SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The Distinction Between Being "Filled" and "Baptized" in the Holy Ghost

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 Next Page )
PosterThread
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
All commentators see this as our body ie our physical humanity under the rule of sin. I don't (no suprizes there ) I have long felt that this is a mystical body. In a way Satan's counterfeit 'body of Christ'. This is humanity under the wrong head. The solidarity still continues in Adam, only in Christ is it rendered inoperable.



Hi Bro. Ron,

I said I would leave off and let you go on to baptism, but I do want to briefly touch this if we can. This is an interesting concept. It lines up well with, "Ye are of your Father the Devil and his deeds you will do." All who are in Adam do the deeds of the Devil and all who are in Christ do the works of Christ. Those in Adam walk according to the course of this world (lust of eyes, lust of flesh, pride of life), according to the Prince of the Power of the Air (the 'Head' of all who are in Adam), and the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience (the spirit of AntiChrist that is already in the world). Among whom also we ALL had our conversation in times past (when we were in Adam) in the lusts of our flesh (could this be the body apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and 'endued' by the spirit that now works in the Children of disobedience?), fulfilling the desires of the flesh (ibid) and of the mind (carnal mind that cannot be subject to God), and were by nature (phusis) the children of wrath even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for His love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins has quickened us together with Christ.

I see here in the Greek word phusis the symbol of a plant that springs forth from its source and brings forth from the good treasure of that source (which pre-salvation is Adam and all that comes with that; i.e. thorns and briars which are the litmus test for them having been rejected or adokimos and are to be burned); yet when we are saved we who were 'wild' by nature were (if I can mix metaphors here) transformed into a new creature and transplanted (as it were) into Christ to bring forth fruit unto God (the fruit of the Spirit). If this is true of the meaning of phusis- is what I and others have been calling 'the flesh' or our old sin nature really just residual memories and remembrances of past behavior patterns that are still in our minds? Is it possible that our past thoughts patterns and actions and tendencies left over in us after we were born again can somehow simulate the old carnal nature and lead us to believe we still have a sin nature- when in reality we do not? And that because the sin nature is really just us walking according to the prince of the power of the air and the spirit that now works in us when we were children of disobedience? The nature of a person cannot be thought of to exist within them as though it was some metaphysical controlling substance somehow attached to the body individually; but in reality phusis (our nature) is not truly something that is our own- it is that which we borrow or are plugged into (either Christ and the things of the Spirit or Adam and the spirit of Antichrist, etc.).

I know you like to maintain a biblical framework in our discussions (which is always the best method), but if I might use in my folly the analogy; are we like a computer that is online with the devil through Adam until we are saved downloading and working through all kinds of sinfulness; but when we are born again we disconnect from the enemy (the corporeal sin nature of the devil that all who are in Adam are hooked into) and are now plugged in (grafted in) to Jesus Christ? Could it be that we in a sense are now in Christ, yet all those old programs (as it were) and info is still on the hard drive from before and when we go to open up something- it occasionally trys to open up the file with a carnal program (as it were) that was left over from before. In other words, God plugged us into Christ, but he did not clear the harddrive of our memories and past learned behaviors.

God Bless and thanks for all the input!

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/10/7 8:41Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Hi Robert
Thanks for your questions, I think! You are reading your Bible too much, some of your sentences are longer than Paul's! ;-) (just joking) So now I am sitting here trying to understand your understanding of my understanding before I answer and wondering if you will understand my understanding of your understanding of my understanding... and some people say I am complicated. Me??? surely not ?!? ;-) I do genuinely appreciate your questions and challenges; iron sharpeneth iron. I am fully supportive of 'destruction testing' of my views. I love the spirit of Finney in his Systematic Theology; I hold myself sacredly bound, not to defend these positions at all events, but on the contrary, to subject every one of them to the most thorough discussion, and to hold and treat them as I would the opinions of any one else; that is, if upon further discussion and investigation I see no cause to change, I hold them fast; but if I can see a flaw in any one of them, I shall amend or wholly reject it, as further light shall demand.

True Christian consistency implies progress in knowledge and holiness, and such changes in theory and in practice as are demanded by increasing light.

Charles Grandison Finney
in the preface to his Systematic Theology (1851)"

and I find the same spirit in Tyndale; "If I shall perceive either by myself or by the information of another, that ought be escaped me, or might be more plainly translated, I will shortly after, cause it to be mended".

