consider the link from the actual to the figurative......what causes the figurative?
The figurative does not cause the actual

No one is claiming the actual is caused by the figurative. The argument is about the identity of the antitype for the type. You claim it is the baptism in the Spirit but Peter claims it is "the resurrection of Jesus Christ" exactly as we do. You claim it is the parenthetical explanation whereas Peter is denying that is the case. It is just that simple.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist

No wonder you cannot properly interpret or understand Romans 6-8. Let me point some very simple things out to that should demonstrate why your interpretation is completely wrong.

OIC:laugh: Perhaps you do not understand what you read my friend-

1. New birth, new creature does not describe the whole man, as the whole man has not been saved, born again - particularly "the flesh...this body.." where Paul restricts "the law of sin."

Wrong again... we are not gnostic B....God saves the whole man...the redemption of the body at glorification....that is why paul says we are to mortify that which has already been corrupted by the fall.

2. Romans 7:14-25 is not the only passage that teach this (Gal. 5:17-25; Eph. 4)

yes ...you clearly miss it there also.

3. Exhortations to "put on" the new man is absurd if that is the condition of the saint already. Exhortations to put to death, self-crucify or "put off" the "old man" is absurd if such a condition does not exist.

I have already posted several times on this...either you are being deliberately obtuse...or just lack comprehension.....

it is actually.....having put off....and having put on...live accordingly

The source of the believer’s acts of sin do not derive from the reigning power of sin or the “old man,” as in the unconverted, but from indwelling sin and remaining corruption (Cf. Rom. 6:1–23; 7:13–8:4; Eph. 4:22–24; Col. 3:9–10). The use of the aor. inf. of result in Eph. 4:22–24 reveals that this passage is not an exhortation, but rather a statement of fact based on a past act, corresponding to the parallel in Col. 3:9–10. For a full discussion of Rom. 6:1–23; Eph. 4:22–24 and Col. 3:9–10 in relation to definitive sanctification and the crucifixion of the old man, see John Murray, Principles of Conduct, ‘The Dynamic of the Biblical Ethic,” pp. 202–228; Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, comments on chapter 6, pp. 211–226. 228

4. However, another problem is that anyone reading Romans 6 can clearly see that what Paul claims what they have in one sense (positionally) is the very thing he exhorts them to acquire in another sense (experientially - Rom. 6:11-23). The exhortations "let us"

You have this completely backwards and wrong...which leads to your error.

Positionally...we are PERFECT in Christ.... our citizenship is in heaven right now, because of Spirit Baptism and union with Christ....so much so that when saul was persecuting the Church
Jesus said Saul Saul...why persecutes ME.
Guess what...water baptism did not do that...Union with Christ by the work of the Spirit did....

We are to act based on who we are In Christ....when he says reckon.he does not mean make believe it is so....he is saying reckon this to be an actual completed fact...now live like it,and go about mortifying remaining sin and corruption....earlier in the thread in response to DHK I went right through Romans 6 and showed it...maybe re-read it and see for yourself.
If you are not going to read what is offered to you, then I do not know what to tell you.

The very wording necessarily infers there is a battle between their POSITION in Christ versus their PRACTICE in Christ or otherwise no exhortations would be necessary. That is the basis for interpeting Romans 7:14-25 as the obstacle within true believers that makes this exhortation necessary!

No one denies the battle at all..i have answered this sevewral times in this thread.

5. The lost unregenerated man does not "delight in the law of God" (Rom. 7:21) especially after "the inward man" but is at war with God and is not submissive to His Law (Rom. 8:7)

I have never said he did..that is not my position now, or ever on BB...I have posted such.Paul is writing as a Christian in 6,7,and 8

6. Paul makes a very careful but a very clear distinction within his own human nature in regard to the source of sin - "it is no more I that do it" verus "that is in my flesh...this body of death...my members".

Yes...I also show how when he describes this process of daily mortification of sin...he describes it here and in COL3

Your position is promoted by bias rather than objective exegetical based interpretation.

