Where is Spirit Baptism in the Bible?

[convicted1]

:laugh:
I'll just answer this post for both of you.
Don't you find it ironic, that I, a non-Cal, am refuting your position through the use of Calvin himself. I am not going through the book of Calvin, taking Icon's bait, etc. I don't agree with Calvinism in the first place.
At least on this point he is right; I agree, and you are wrong. Calvin himself proves you wrong. I am using Calvin's writngs to prove you wrong yet I am not the one that is a Calvinist.

Explain Rom.7:14,24 in the light of Calvin's commentary.
There is no strawman here. You need not resort to your default position.

One thing's for sure, you're so consistent, it's scary. You rip John Calvin's comments outta context as easily as you do God's word....

 

[DHK]

One thing's for sure, you're so consistent, it's scary. You rip John Calvin's comments outta context as easily as you do God's word....

Please explain Mr. convicted.
His commentary is part of my software program. I treat Mr. Calvin's commentary the same way I treat any other person's commentary.
I go to the book, chapter, and verse. Select the commentary that I want to read, and viola! There it is. There is no taking it out of context. There it is--his commentary on those two verses. What more context do you want.

Are you really serious? Did you want me to post the entire chapter here?
Is that the context you want? Tell me what context you want?
The truth is that you don't believe in the depravity of man!
This is one of the cardinal doctrines of Calvinism and here is a passage of Scripture where Calvin explains it well for he believes Paul is giving his testimony as a believer and describes him as a believer with a carnal nature.
But you don't believe that, and won't accept it, not even from Calvin himself. So what kind of Calvinist are you??

 

[Iconoclast]

[B

]By the body of death he means the whole mass of sin, or those ingredients
of which the whole man is composed; except that in him there remained
only relics,[/B]

by the captive bonds of which he was held. The pronoun
tou>tou this, which I apply, as Erasmus does, to the body, may also be
fitly referred to death, and almost in the same sense; for Paul meant to
teach us, that the eyes of God’s children are opened, so that through the
law of God they wisely discern the corruption of their nature and the
death which from it proceeds. But the word body means the same as the
external man and members; for Paul points out this as the origin of evil,
211
that man has departed from the law of his creation, and has become thus
carnal and earthly. For though he still excels brute beasts, yet his true
excellency has departed from him, and what remains in him is full of
numberless corruptions so that his soul, being degenerated, may be justly
said to have passed into a body. So God says by Moses,
“No more shall my Spirit contend with man, for he is even flesh,”
(<010603>Genesis 6:3
thus stripping man of his spiritual excellency, he compares him, by way of
reproach, to the brute creation. f232
This passage is indeed remarkably fitted for the purpose of beating down
all the glory of the flesh; for Paul teaches us, that the most perfect, as long
as they dwell in the flesh, are exposed to misery, for they are subject to
death; nay, when they thoroughly examine themselves, they find in their
own nature nothing but misery. And further, lest they should indulge their
torpor, Paul, by his own example, stimulates them to anxious groanings,
and bids them, as long as they sojourn on earth, to desire death, as the only
true remedy to their evils; and this is the right object in desiring death.
Despair does indeed drive the profane often to such a wish; but they
strangely desire death, because they are weary of the present life, and not
because they loathe their iniquity. But it must be added, that though the
faithful level at the true mark, they are not yet carried away by an
unbridled desire in wishing for death, but submit themselves to the will of
God, to whom it behoves us both to live and to die: hence they clamor not
with displeasure against God, but humbly deposit their anxieties in his
bosom; for they do not so dwell on the thoughts of their misery, but that
being mindful of grace received, they blend their grief with joy, as we find
in what follows.
25. 1 thank God; etc. He then immediately subjoined this thanksgiving, lest
any should think that in his complaint he perversely murmured against
God; for we know how easy even in legitimate grief is the transition to
discontent and impatience. Though Paul then bewailed his lot, and sighed
for his departure, he yet confesses that he acquiesced in the good pleasure
of God; for it does not become the saints, while examining their own
defects, to forget what they have already received from God.

It looks to me like Calvin has refuted you from the grave.

No thought of a carnal Christian here.....no just an obedient Christian thanking God for enabling him to oppose and mortify sin, and ultimately to provide deliverance at glorification....

 

[convicted1]

Please explain Mr. convicted.
His commentary is part of my software program. I treat Mr. Calvin's commentary the same way I treat any other person's commentary.
I go to the book, chapter, and verse. Select the commentary that I want to read, and viola! There it is. There is no taking it out of context. There it is--his commentary on those two verses. What more context do you want.