1st paragraph.
I am certainly with you for the first half of this other than to comment that I don't think the 'spirit of antiChrist' is quite the same thing as ...the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (Eph 2:2-3 KJV) 'the spirit of antiChrist' would certainly be in opposition to/replacement for Christ and in that sense has similarities to the 'rebellious old man', but I think the 'spirit of antiChrist' is a further manifestation of Satanic opposition rather than just another label for 'Adam'.

Quote:
in the lusts of our flesh (could this be the body apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and 'endued' by the spirit that now works in the Children of disobedience?),

Are you asking here the question 'is the flesh the same as the 'body of sin'? If you are, my answer would be 'no'. I can't think of a scriptural use of the 'flesh' in the sense of a corporate entity. 'the old man' and 'the body of sin' are, I think, corporate entities, so although Romans 6:6 talks about 'our' in the plural the things that we share 'the old man' and 'the body of sin' are always singular. In other words there is just one 'old man' and just one 'body of sin'. I think 'the flesh', in its moral sense, is linked to human energy. It is human-ness in its neutral use; ie Christ being.. of the seed of David according to the flesh. In its bad moral use it retains the connection with human-ness but personal human-ness rather than a corporate entity. We are personally accountable for 'the flesh' and its behaviour but I don't think the scripture holds us personally accountable for 'the old man' or 'the body of sin'; this will have important implications later in our thinking.


2nd paragraph.
Quote:
The nature of a person cannot be thought of to exist within them as though it was some metaphysical controlling substance somehow attached to the body individually; but in reality phusis (our nature) is not truly something that is our own- it is that which we borrow or are plugged into

I think we create thought patterns by our view of the 'tripartite' nature of man. Man is not 'tripart' he is 'monocoque', an integrated whole and although 'body, soul, spirit,' may be indentified they cannot be separated out, except by the specific operation of the 'word of God'; a 'word' can do it, but a bible student cannot! I think you are saying something similar in your quote above. God took material (body) and breathed into it 'spirit' and 'it became' a living soul. It did not become a soul which 'has' a body and a spirit', 'body' and 'spirit' became a God-conscious entity with a unique identity. I am a body/spirit creature. If either of these is missing I am no longer 'a soul'. Oswald Chambers used to talk much about the unique glory of man as being the very fact that he was both 'body' and 'spirit'. Angels are spirits, dogs are bodies'. Angels were created to be 'at home' in the spiritual world, dogs were created to be 'at home' in the physical world', man was created to be 'at home' in both. It is his unique glory and his responsibility.

You put a whole bunch of terms together that I would want to teaze out a little; the flesh, the old sin nature, the old carnal nature and I would rather gather them up later. I think one of our failures in talking about 'original sin' is that we don't go back to its origin. We think it began with Adam, but Paul doesn't say it originated in Adam, he says it entered our world through Adam. This points to an origin earlier than Adam and shows plainly that 'sin' is older than our race. It is because folk think of it as being of human origin that we get into conversations about what 'humans' can do about it; bondage of the will etc. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (Joh 8:44 KJV) The 'beginning' here is 'archE' and 'archE' can be translated 'origin'. Sin, in the human race (and in the cosmos/world for which God made man responsible) is thus found to have its origin 'outside' the human race. Its origin is a rebellious spirit-being known to us as Satan/Lucifer. Its energy continues to be derived from that spirit-being; ...for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (1Jo 3:8 KJV). That 'beginning'is archE too. This verse tells us that in all human sin Satan is still at work; the devil 'continues to sin' from the origin. The dynamic behind sin is satanic.

Unless God can do something about the continuing relationship between Satan and the human race salvation can only be a promise for a future day. This partnership between Satan and the Man began in Adam and now the word 'Adam' represents the result of this partnership. The 'old man' is the human race in union with the wrong power; the 'new man' is the human race in union with the right power. The 'gospel according to Zacharias' tell us of a horn of salvation from the house of David and its consequence; That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. (Luk 1:74-75 KJV) This is an 'all the days of our life' salvation, not a 'when we all get to heaven' salvation. It is salvation in which 'having been delivered' not when 'death finally delivers us'. It is a salvation in which we become 'servants without fear' serving Him in 'holiness and righteousness'. This is New Covenant salvation and anything less than this means we are being 'short-changed'.

