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

It is what he did say that completely and utterly repudiates the very heart of your interpretation of his words. What he denies to be the antitype of the figure baptism you assert, and what he explicitly identifies as the antitype to baptism you deny. He says the literal antitype where by baptism saves is "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" NOT "by the baptism in the Spirit" as your interpretation demands.

 

Iconoclast, the issue here is the true interpretation of Romans 7:14-25. My interpretation of Romans 6:11-23 is based upon the fact that Romans 6:1-10 is identifying the provision in Christ (position and power) to overcome present sin, as illustrated in, and identified with Christ in WATER baptism.

So, Let us enter into a contextual exegetical based discussion of Romans 7:14-25. I claim and I think I can easily demonstrate to any objective reader that this passage has no reference to Paul as an unregenerated man but is the present condition of all believers.

We can limit our discussion to verse 14 as that is the most controversial verse. If this verse supports my position, the alternative position simply collapses. Hence, let us limit our discussion to this one verse in its context. What do you say? Just this one text!

 

Now, you are retreating from water baptism altogether in 1 Pet. 3:21????

The word "LIKEfigure" means both are in view, and both are FIGURES of the same LITERAL truth - the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The ark is an old Testament figure of the LITERAL resurrection of Jesus Christ. Hence, the antitype of both the ark rising up in the flood and believers being raised up from the waters of baptism is NOT THE BAPTISM IN THE SPIRIT but the literal resurreciton of Jesus Christ from the grave.

Water baptism corresponds as a FIGURE of that same LITERAL resurrection of Jesus Christ as did the ark being lifted up by the waters.

 

I cannot reason with irrationality! If you cannot plainly see the antitype of baptism or salvation that baptism providses in FIGURE is categorically stated to be the LITERAL resurrection of Jesus Christ and NOT the baptism in the Spirit then we are at an impasse.

 

Before you denied any kind of dual warring aspects within the redeemed man! Remember your statement about schizophrenic or dual entities within the redeemed man? Now you claim it is speaking of a Christian. Are you claiming it is speaking of the Christian but is not referring to two warring factions within the Christian - the flesh vs the inward new man?

 

Then, do you believe this statement to be correct?

 

Peter is not denying the whole by emphasizing the component part of the resurrection of Christ as figured in water baptism. Indeed, the literal resurrection of Christ demonstrates that His death for sin has been fully paid or else he would remained in the grave under the power of sin. Indeed, Peter's subject has been the quickening power of the Spirit (v. 18) and that is illustrated in the component part of baptism that figures the resurrection of Christ.

However, you and I are debating what is the literal antitype of "save" shown in the corresponding figures of baptism and the ark! You say water baptism saves us LITERALLY "by the baptism in the Spirit" as the LITERAL antitype, whereas both Peter and I say the literal antitype that saves is " by the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

Thus Peter demands that water baptism does in fact figure the literal Person and work of Christ as presented in the gospel - His death, burial and resurrection and identifies the person being baptized in water with that literal antitype.

 

Sorry, but as a third person reading your explanation, I have no idea what distinction you are explaining?

What do you mean by "same as the old man"? Are you restricting the term "old man" in all contexts to refer to the unregenerated state or condition?

How can Christians "put off" that definition of "old man" as that was required in order to be a Christian. We can't "put off" an unregenerated condition because we are regenerated.

Romans 7:14-25 is not returning to an unregenerated state, but is dealing with a DUAL condition in ONE MAN that is an ABIDING condition. There is in the person of the saint both an unregenerated aspect (the flesh with indwelling law of sin) and a regenerated aspect (inward man...."I" in contrast to "that is my flesh." There is an operating law, principle of sin yet unremoved from the Person of the saint.

 

You can go to the link and read the context if you like or just google the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

"The corruption of nature" refers to the old nature of the unregenerated man. Thus it is the old nature, sometimes referred to as the old man. If you draw a distinction between the two, what is it?
The nature of the unregenerated man, still residing within this body of death, is going to sin. We are commanded not to let sin reign over us. But that is something we must do; action we must take. It is not that we are automatically dead to sin. We must reckon ourselves to be dead to sin--an entirely different concept.
This "old nature" that the Confession speaks of, is still here.
A denial of it is a denial of the depravity of man.

 

Some here seems to say Paul erred and was mistaken when he claimed that he still had that sin principle still at work in him, that when he chose to submit to that instead of submitting to the Holy Spirit he had problems with obeying God!

 

Wasn't one of oyr brother's main points that Paul was describing how a lost person operates in Romans 7, and the saved in Romans 8?