Are you really serious? Did you want me to post the entire chapter here?
Is that the context you want? Tell me what context you want?
The truth is that you don't believe in the depravity of man!
This is one of the cardinal doctrines of Calvinism and here is a passage of Scripture where Calvin explains it well for he believes Paul is giving his testimony as a believer and describes him as a believer with a carnal nature.
But you don't believe that, and won't accept it, not even from Calvin himself. So what kind of Calvinist are you??

NOOOOO!!! I don't need any more of your misapplication of John Calvin's work. You've already done enough damage.

 

[convicted1]

Please explain Mr. convicted.
His commentary is part of my software program. I treat Mr. Calvin's commentary the same way I treat any other person's commentary.
I go to the book, chapter, and verse. Select the commentary that I want to read, and viola! There it is. There is no taking it out of context. There it is--his commentary on those two verses. What more context do you want.

Are you really serious? Did you want me to post the entire chapter here?
Is that the context you want? Tell me what context you want?
The truth is that you don't believe in the depravity of man!
This is one of the cardinal doctrines of Calvinism and here is a passage of Scripture where Calvin explains it well for he believes Paul is giving his testimony as a believer and describes him as a believer with a carnal nature.
But you don't believe that, and won't accept it, not even from Calvin himself. So what kind of Calvinist are you??

I don't need to say anything....Brother Iconoclast had burned the shirt off of your back already.....

 

[Iconoclast]

Are you really serious? Did you want me to post the entire chapter here?
Is that the context you want? Tell me what context you want?

we want you to read it before you mis-represent what he said about the chapter..

The truth is that you don't believe in the depravity of man!

he and all the rest of the Cals do...the truth is...YOU do not understand it, as you do not understand the related doctrines...

This is one of the cardinal doctrines of Calvinism and here is a passage of Scripture where Calvin explains it well for he believes Paul is giving his testimony as a believer and describes him as a believer with a carnal nature.
But you don't believe that, and won't accept it, not even from Calvin himself. So what kind of Calvinist are you??

He is one who studies the scriptures and seeks truth....you continue to blend the terms together to obscure truth.....you blend old man, flesh , nature, all together were many examine the language as given in context.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

I'll just answer this post for both of you.
Don't you find it ironic, that I, a non-Cal, am refuting your position through the use of Calvin himself.

maybe in your mind this is going on...but not here in the threads

I am not going through the book of Calvin, taking Icon's bait, etc.

of course you are not doing that...if I was getting beat like a drum I would be reluctant at first also...

I don't agree with Calvinism in the first place.

We might have noticed that already, that is why we say you have an agenda, but the real question is why?

I do not think you can sustain any scriptural case, so when you attack us , and call us names, twist words, take out of context....why not use that energy to take a fresh look at those teachers who you reject and despise on a regular basis.:wavey:

At least on this point he is right; I agree, and you are wrong. Calvin himself proves you wrong. I am using Calvin's writngs to prove you wrong yet I am not the one that is a Calvinist.

and yet...you have failed in your quest.

 

[DHK]

I don't need to say anything....Brother Iconoclast had burned the shirt off of your back already.....

Actually I didn't see that post.
I am trying to get through it but it is difficult. Just a suggestion (more for Icon than for you), but if he would put Calvin's quotes "in quotes" the post would be easier to read and respond to. Sometimes I can't differentiate between who or what is being said by who.

 

[Iconoclast]

Actually I didn't see that post.
I am trying to get through it but it is difficult. Just a suggestion (more for Icon than for you), but if he would put Calvin's quotes "in quotes" the post would be easier to read and respond to. Sometimes I can't differentiate between who or what is being said by who.

Sorry...I will work on that...I am a bit burnt out and will be looking closely at the inside of my eyelids soon.

DHK....I give you credit in that you own your opinions and take a stand, although I do not like your M.O.

recently however in your zeal to oppose these ideas, I believe you are drifting from sound doctrine. Even those who consider themselves sworn enemies of what they believe is the teaching of Calvinism, secretly embrace much of the teaching and certainly when they pray, they pray as a cal does much of the time.

When you go public opposing certain teaching it is hard to pause and say...why am I fighting against God being in absolute control of this universe?