3rd paragraph
I am always 'suspicious' of mechanical illustrations, even when I use them myself. Christ's illustrations were never mechanistic but always 'living'. I quoted a Spurgeonism in another thread. He would encourage his students to use illustration but would always caution them that the purpose of an illustration is to let light into the building. Be wary he would say of using glass as a foundation. So I am cautious about programming illustrations. The scripture enjoins us to 'be being renewed in the spirit of our minds' (Eph 4:23) This is a present infinitive which consequently has the sense of 'be continually renewed' in the spirit of your mind. This is process although it may well begin in crisis. Infinitives in Greek can be in three tenses;

Aorist Infinitive which would mean 'to be renewed'- undefined.
Present Infinitive which would mean 'to continually be renewed'- continuous
Perfect Infinitive which would mean 'to have been renewed' - completed

I think the change of tenses here must be significant; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off (Aorist Infinitive) concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed (Present Infinitive) in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on (Aorist Infinitive) the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. (Eph 4:21-24 KJV). The sudden switch to Present Infinitive when speaking of the 'spirit of the mind' would stand out from the other two Aorist Infinitives. The reference to the 'old man' here is significant too. Rotherham translates this; If, at least, it is, him, ye have heard, and, in him, ye have been taught—even as truth is in Jesus,— That ye were to strip off—as regardeth the former behaviour—the old man, who corrupteth himself according to his deceitful covetings, This captures well the idea of an 'old man' who is a constant state of being corrupted. It is not a static thing but a continual bubbling pollution. I also like the way Rotherham has captured the sense that this was part of their original teaching, the truth about 'being in Him'. They had originally been taught 'to strip off, as regards the former behaviour, the old man. You have probably heard my little rants about the way modern translations obscure the distinction between the old man and the new but translating 'old man' as 'old self' or 'old nature'. These translations are really interpretations which lose the linking contrast between the 'old man' and the 'new man'. In some aspects one way of defining the 'old man' would be by contrast with the 'new man'. ie Does the 'new man' mean a 'new self'? and would a 'new' self be an improvement on the old 'self'? 'Self', of course, is a psychological term rather than a biblical one.

There are implications in your questions that I have not tried to answer here. They deal with the practical applications and pastoral implications of these views. Perhaps we can come to them later in our conversation. (by the way, if anyone else is listening, do join in)


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/10/8 6:01Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Bro. Ron,

Thanks again for your insight. Your understanding of the Greek tenses and the ways in which significant words are translated is very helpful. I have read some of your postings elsewhere a few months ago and I can assure everyone that you are a whole lot more knowledgable than you come across, and you come across to be very knowledgable. :-) Not to puff you up; I am simply acknowledging the fact. I thank God you have been led here.

Quote:
This is an 'all the days of our life' salvation, not a 'when we all get to heaven' salvation. It is salvation in which 'having been delivered' not when 'death finally delivers us'. It is a salvation in which we become 'servants without fear' serving Him in 'holiness and righteousness'. This is New Covenant salvation and anything less than this means we are being 'short-changed'.



Earlier in the year I would have tried to refute this comment; but I am a little wiser now I hope from our past conversations. I always believed there has to be a place of victory over sin in this life. What I really always was so dead set against was the concept that we cease to struggle and wrestle and strive against sin in this life. I am angered that I am tempted to sin at times and wonder why. Why? Why? Why? I search the scriptures and search them, and in time I concluded, that death brings an end to that struggle. Death is not the Savior (as Wesley and yourself have well stated), but death seemed to be the place of finality of this warfare and this fight that I often get tired of fighting. I saw in myself a need to resist things that should have never been an attraction to a person who was born of God; and I concluded that I must have two natures: one that was born after God and one that was of the devil. The one I feed most will prevail. I called the sin nature "the flesh" or the "the old man" and the new nature "the spiritual man." A hymn described what I felt:

There is a silent war raging deep within me
my lower nature fights to dominate
my spirit man is poised and locked in battle
while the carnal side of me I have grown to hate

My missives of months gone by were not directed at you- they were reactions of what were ultimately a struggle to find an answer and a desperation to know the truth. I have found a place of brokeness since then and can sit again at the feet of one who may understand these things more excellently and with greater clairity. In your words I would hear "there is no real struggle, you are only imagining it." I reacted with page after page of arguments that the fight that I am trying to fight daily, in varying degrees, some days easier and some days great struggle, is and was a very real struggle indeed.

