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

[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.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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!

 

[Iconoclast]

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 obvious is he speaking of the flood waters of Noah's day

 

[Iconoclast]

I believe Paul and Romans 7 speaks as a Christian I don't deny that That's not my position the difference is how you understand the first 11 vs determines a lot of how you understand the last verses. I have commented on this earlier on in the thread for the other a thread dealing with Paul in Romans 7

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

no not at all I keep all the parts the death the burial the resurrection ascension all part of the union with Christ which is accomplished by Spirit baptism .you're speaking about individual component parts I'm speaking about the whole

 

[The Biblicist]

the obvious is he speaking of the flood waters of Noah's day

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

no not at all I keep all the parts the death the burial the resurrection ascension all part of the union with Christ which is accomplished by Spirit baptism .you're speaking about individual component parts I'm speaking about the whole

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe Paul and Romans 7 speaks as a Christian I don't deny that That's not my position the difference is how you understand the first 11 vs determines a lot of how you understand the last verses. I have commented on this earlier on in the thread for the other a thread dealing with Paul in Romans 7

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?

 

[DHK]

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

Then, do you believe this statement to be correct?

The corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated;

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

no not at all I keep all the parts the death the burial the resurrection ascension all part of the union with Christ which is accomplished by Spirit baptism .you're speaking about individual component parts I'm speaking about the whole

 

[Iconoclast]

Then, do you believe this statement to be correct?

yes I can agree with that as long as its not the same as the old man and if it takes into account what are described as the principle of sin or the deeds of the body in Colossians there
is remaining corruption in the flesh

 

[The Biblicist]

you're speaking about individual component parts I'm speaking about the whole

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

yes I can agree with that as long as its not the same as the old man and if it takes into account what are described as the principle of sin or the deeds of the body in Colossians there
is remaining corruption in the flesh

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.

 

[DHK]

yes I can agree with that as long as its not the same as the old man and if it takes into account what are described as the principle of sin or the deeds of the body in Colossians there
is remaining corruption in the flesh

The corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated;

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

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?

 

[Iconoclast]

;"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.

this is why I qualified my answer...I knew what you were trying to do

 

[DHK]

this is why I qualified my answer...I knew what you were trying to do

How did you qualify your answer?
I asked you directly in another post that you did not answer: How is the old man and the old nature different?
The Baptist Confession doesn't differentiate between the two.
Therefore you end up in the same boat or having the same conclusion--a denial of the depravity of man.

Or can you make it any clearer.
It appears Biblicist is confused. I am too when you are making distinctions that are not there.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist

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

For several weeks over several threads DHK and I am disputing romans 6:6.. which Paul clearly says the old man Has been crucified....it is done.

DHK and Y1 maintain...he is sort of a zombie.....not really dead

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?

Romans 6:6 is clear the old man is dead.....

DHK has bought into the popular falsehood that there is an old man and a new man both occupying the same space....he said that thing about ...there is a good dog and a bad dog and whichever one you feed wins.This is a falsehood and that is where the post about the chrisitian is not a spiritual schizophrenic comes into play.:thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

How did you qualify your answer?

yes I can agree with that as long as its not the same as the old man and if it takes into account what are described as the principle of sin or the deeds of the body in Colossians there
is remaining corruption in the flesh

I asked you directly in another post that you did not answer: How is the old man and the old nature different?

I have answered this several times....

The Baptist Confession doesn't differentiate between the two.

The old man ...is dead....the deeds of the body, the motions of sin are still able to sin.

Therefore you end up in the same boat or having the same conclusion--a denial of the depravity of man.

You keep saying this even though I have directly answered you.

Or can you make it any clearer.

I can make it clearer if I thought you really wanted answer.

It appears Biblicist is confused. I am too when you are making distinctions that are not there.

But they are there...you just reject them...