 

[DHK]

By the body of death he means the whole mass of sin, or those ingredients
of which the whole man is composed; except that in him there remained
only relics,

You left out this statement of Calvin's:
by the captive bonds of which he was held. The pronoun
as you continue on:

tou>tou this, which I apply, as Erasmus does, to the body, may also be
fitly referred to death, and almost in the same sense; for Paul meant to
teach us, that the eyes of God’s children are opened, so that through the
law of God they wisely discern the corruption of their nature and the
death which from it proceeds. But the word body means the same as the
external man and members; for Paul points out this as the origin of evil,
211
that man has departed from the law of his creation, and has become thus
carnal and earthly. For though he still excels brute beasts, yet his true
excellency has departed from him, and what remains in him is full of
numberless corruptions so that his soul, being degenerated, may be justly
said to have passed into a body. So God says by Moses,
“No more shall my Spirit contend with man, for he is even flesh,”
(<010603>Genesis 6:3
thus stripping man of his spiritual excellency, he compares him, by way of
reproach, to the brute creation. f232

The depravity of man extends to the believer. This is very evident.

This passage is indeed remarkably fitted for the purpose of beating down
all the glory of the flesh; for Paul teaches us, that the most perfect, as long
as they dwell in the flesh, are exposed to misery, for they are subject to
death; nay, when they thoroughly examine themselves, they find in their
own nature nothing but misery. And further, lest they should indulge their
torpor, Paul, by his own example, stimulates them to anxious groanings,
and bids them, as long as they sojourn on earth, to desire death, as the only
true remedy to their evils; and this is the right object in desiring death.
Despair does indeed drive the profane often to such a wish; but they
strangely desire death, because they are weary of the present life, and not
because they loathe their iniquity. But it must be added, that though the
faithful level at the true mark, they are not yet carried away by an
unbridled desire in wishing for death, but submit themselves to the will of
God, to whom it behoves us both to live and to die: hence they clamor not
with displeasure against God, but humbly deposit their anxieties in his
bosom; for they do not so dwell on the thoughts of their misery, but that
being mindful of grace received, they blend their grief with joy, as we find
in what follows.
25. 1 thank God; etc. He then immediately subjoined this thanksgiving,

You never answered this before Icon. How can an unsaved person thank God; thank the Lord Jesus Christ? This is the "saved, regenerated Paul" giving his testimony, for only a saved individual could thank God in this way.

lest
any should think that in his complaint he perversely murmured against
God; for we know how easy even in legitimate grief is the transition to
discontent and impatience. Though Paul then bewailed his lot, and sighed
for his departure, he yet confesses that he acquiesced in the good pleasure
of God; for it does not become the saints, while examining their own
defects, to forget what they have already received from God.

It looks to me like Calvin has refuted you from the grave.

No thought of a carnal Christian here.....no just an obedient Christian thanking God for enabling him to oppose and mortify sin, and ultimately to provide deliverance at glorification....

No, Icon, Calvin refuted you. The believer retains the old nature. It is not eradicated. And Calvin agrees with that.

 

[Iconoclast]

[/B]You never answered this before Icon. How can an unsaved person thank God; thank the Lord Jesus Christ? This is the "saved, regenerated Paul" giving his testimony, for only a saved individual could thank God in this way

.

I have never denied this, that is my position.

No, Icon, Calvin refuted you. The believer retains the old nature. It is not eradicated. And Calvin agrees with that.

This whole discussion started with the OLD MAN.....being crucified....not the Old nature. it was you who mixed the two terms...

I have answered and commented on all these things DHK....despite your claims that I did not.

Why say such things when those who read can go back and see what was answered and how?
They will see that I have answered you and you just do not like the answers.

 

[The Biblicist]

1. None can reasonably or rationally deny that there is an INTERNAL state of conflict within Paul and that is clearly expressed in Romans 7:15-25:

15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.


2. Whether you view him lost or saved there is clearly a schizophrenic condition being described in these verses (1) Two opposing INTERNAL laws - vv. 22-23, 25; (2) Two opposing aspects of His being - "my flesh...body...members" versus "inward man.....man"


3. No one can deny that Romans 7:7-12 is being described in PAST TENSE VERBS whereas Romans 7:14-25 is being described in PRESENT TENSE VERBS.

4. No one can deny that Paul is specifically identifying the source of evil within himself to be "the law of sin" which "dwells in me" and that precise location is "my flesh...this body....my members" whereas the source of good within himself is "the law of God after the inward man.....the mind."

5. No one can deny that the physical body of the believer continues to be subject to death, thus under sin, thus not yet redeemed from sin or else 1 Corinthians 15:51-58 is meaningless:

1 Cor. 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Neither that "when" or "then" has yet occurred, so in regard to "this body of death" it is still "sold under sin" and there is nothing good "that is in my flesh" as corruption still dominates it and incorruption has not yet been "put on."