When I have talked about perfectionism it was never with an eternal security safety net below in case I missed the mark; it was always through the Oberlin lense of walking the tightrope at 60 feet above the crowd without a net below. Missing the mark for me simply was not an option. So the stakes in my mind were always sorely high, as to fall from this precipice would be anathama and adokimos. These studies are helping me settle down and rest in Christ. I appreciate your input as I know these conversations are God ordained.

God Bless!

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/10/8 8:48Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Bro Ron,

I listened to your four part series on Baptism here on SI. Took me a couple days, but it was well worth it. I think I can sum up your position on the old man like this:

We WERE in the body of sin- the head of which is Satan; but since we are born again we are baptized into the body of Christ, the head of which is Christ.

Theres a lot of good stuff in that study and I recommend it to everyone. I am trying to fit some new pieces into the puzzle I guess you would say- or rather looking at some old pieces at a new angle. Can you go on and discuss beyond what you talked about in the series? This subject I wish to understand to the uttermost.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/10/12 16:45Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Can you go on and discuss beyond what you talked about in the series? This subject I wish to understand to the uttermost.


Hi Robert
Yes, there's more to come soon.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/10/12 17:33Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Continuing our examination of the concept of baptism we can now take a look at the New Testament use of the word. In this exercise I am continuing to define the word 'baptism' before we join it to the phrase 'baptism in the Spirit'. My 'thesis' so far has been that the word has a long biblical history and that we must understand the use of the word before we can understand the expectations that 'baptism in the Spirit' would have evoked.

This time I want to go beyond the narratives in the Acts to pick up the word in the Epistles. If we can demonstrate that the word has maintained its mood and feeling we may say with some certainty that the word is used consistently throughout the scriptures; this will have deep implications for the phrase 'baptism in the Spirit'.

There are some references which clearly pertain to water baptism; (1 Cor 1:13-17, 15:29) but others are open to interpretation. Water baptism in the period of the Acts was usually referred to as 'baptism in the name of Jesus'. This was not a baptismal formual but a simple assertion that the person being baptized was coming under the authority of the 'name' into which they were baptized. To call 'the name of the Lord' over someone was to bring that person consciously under the authority of that owner of that name; Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: (Jam 5:14 KJV). There is an interesting cameo in the story of David which illustrates this idea. Joab was about to take Rabbah but is insistent that the victory should be credited to David; and Joab sendeth messengers unto David, and saith, `I have fought against Rabbah--also I have captured the city of waters; and now, gather the rest of the people, and encamp against the city, and capture it, lest I capture the city, and my name hath been called upon it.' (2Sa 12:27-28 YLT) To have David's 'name' called upon Rabbah would bring the city under David's authority and rule. The inscription of names of boundary stones throughout archaeology has the same purpose. To put your name on it is to stake your claim; Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. (Rev 3:12 KJV) 'baptism in the name' is to bring that person publically under the authority of 'the name'. Peter's first proclamation is a no compromise demand; Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Act 2:38 KJV) It would be a challenging question to ask whether we see 'water baptism' in this light today? The link between baptism and 'the name' continues throughout the Acts and into the Epistles; Acts 8:12-16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16, 1 Cor 1:13-15.

However there are two occasions in the Epistles where the construction is changed dramatically and these passages have been the subject of disagreement as to their application; we will need to examine these.

1. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 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. (Rom 6:3-6 KJV)

The phrase 'in the name' is missing from this passage. Instead we have a reference to 'baptism into Christ Jesus'; not 'into the name' now, but 'into the person'. The question we must ask is 'is this water-baptism'? The claims for this 'baptism' are wide-ranging. It is said that this baptism 'baptizes into His death'? Would any, other than the Roman Catholics and their fellow travellers, claim this for 'water baptism'? It reminds me of the old saying that if you water-baptize a sinner what you get is a 'wet sinner'. However, Paul sees the consequence of this 'baptism' in a much greater panarama. This baptism 'unites' the baptized with 'the likeness of His death'. In a profound sense this baptism is not focussing upon the death of the 'baptized' but upon Christ's own death; the event that He called 'a baptism'. This is not 'my death' but 'His death' which is being effected in the person being baptized. Again, this has powerful implications.

2. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:27-28 KJV)

Again the key phrase from the water-baptisms is missing. The reference is not to those 'baptized into the name of' but to those 'baptized into the person' of Christ. Again the implications are wide-ranging; those who have been baptized into Christ have 'put on Christ'. This latter phrase immediately links with the things 'taught' to the Christians in Ephesus; if so be ye did hear him, and in him were taught, as truth is in Jesus; ye are to put off concerning the former behaviour the old man, that is corrupt according to the desires of the deceit, and to be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and to put on the new man, which, according to God, was created in righteousness and kindness of the truth. (Eph 4:21-24 YLT) Again, other than the Roman Catholics, no one would attribute these events to water-baptism. We also see the consequence of this 'baptism' in that it has unites those baptized into 'oneness' in Christ.

In both of the above we are seeing that familiar theme of 'baptism' effecting a union. In the first with Christ's own baptismal-death on the cross, and in the second with the 'body' of His people who are 'one in Christ'. In fact both of these passages result in 'union with Christ'; union with Him in His death and union with Him in His Body. Each is a baptism 'into Christ' which unites the baptized with Him.

The theme is carried forward in another reference to 'baptism'; For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 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. (1Co 12:12-13 KJV) I have begun with the familiar KJV which seems to suggest that this 'baptism' is 'by one Spirit'. Some have used this translation to justify the teaching that this is a different baptism to 'baptism in the Spirit', but the original Greek phrase is exactly the same as earlier constructions; For, even as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the one body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ, for also in one Spirit we all to one body were baptized, whether Jews or Greeks, whether servants or freemen, and all into one Spirit were made to drink, (1Co 12:12-13 YLT) The Greek prepositions behind the KJV are 'en'-'by' and 'eis'-'into', but 'en' is most usually translated 'in' and 'eis' has the purposive sense of 'towards', hence the Greek reads 'in one Spirit were we all baptized towards one Body'. The purpose, or one of them as it suits Paul's teaching here, was to get everything into 'one body', the means was 'baptism in Spirit'. In fact the passage parallels the earlier an earlier one; and all to Moses were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea; (1Co 10:2 YLT) in which 'to Moses' is 'eis' and 'in the cloud etc' is 'en'. The purpose was to unite them all with Moses and the means was 'a baptism in cloud and sea'.

In these references we see a persistence that baptism effects union. The 1 Cor 12:13 reference brings together a baptism and a drinking; the exact imagery of Christ's own baptism and cup. This is the fulfilled promise; And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized: (Mar 10:39 KJV) If it should be countered that this is just a reference to a bloody death we need to remind ourselves that, so far as we can be sure, John did not experience such a death. But how can we experience his 'baptism and cup'? By being 'baptized into Christ'. We are touching here, a baptism into a baptism. If God really does have means of uniting us to Christ at the point of His death then it is dynamically true, not positionally so that ...he who hath died hath been set free from the sin. (Rom 6:7 YLT) and that is the gospel in a nutshell.

We have two more references to study;
1. The first is more in the way of a return to an earlier one. we were buried together, then, with him through the baptism to the death, that even as Christ was raised up out of the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we in newness of life might walk.(Rom 6:4 YLT) Young's Literal translation picks up the definite article and give us 'the baptism'. It also reminds us of an earlier characteristic that we have noted; all biblical baptism is 'baptism into death' and if this is true is must have a poerful impact upon our understanding of the phrase 'baptism in the Spirit'.

The Greek definitive article can have the effect of a backwards reference. 'the death' of Romans 5 and 6 is a companion term to 'the sin'. This is not 'sins' as events but the nature and dynamic of 'Sin' which 'by one man' 'entered into the world'. Sin has its consequence in sins, and Death has its consequence in death, but we need to distinguish between the nature and the event. Christ's baptism (his cross) was a baptism into Sin and Death and in a manner beyong human expression He was united with it Him who knew not sin he has made sin for us, that *we* might become God's righteousness in him. (2Co 5:21 Darby). Again, we dare go no further... What a Saviour! 'the baptism into the death' however is a baptism into 'the death, His'. In this sense the Christian does not have to 'die to Sin'; he just needs to be baptized into Christ's baptism where He died to Sin. The Romans section carries the truth further forwards for we are united by such a 'baptism' into Christ who has already died and has already risen again (and if we were to follow the theme into Ephesians...) has already ascended, and has already sat down. It is wonderfully and literally true; everything is 'in Christ'.