Quite the contrary...you who normally show a good deal of ability in exegetical homework have totally missed this as I stated in an earlier post.

We will not come to an agreement on this...I thinl in time we will.:thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

This is the most abused passage of scripture in God's Word. Your interpretation is based upon just jerking it out of its context and ignoring the overall contextual development. The book of Corinthians is introduced by addressing two primary problems concerning WATER baptism. First, a division over the administrator of WATER baptism. Second, the Priority of WATER baptism. The first four chapters deal with these two issues.

Chapters 1-2 deals with the priority of water Baptism in connection with the Gospel. Chapter 3 deals with the division over the administrator of baptism and how a congregation is established. In chapter three Paul's solution to the divsion over the administrator of WATER baptism is that all the human administrators work together as ONE under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. Hence, the Holy Spirit is the true administrator of WATER baptism as the human administrators operate UNDER His direction (1 Cor. 3:5-9). Under the direction of the Spirit Paul built the "house" "temple" at Corinth (1 Cor. 3:9-16). Therefore "YOU" (plural, not "we") are the temple of God at Corinth (3:16; 12:27) that was formed under the leadership of ONE Spirit as the ultimate administrator of their WATER baptism and placement in the temple. Hence, the principle provided by Paul is that all human instruments operated together under the direction of the Holy Spirit and thus the Spirit is the administrator of water baptism, as well as the builder of the church at Corinth.

They had the same problem of division over spiritual gifts and their priority of use in the assembly at Corinth (ch. 12-14) and Paul applies the very same solution as he gave in 1 Cor. 3:5-16 which is summarized in 1 Cor. 12:12-13. Under the direction of One Spirit were they all WATER baptized into ONE body ("ye" not "we" are that body - v. 27) and all members "drank" or partook of their spiritual gifts from the very same source and thus the DIVERSITY in the congregational body at Corinth was by design (vv. 7-11) so that the congregational body at Corinth was complete or equipped for service at Corinth (vv. 14-26).

Paul distinguishes between the "temple" consisting of "you" plural (not "we") at Corinth (3:16) and the individual "body" or "temple" of the believer (6:19).

Paul's letters are addressed to congregations which are LIKE FAITH AND ORDER and therefore what is true of one congregation in regard to church order, planing, constitution, membership is true of all and thus "we" share in common what "you...ye" share specifically.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist


Wrong again... we are not gnostic B....God saves the whole man...the redemption of the body at glorification....that is why paul says we are to mortify that which has already been corrupted by the fall.

Why play games? I used the PAST tense, while you are using the FUTURE tense. You know full well that the "new creature" or what has been "born of God" is not the body - it has not yet been saved/glorified. The human body has not been born again, it is not the object of being "created in Christ (Eph. 2:10) Jesus" as it is not what has been "quickened" (Eph. 2:1,5)

Only by playing this kind of game can you run from the truth! Your body is still subject to DEATH and if you don't believe it look in a mirror and then take a look at the grave yards. Hence, the body is still not saved, but under the power of death and it will die unless Christ returns first thus "this body of death" is something the Christian deals with and the "inward man" must be distinguished from the outer man (body) as the outer man is not the new creature.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist


:

sorry this was a repeat of your post without response

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist

yes ...you clearly miss it there also.
I have already posted several times on this...either you are being deliberately obtuse...or just lack comprehension.....

I am very well aware of the arguments provided to support your position and they are empty of exegetical value or contextual value.

However, we are not going to get anywhere because I give you SPECIFIC problems to your interpretations while you are merely responding in general platitudes and so any discussion is a waste of time.

1. Your use of 1 Peter 3:21 has been shown to be wrong as Peter provides the very antitype you deny and denies the very antitype you assert.

2. The body of the saint has not been born again, it is still UNDER SIN and DEATH and the grave yards prove it. However, you cannot recognize that truth in the Romans 6-8 context because it would defeat your position, so you jump from past tense position to future tense glorification, which is simply dishonest.