6. No one can claim that the "carnal" (Gr. sarkos = FLESHLY) mind described in Romans 8:7 "delights in the law of God" or that such a mind can "serve" God as described in Romans 7:21,25, because Paul explicitly states the mind dominated by the flesh is "at enmity with God and is NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF GOD, and NEITHER INDEED CAN BE."

7. No one can deny that it is the child of God who is commanded to put to death the flesh and Paul uses PRESENT TENSES to describe this act by those indwelt with the Spirit of God.

Rom. 8:13 For if ye live [present tense] after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify [present tense] the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

1Co 9:27 But I keep [present tense] under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

The words "put on" and "put off" in regard to the old man and the new man are all found in the IMPERATIVE MODE as commands. The Aorist tense shows they can be done as a puntilliar action rather than a continuous action. To argue the Aorist means they have already done this makes Paul the fool for using the imperative mode to command them to do something already done. Lost people cannot put on the new man, nor can they "put off" the old man. Only the child of God can "put on" and "put off" and thus only the child of God can obey this command. However, those who argue such has ALREADY BEEN DONE so, have Paul not only wasting his time, as he is directing this to saved persons, but making a redundant unnecessary command because according to them it is already done and cannot be repeated. Such is the kind of nonsense necessary to avoid the obvious truth of these passages.

These Seven things are irrefutable IF common sense and sound exegetical principles of interpretation are abided by. The lesson in Romans 7:14-25 is that the saved man does not have the will POWER (v. 18 "to will is present, but HOW to perform I find not") to win this inner conflict with indwelling law of sin. The lesson in Romans 8:9-27 is that this power comes from dependence upon the power of the Indwelling Spirit of God - therefore if we "live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit" - Gal. 5:25 or "As ye have received the Lord Jesus Christ, so walk ye in him." - Col. 2:6.

Common sense should tell you that you can choose as a child of God to live without dependence upon the power of the Holy Spirit! It is possible, and not only possible, but for many this is their primary expereince. To move more toward a life characterized by dependence is called spiritual GROWTH. Hence, spiritual growth is developing the characteristic habit of depending on God more and more. So we can "put on" and we can "put off" as that is part of spiritual growth, but how often and characteristic we do so determines are progress in spiritual maturity (infant, young man, father).

No response gentlemen? Especially to the bold red paragraph that directly addresses your position?

 

[The Biblicist]

Spiritual union is a truth. Baptism in the Spirit is a truth. However, the error consists in wrongly confusing one truth with another. The matter is very simple. What is spiritual "separation"? It is spiritual death. How is that reversed? What is the opposite of "separation"? The opposite is "union." What is "spiritual union"? It is the union of the human spirit with the Spirit of God removing spiritual separation from God. What does that necessarily infer? It infers permanent indwelling of the Spirit of God within man's spirit OR ELSE THERE IS NO UNION BUT SEPARATION and spiritual separation IS spiritual death.

The second thing it necessarily implies is passing from spiritual death to spiritual life. Spiritual separation IS spiritual death. One cannot be spiritually alive and be separated spiritually from God. One cannot be spiritually dead and be in spiritual union with God. God IS life and God IS light and to be in spiritual union is to have both LIFE and LIGHT.

In the day that Adam sinned, that sin SEPARATED him spiritually from God. Those in Ephesians 2:1-3 had been SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED from God by sin.

Now, what is it that reverses spiritual death/separation and brings a person into spiritual union/life with God? Is it the baptism in the Spirit or is it quickening by the Spirit? What does the term "quickened" mean? It means to make alive. - "you who were DEAD....hath he QUICKENED (made alive) (Eph. 2:1,5). "Baptism" is NEVER used in Scripture to impart life or provide life or to bring something dead unto life - NEVER!

However, does being "quickened" (make alive) unite someone spiritually with God? Paul says it does! In Ephesians 1:5 he identifies the act of being quickened as being saved by grace:

Eph. 2:1 ¶ And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;......5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

The Aorist tense "quickened" is further identified as the Perfect tense completed action event that continues as a completed action "by grace ye are saved." The words "are saved" is a periphrastic construction where the present tense linking verb is joined with the perfect tense verb. They had been quickened as a completed action at a particular point in time - thus "saved" and that completed action of quickened/saved continues to stand complete.

He has replaced "quickened" with "saved" making them interchangable expressions in this context and then continues to repeat this again in verse 8:

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

For by grace are ye quickened/saved. He then defines what source of origin it is derived from. It is not derived from self "not of yourselves." It is a "gift of God." It is not derived from your works "not of works lest any man should boast." It is the creative work of God that brings a person into union with Christ - "for we are his workmanship CREATED IN CHRIST Jesus unto good works..."