2. The second is also obscurred by our English translations; in whom also ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh in the circumcision of the Christ, being buried with him in the baptism, in which also ye rose with him through the faith of the working of God, who did raise him out of the dead.(Col 2:11-12 YLT) We have here another reference to 'the baptism' and this one will add some more 'experiences'. This time Paul says his Colossians readers were 'co-buried with Christ' and 'co-raised with Him' and each time he sees the agent as 'the baptism'. He says 'you were co-buried with Him in the baptism' 'in which (the baptism) you were also c-raised with Him. Faith is at work here too, but the focus is 'the baptism'. Again we see the uniting power of 'the baptism'which unites us to a life that was taken down into death and raised from it.

I think there is enough to digest here in one posting but the thesis holds. The word 'baptism' is retaining its historical content. It is baptism into death. It is judgment upon the old. It is separation from the continuing pollution. It is an end which makes a genuine beginning possible. It is a uniting process which links the baptized into the destiny of the another. It is co-everything; co-circumcision, co-burial, co-resurrection, co-ascension, co-seating in the heavenlies, and all is 'in Christ' and so may I be... 'by the baptism'.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/10/13 7:41Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Bro Ron,

Excellent thesis. These are essentially my understandings and thoughts as well. This is what complicates my understanding: I understand that we are buried with Christ in Baptism and that we are in Him. I understand that he died to sin and in Him we are dead to sin. I understand that we are seated together in heavenly places in Christ, etc. However, there has to be something left that we need to be finally seperated from else death would not be needed and from the born again experience we would be immortal. This corruption must still 'put on' incorruption and this mortal immortality. The proof that sin still somehow existed when there was no Law is that death reigned from Adam, even when the people did not sin in the similitude of Adam. Understand that I am not seeking to debate this; I am way past that. I am desperately trying to understand it and if anyone can help me you can.

God Bless,

-Robert




_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/10/13 11:11Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
However, there has to be something left that we need to be finally seperated from else death would not be needed and from the born again experience we would be immortal.


This is the kind of ruthless logic I appreciate! We shall need to identify the 'usual suspects'.

Perhaps a lead-in would be to ask 'what is born again'? If we take the tripartite view and regard man as body, soul and spirit, just what exactly is 'born again?'. It clearly isn't my body; I'm looking forward to a much sleeker model than my current version! What about 'soul?' If 'soul' is the essential me, who would I be if it was born again? (I know this is knock-about stuff but others might be listening... possibly.) That leaves 'spirit' and this certainly fits the available evidence from other sources; A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. (Eze 36:26-27 KJV) I know this passage has an Israel dimension but there is a pattern here which seems to hold good on the personal level too. The promise is of a new 'spirit' rather than of soul or body, and of another 'Spirit' (My Spirit) within you. This is powerful and clear New Covenant theology. It continues to describe the removal of the stony heart and the provision of heart of flesh; there is not enough time to pursue this but these are wonderful promises. The equivalent passages in Jeremiah 31 speaks of 'hearts' (plural) so we are justified in seeing a personal application of the promises. It seems to be that it is the spirit that is regenerated. That leaves soul and body and possible areas of continuing inner conflict and the spirit itself as potentially vulnerable from outside attack.

The language of salvation that pertains to the soul is that of redemption; a buying back which constitutes a change of ownership. There is room for progress here too along the type of the conquest of Canaan. The conquest of the land was to have been a continual progress of victory following victory. I hear an echo of the possessing your possessions theme in the statement of the Lord; In your patience possess ye your souls. (Luk 21:19 KJV) As the Ark was carried into the land as a spiritual beachhead, so the regeneration of the spirit puts God's inward law and the symbol of His presence within the territory that is to be occupied and brought under God's perfect rule.

Man without body is unclothed; For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. (2Co 5:1-3 KJV) So for God's triumph of redemption to be complete the body too must share in the victory. However, although the gift of the Spirit guarantees the future redemption of the body, that time is 'not yet'; For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. (Rom 8:20-23 KJV)

So in our lineup of the 'usual suspects' for any continuing conflict we shall certainly include the body. Roman 8 is moving the story along. Paul's reference to 'your mortal bodies' with the qualifying adjective of 'mortal' is one of my reasons for seeing the 'body of sin' in Rom 6:6 as a 'mystical body'. As you have pointed out in some of your own studies the concept that the 'mortal body' is in itself sinful is Greek philosophy rather than Hebrew instinct or Divine revelation. Nevertheless the 'mortal body' has suffered from Sin's entrance into the world. It is significant to me that Paul refers to Sin entering into the 'world' rather than just the human race. This is one of the reasons that I do not think in terms of 'hereditory sin' passing from generation to generation. If it were this simple Eve who was separated from Adam prior to Genesis 3 would have escaped the unique contamination that has polluted the rest of the race, and the lower animal creation would not have been damaged either. Somehow, there is an 'organic' of the physical creation which was committed to Adam's care and the whole thing 'fell' in Adam.