Simply put, it is QUICKENING by the Spirit of God that brings a believer into union with Christ. QUICKENING is a CREATIVE act of God. QUICKENING is "making alive" as there is no spiritual life OUTSIDE of Christ and quickening brings the believer into spiritual union/life with Christ and is the reverse of spiritual death/separation from Christ/God.

All saints from Genesis to Revelation have been quickened/born again and thus brought out of spiritual death/separation into spiritual union/life with God. This is a fundemental of God's salvation in all ages (Rom. 8:8-9) or else you are "none of his" and "in the flesh." Those in SPIRITUAL SEPARATION/DEATH cannot be one of His, as fellowship with God begins with spiritual union with God.

Since Genesis chapter 2:17 spiritual death/separation is due to sin, and since Genesis 3:15 restoration from spiritual death/separation unto spiritual life/union has been through the provision of the shed blood of the Lamb for all "of his" until this day. This means all his saints are in "spiritual union/life/light" with him by the creative act of quickening, which means they are indwelt (as union demands indwelling) and they are "in Christ Jesus" as quickening is having been "CREATED IN CHRIST"

In direct contrast, the baptism of the Spirit is a dated event for those ALREADY QUICKENED/CREATED IN CHRIST and those already WATER BAPTIZED were to "WAIT" to receive that gave them PUBLIC recognition as the new PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL HOUSE OF GOD entrusted with the "keys of the kingdom" and New Covenant administration of the ordinances within the kingdom of God on earth. It is just that simple.

The Holy Spirit has always been "with" individual children of God in the sense of personal indwelling/union. The promise on Pentecost is the indwelling of a corporate public institutional house of God composed of water baptized living stones (Mt. 3:11; Acts 1:4-5; 2:38; 40-41). The veil was rent in the Old institutional public house of God in Jerusalem and He took up residence in the new institutional public house of God in Acts 2. This indwelling was not for the purpose of salvation but for the New Covenant administration of the "keys of the kingdom" within the kingdom of God on earth. The temporal signs of this baptism were signs wonders and miracles completed in the finishing of the New Testament Scriptures, but the enduring evidence of the indwelling of the Spirit is "the pillar and ground of the truth" where the gospel and gospel ordinances are preserved through a qualified public ministry (1 Tim. 3:1-15).

No comment Gentleman? How can you admit to, and define spiritual death as spiritual separation and not equally admit that the reverse must be "spiritual union" and thus "spiritual life"? Is not "union" the opposite to "separation"? Is not "death" opposite to "life"? Is not the problem "spiritual"? Spiritual life/light is being brought back in "union" spiritually with God is it not? How can you deny that "quicken" means to "make alive" and it is referring to the "spirit'' of man. How can you deny that this quickening is also a creative act by God that produces spiritual union with Christ in Ephesians 2:10 "created IN CHRIST" (Eph. 2:1,5,10)??????? These are so elementary principles, so basic, and yet your whole position attributes spiritual union to something other than being quickened as a creative act of God by which we are "CREATED in Christ"????

 

[The Biblicist]

This whole discussion started with the OLD MAN.....being crucified....not the Old nature. it was you who mixed the two terms...

First the expression "old nature" is not found in scripture. Second, it is a theologically expression for the "old man" or "the flesh" and thus it is synomymous. Third, the absolute proof it is synomous is that the "old man" is directly associated with the works/fruits of "the flesh" or the unregenerated man. Fourth, your whole person has not been regenerated has it? Hence, you have remnants of the "old man" still abiding in your unregenerated aspects and the fruits prove it.

Ro 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

However, what we "should not" do is not what we always do. Our whole person has not been regenerated, the old man has not been fully eradicated from our person but we have the law of sin abiding, dwelling within us that inclines and overpowers us to sin ("but sin that dwelleth in me.").

If "our old man" is complete eradicated then why even waste the time as Paul does to go right on in Romans 6:7-11 to exhort and command them not to "let" that very thing rule over them, to resist it???? Your position makes no practical sense and renders his exhortations and imperative commands meaningless.


Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

Note "the deceitful lusts" and "former conversation" of the Old man they are commanded (imperative mode) to put off. Why command something not possible to saints to do???? That is the absurdity of your interpretation of the Aorist tense, when in fact, it simply shows that obedience to the imperative mode can be done instantly.

Col 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;


The regenerated aspect of human nature has totally eradicated the "old man with his deeds." Legally and positionally the old man has been eradicated. However, it should be obvious that your whole person has not been regenerated and therefore the unregenerated aspects are still remnants of "the old man" where the "law of sin" dwells and operates and which must be "put off" and the new regenerated inward man must be "put on." It should be obvious that the "law of sin" does not "dwell" in your regenerated spirit but dwells in your still unregenerated remenants of the "old man" or "my flesh....this body of death.....my members" which is still something the regenerated man must present tense "mortify" (Rom. 8:12-13).

 

[The Biblicist]

Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
15 ¶ And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Acts 2:1¶ And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.



Note the baptism in the Spirit is not UNIVERSAL but has contextual limits:

1. Limited time - "not many days hence"

2. Limited location - "should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait" "all...in one place"

3. Limited kind of believers - "these....which have companied with us all the time from the baptism of John.....to...."

4. Limited number - "all about one hundred and twenty"

There were over 500 brethren who at one event witnessed the ascension of Christ (1 Cor. 15). There had to be hundreds more who had been baptized by John and the disicples of Jesus (Jn. 4:1-2; Lk. 7:29-30). This baptism was restricted to Jerusalem and to one place in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4; 2:1). It was restricted to only 120 believers and thus was not universal or co-extensive with all existing believers inside and outside Jerusalem. Hence, it cannot possibly be coextensive with salvation or personal indwelling (Rom. 8:8-9).

 

[DHK]

I have never denied this, that is my position.

Yes you have. I can go back and dig up the posts if you wish. You adamantly assert that the entirety (vs.25 included) of Romans 7:14-25) is that of an unsaved person, perhaps Paul in his unsaved state, but never of a saved person. You have never answered my question, up until this point, How can an unsaved person say: "I thank God through Jesus Christ..." but have simply asserted that the entire passage is of an unsaved person.
So don't try to change your tune now.

This whole discussion started with the OLD MAN.....being crucified....not the Old nature. it was you who mixed the two terms...

I don't mix them up. The old man is the old nature. Look in a theological book. Your bifurcation of the two terms causes an unnecessary confusion.

I have answered and commented on all these things DHK....despite your claims that I did not.

When your error is pointed out you have not been able to respond back. In essence you are still denying the depravity of man. You have not been able to show that you are not. "The old man" (which you are denying" is that remnant of the Adamic nature which still resides in the believer.
"The law is spiritual but I am carnal sold under sin."
That is Paul's testimony as a Christian.

Why say such things when those who read can go back and see what was answered and how?
They will see that I have answered you and you just do not like the answers.

You disagree with what Calvin posts. He is as far away from you as one can get. You posts deny the depravity of man in the believer.

Ecclesiastes 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

These scriptures apply to believers as much as they do to unbelievers.
They speak of the depravity of man in the unbeliever. We have a corrupt nature, and must continually "put off the old man/old nature.

 

[Iconoclast]

No response gentlemen? Especially to the bold red paragraph that directly addresses your position?

B....I agree with most of what you have posted until these last two weeks....I tried to say that earlier in the threads..

Originally Posted by The Biblicist View Post

1. None can reasonably or rationally deny that there is an INTERNAL state of conflict within Paul and that is clearly expressed in Romans 7:15-25:

All Christians struggle with sin that comes from the pull of sinful inclinations of the flesh, the remaining corruption of living in this body of flesh.


15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

2. Whether you view him lost or saved there is clearly a schizophrenic condition being described in these verses (1) Two opposing INTERNAL laws - vv. 22-23, 25; (2) Two opposing aspects of His being - "my flesh...body...members" versus "inward man.....man"

No...the old man used to delight in the deeds of the body and chase after them, he lived "in the Flesh".

Now In Christ....the old man has been put off...past tense...having put off the old man....The one new man now mortifies remaining sin and corruption.

There is not two men in one person. {he is not a spiritual schizophrenic.}

3. No one can deny that Romans 7:7-12 is being described in PAST TENSE VERBS whereas Romans 7:14-25 is being described in PRESENT TENSE VERBS.

of course not...Paul; explains that because what God has done in us, we cannot live as we once did......We are to reckon the change as completed in times past,and now live in light of who we are In Christ....called to Holiness of life....not to fleshly ,carnal living as a habit and lifestyle.

4. No one can deny that Paul is specifically identifying the source of evil within himself to be "the law of sin" which "dwells in me" and that precise location is "my flesh...this body....my members" whereas the source of good within himself is "the law of God after the inward man.....the mind."

It looks like only one poster tries to do this...saying the old man is still alive.

5. No one can deny that the physical body of the believer continues to be subject to death, thus under sin, thus not yet redeemed from sin or else 1 Corinthians 15:51-58 is meaningless:

agreed
1 Cor. 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Neither that "when" or "then" has yet occurred, so in regard to "this body of death" it is still "sold under sin" and there is nothing good "that is in my flesh" as corruption still dominates it and incorruption has not yet been "put on."

the glorified body has not been put on...but the new man has been put on.

6. No one can claim that the "carnal" (Gr. sarkos = FLESHLY) mind described in Romans 8:7 "delights in the law of God" or that such a mind can "serve" God as described in Romans 7:21,25, because Paul explicitly states the mind dominated by the flesh is "at enmity with God and is NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF GOD, and NEITHER INDEED CAN BE."

correct...but you might need to look at some of DHK's past posts.

7. No one can deny that it is the child of God who is commanded to put to death the flesh and Paul uses PRESENT TENSES to describe this act by those indwelt with the Spirit of God.

yes...mortification of sin

Rom. 8:13 For if ye live [present tense] after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify [present tense] the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

correct..two kinds of persons Spiritual or carnal...no mix or in between person as some suggest.

1Co 9:27 But I keep [present tense] under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

exactly

The words "put on" and "put off" in regard to the old man and the new man are all found in the IMPERATIVE MODE as commands. The Aorist tense shows they can be done as a puntilliar action rather than a continuous action. To argue the Aorist means they have already done this makes Paul the fool for using the imperative mode to command them to do something already done. Lost people cannot put on the new man, nor can they "put off" the old man. Only the child of God can "put on" and "put off" and thus only the child of God can obey this command.

You are mistaken in this...the command is to live as who you are...having put off.....having put on....live accordingly.

However, those who argue such has ALREADY BEEN DONE so, have Paul not only wasting his time, as he is directing this to saved persons, but making a redundant unnecessary command because according to them it is already done and cannot be repeated. Such is the kind of nonsense necessary to avoid the obvious truth of these passages.

it is your misunderstanding of this teaching that makes you go off big time.
I stated that earlier on and it has been shown to be true.

These Seven things are irrefutable IF common sense and sound exegetical principles of interpretation are abided by. The lesson in Romans 7:14-25 is that the saved man does not have the will POWER (v. 18 "to will is present, but HOW to perform I find not") to win this inner conflict with indwelling law of sin. The lesson in Romans 8:9-27 is that this power comes from dependence upon the power of the Indwelling Spirit of God - therefore if we "live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit" - Gal. 5:25 or "As ye have received the Lord Jesus Christ, so walk ye in him." - Col. 2:6.

Common sense should tell you that you can choose as a child of God to live without dependence upon the power of the Holy Spirit! It is possible, and not only possible, but for many this is their primary expereince.

this is highly unlikely that this is the case...if they live like that, they are most likely unsaved church members headed to hell.

To move more toward a life characterized by dependence is called spiritual GROWTH. Hence, spiritual growth is developing the characteristic habit of depending on God more and more.

So we can "put on" and we can "put off" as that is part of spiritual growth, but how often and characteristic we do so determines are progress in spiritual maturity (infant, young man, father).

for a Christian it is already done...they can obey or disobey.....the old man has been put off...they live as new men now.
Obedient, or disobedient

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes you have. I can go back and dig up the posts if you wish. You adamantly assert that the entirety (vs.25 included) of Romans 7:14-25) is that of an unsaved person, perhaps Paul in his unsaved state, but never of a saved person.

Quite frankly...you are a liar. there is no nice way to say this. I have never held that position ever.....never. In fact there have been several threads in the past where I have clearly and firmly answered this, and your false ideas...

I have to work now, but i will take the time and once again go through the archives and show this...and prove you are now lying. At that point i would like to see you publically repent.

If you said this... Once you could have gotten me confused with another poster and made a mistake.... that is one thing.
i have answered you directly here and now you try and twist my words bearing false witness once again.

others have seen my posts on this...i have told you about this....we will see who is not being honest here:thumbs::thumbs: i know who it is:thumbsup:

You have never answered my question, up until this point, How can an unsaved person say: "I thank God through Jesus Christ..." but have simply asserted that the entire passage is of an unsaved person.
So don't try to change your tune now.

You repeat your false charge. maybe rippon knows how to do the search thing better than i can...he will find it faster...but it will be found,and you will be exposed once again.

 

[The Biblicist]

Jn. 7:37 ¶ In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

John 7:37 is directed toward the unbeliever, to come to him and partake of the Spirit, whereas, John 7:38-39 is addressed only to those who have already believed on him.

John 7:37 is about the ENTRANCE of, or partaking of the Spirit, whereas John 6:38-39 is about the EXIT of the Spirit "out of" already believers.

 

[Iconoclast]

here from last month...and there will be more.....

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=94020&page=2

Originally Posted by DHK View Post
Icon,
I thought you believed in the Baptist Catechism and Commentary that you quoted from. It disagrees with you.

Note how it describes chapter seven as a believer who is "the epitome of weakness and inconsistency or "carnal" (lit. of the flesh).
--This goes entirely against what you have been posting.

You would have to understand what is written as it is written DHK...not cherry pick it...post the whole portion I posted and it exposes your incorrect teaching..I will post it again in total so those who read will see what you did here.


Quote:
From the Baptist Catechism with Commentary;

[
Quote:
It is vital to understand Rom. 6:6 in this connection: “Knowing this, that
our old man...[was, aorist tense] crucified with him, [in order] that the body of
sin might be destroyed, [in order] that henceforth we should not serve [as
willing bondslaves to] sin.” The “old man” was the unregenerate self, who
was crucified with Christ, i.e., died with Christ in his death. The reason is so
the body with its appetites might no longer dominate the personality, and that
the believer will now no longer live as he once did—a willing bondslave to
sin. The believer is the “new [regenerate] man” in Christ. The “crucifixion of
the old man” is therefore not a subjective experience to be sought, but a
reality to be reckoned in the experience, as noted in Romans 6:11–14 and 1
Peter 2:24.

Contrary to some traditional teachings, the believer is not comprised of an
“old man” and a “new man;” he is the “new man” in union with Christ. The
“old man,” or unregenerate self, was crucified with Christ. If he were
comprised of two different “men” or “natures” within himself, then he would
be ever frustrated and stymied in any attempt toward holiness and victory
over sin. He would be a kind of “spiritual schizophrenic,” not the biblical
description of the person in whom the reigning power of sin has been broken.
Godliness would forever remain either a crippled half–possibility, dependent
upon his own self–determination or an option, i.e., he could either remain a
225
“Carnal Christian” or seek to become a “spiritual” believer. He could
constantly blame the “old man” or “old nature” for his difficulties and never
take full responsibility for his sin. His union with Christ could be largely
nullified. But the Scripture declares every believer to be a “new man” in
union with Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). This is the reality of the definitive aspect of
sanctification. See Questions 94–95.


What, then, is the source of the believer’s struggle with sin in his life? It is
not the “old man” or the “old nature,” but rather a principle of indwelling sin
and remaining corruption that expresses itself in acts of sin. It has been
traditional on the part of many to refer to this reality of indwelling sin and
remaining corruption as the “old nature.”

Mark carefully Rom. 6:15–8:15 and closely note the following realities:
first, the statement of Romans Chapter seven ends, not at 7:25, but at 8:16.
The idea, therefore of “getting out of Romans Chapter Seven and into
Romans Chapter Eight” is based on a misunderstanding of this passage.

Second, chapter and verse divisions are not inspired. The passage ends on a
note of victory through the enabling grace of the Spirit, not in defeat.

Third, the Apostle has waited until chapter eight to discuss the reality and power of
the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life. The entire section, which reveals the
believer’s relation to the law, extends from 6:15 to 8:9. Fourth, Romans 7:14–
25 is, we believe, the statement of a mature believer who is horribly conscious
of all and any indwelling sin and remaining corruption. When held before the
absolute standard of the law, he is the very epitome of weakness and
inconsistency, or “carnal” [lit: “made of flesh”].


Fifth, he makes a very clear distinction between “I” or himself and the “sin that dwelleth in me,” not the
“old man” or the “old nature.” Finally, his strength and hope of victory lie in
the grace or power of the Holy Spirit, which enables him to conform in
principle to the righteous demands of the Moral Law (Rom. 8:1–16). Has the
reigning power of sin been broken in your life?

__________________

Lying is sin, repent....I will go back several years and list how many times I have consistently stated this.

I pointed it out on the same thread post 15...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
You would have to understand what is written as it is written DHK...not cherry pick it...post the whole portion I posted and it exposes your incorrect teaching..I will post it again in total so those who read will see what you did here.

I read all of it Icon. The last two paragraphs (starting with "Third" and "Fifth") go directly against what you believe and have expressed on this board. It is time for you to read it carefully, and with some understanding instead of just blindly posting it on this board. Don't post what you don't believe, and then hypocritically say "This is what I believe." You don't believe it.
__________________
DHK

Lying and bearing false witness is a sin...repent.