Paul says, quite clearly, that For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (Rom 8:20-21 KJV) So we have 'a creation' that continues in the 'bondage of corruption'; corruption maintains its grip on this creation. There is a group of people referred to in Peter; While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. (2Pe 2:19-20 KJV) where the phrase 'servants/slaves of corruption' is very close to the phrase in Rom 8:21. But the folk referred to in Peter seem to be those who have become 'again entangled'. (One of the issues we will need to examine at some point is whether 'carnality' is the consequence of a lack of progression or the result of specific regression. cf For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. (Heb 5:12 KJV)) Our 'mortal body' and our humanity (which is more than physical) remains in permanent contact with a fallen world of which we are still 'part'. It can serve as a ready beachhead for enemy attack. This picture of the 'beachhead' is not so fanciful. The 'mortal body' must also be regarded as a suspect in the light of verses which use the Greek word 'aphormE'; For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. (Gal 5:13 KJV) and I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. (1Ti 5:14 KJV) There are other places where the word is used. The word was used in military language of a 'beachhead'; a fortified position established on a beach by invading forces. Our 'mortal body' is part of an 'unredeemed creation'and as such serves as an interface between me and a hostile environment. In Galatians 5:13 it is the liberty itself which can serve as a beach-head. Liberty is not an enemy but it is vulnerable territory. In the Galatian passage it is the 'flesh' which is the invader; we shall really need to spend some time defining 'the flesh' later.

There is another passage of scripture which I think is highly suggestive. Having declared that we are to 'count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations, James later continues; Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (Jam 1:12-15 KJV) The roots of the words for 'temptation' in the earlier verses and 'tempt' here are the same. However, what we have here is a unique description of a process which results in sin and death.

James speaks of temptation and identifies it as being the consequence of allurement and entrapment. Sin is seen to be the result of a solicitation. Adam Clarke says there is a double metaphor; the first referring to the dragging a fish out of the water by a hook which it had swallowed, because concealed by a bait; the second, to the enticements of impure women, who draw away the unwary into their snares, and involve them in their ruin. The enticing principle is said to be 'his own strong desire'. 'epithumias' is a word which can be used in widely differing circumstances; And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: (Luk 22:15 KJV) doubles the word for intensity. Men and women have 'strong desires' within them; they were created so; And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Gen 3:6 KJV) - 'desired' is the word translated 'covet' in the commandments. I think we may be seeing two parties here; the strong desires which draw out and an enticing from outside. The strong desires are fertile and they 'takes hold'; this is the language of conception. But what do they take hold of? In every conception there is a giver and a receiver. The receiver is the strong desires but who is the giver? The giver is plainly the 'father' of this event; who can this be? I see an ominous replay here of temptation which is received by something entering in the human race; the desire fertilized by the wrong 'father' which results in sin leading to death. This is what happened to the first man; it is the architype of sin repeated in its measure in every other sin that was every committed; He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (1Jo 3:8 KJV) Only in one man was the enticing offer refused and the seed rejected; Christ Himself. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (Joh 8:44 KJV) All sin has its origin in Satan, but the conception takes place in human beings.

One day we will be immortal but until them we live here in our 'mortal body' and Satan's attacks continue. The temptations are not an unmitigated disaster; in each temptation there is a potential victory. In each slander there is an opportunity to cleave to the truth of God's character. I am reminded of a WWII general who addressed his troops; "gentlemen we are surrounded to the north, south, east and west by enemy troops. They won't get away this time!"

For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.(Rom 16:19-20 KJV) God will do the bruising but He has determined to use your feet!


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/10/13 15:14Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
This is the kind of ruthless logic I appreciate



I knew you could answer it and you have done well.

Quote:
s you have pointed out in some of your own studies the concept that the 'mortal body' is in itself sinful is Greek philosophy rather than Hebrew instinct or Divine revelation. Nevertheless the 'mortal body' has suffered from Sin's entrance into the world.



Perhaps I was wrong in condemning the concept merely because it might be Greek (dualism). It was my position before my days debating at the Jewish Institute. As a matter of fact, I suggested to the Jewish men that circumcision of the heart was the putting off of the sins of the body- therefor circumcision of the flesh was an outward expression of an inward work. The foreskin of the heart was a 'type' of our sinful body that Christ must circumcise ultimately at physical death. That drew fire like you can't believe. To me the body has always been suspect.

Why would Paul say that a man and woman (married) must use caution and come together again lest the Devil tempt us for our lack of self-control. The act of joining again has the effect of somehow dispelling a physiological need and temptation and desire flees. These must be weaknesses of the body itself.

Quote:
Paul says, quite clearly, that For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (Rom 8:20-21 KJV)



I have always taught this as the creature being in a state of 'inutility.' Is that wholly accurate?

Quote:
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. (Heb 5:12 KJV))



I have always seen this as a 'regression' caused by a refusal to 'exercise' or control the senses; i.e. - letting all sorts of stuff in the eyes and ears causes the regression. We are charged to 'exercise the senses to discern good and evil.' To me this is right where carnality starts. If not here it is a refusal to lay aside the weights that make provision for the flesh- or create a 'beachhead' for the enemy to attack from by charging into the eyes and ears, etc. with thoughts and imaginations that exalt against the knowledge of God.

Looking forward to you defining the flesh! This is excellent material and I followed it well with many smiles :-).

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/10/13 16:07Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: Just a few notes on anointing

Just a few notes on anointing:
In our examination of the ideas behind the word 'baptism' it may be helpful to say clearly what baptism 'is not'. It 'is not' to be confused with 'anointing' either in Christ's own experience or that of his followers. 'baptism' is immersion and emergence. 'anointing' is out-pouring and be-smearing. The word Christ means 'anointed one' and would immediately link with prophets, priests, kings, tabernacles, and altars in the mind of a 1st century Jew. (The Hebrew is Messiah). For the 1st century hearer then, the title Christ immediately had connotations of the unique setting apart and authorization of men or things for unique purposes.

These connotations are present in several specific texts. Four references to 'anointing' are references to The Anointed One, Christ;
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, (Luk 4:18 KJV)
We can see the clear link between 'anointing' and specific purpose here.

The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, (Act 4:26-27 KJV)
again we can see the purpose of anointing is to identify someone for a specific role.

How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. (Act 10:38 KJV)

Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (Heb 1:9 KJV)
This verse links Christ's enthronement with an anointing as priest. Ps 110 and Zechariah 6:13


We then have 3 further uses of the word 'anoint' and its cognates in the NT.
Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; (2Co 1:21 KJV)
But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. (1Jo 2:20 NASB)
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (1Jo 2:27 KJV)

The pentecostal/charismatic use of the idea 'an anointing on the meeting' or 'an anointed singer/preacher' is foreign to scriptural use. In this sense the idea is never used of an individual (other than Christ) in the NT. They are all 'shared' anointings. The plural 'you' being used in each case. What then does the idea of 'anointing' convey in the scriptures? Mainly that of identification, separation to a task and authorization. Conscious power is not a main thrust of the picture. In the UK our monarchs are still 'anointed' at their coronation. The Queen was seated in the Coronation Chair. A small canopy was held above her as the Archbishop anointed her with the holy oil, the most sacred part of the service. The oil was contained in the eagle-shaped ampulla and poured into a 12th century silver-gilt anointing spoon... Anointing was the formal recognition of 'God's man'. David was anointed three times, once by Samuel, once by Judah, and once by all Israel, but only in the first instance is the empowering of the Spirit mentioned. (1Sam 16:13, 2 Sam 2:4, 2 Sam 5:3)

The NT concept has the 'anointing' abiding 'within' and is, again, a corporate reference rather than a personal one. The wisdom God has given is 'collective' rather than individual.

In OT usage the 'anointed' priest was a description of the high priest. Although the scriptures refer to Aaron's sons being 'anointed' a close examination of Lev 8 will show that they were actually 'sprinkled' with the 'anointing oil'. Thus they 'shared' their High Priest's anointing; so may we. In NT usage 'anointing' is not an occasional event but the steady state of those rightly related to Christ. Campbell Morgan's pattern seems to have scriptural warrant:

One Baptism
Many Fillings
Constant Anointing


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/10/15 6:29Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy