Sinful union?

[SDG]

Please return Sensai.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Adino

Hello KwaiQ, nice to meet you.

The concept is that a holy God cannot fellowship with sin simply because sin causes separation from God. Sin violates the sovereignty of God. Sin says that God's rule is not to be followed thereby making the one who commits the sin "a god himself" (Gen 3:5) by taking his word above that of the true God. Lordship transfers from the true God to the transgressor. Since there is but one God, this breach of the first commandment simply cannot be. The wage of sin is death (Romans 6:23). You cannot have sin present and God present at the same time. The transgressor vies for Lordship when he sins. God's Lordship demands that all sin be removed from his presence. Sin's consequence is separation.

Aside from this simple fact of sin's consequence we are also to understand that by virtue of being in Christ we are "in God" (Romans 8:1, 12:5; John 6:56, 10:37 ). We are to understand that God is holy (Psalm 99:5; Lev 11:44,45; 1Peter 1:15,16). We are to understand that in God there is no unrighteousness (Psalm 92:15), no darkness (1John 1:5) and, above all, in God there is no sin (1John 3:5).

Because God does not change (Mal 3:6) his holiness cannot be compromised. Therefore, we who are united with God via his Spirit must be viewed as sanctified in his eyes. Only those sanctified are acceptable to God (Romans 15:16). We are saved through sanctification of the Spirit (2Thessalonians 2:13). We are sanctified by virtue of being "in Christ/in Him" by the Spirit (1Corinthians 1:2; 6:11). God will not/cannot fellowship with the unsanctified. In fact, the priests were to be sanctified when in His presence or die (It seems that pesky principle will simply not go away. Where there is sin there is always death/separation.) (Exodus 28; 30; 40; Numbers 18). This brings us back to Cornelius. How could Cornelius be unsanctified yet have the indwelling Spirit?

Can you help us to understand how God became spiritually united with Cornelius before sin, the cause of his separation from God, was removed?

Thanks

Because of what Jesus has done, 'paid for our sins', we/everyone has been counted as righteous and been reconciled to God. That is our legal position, however we must walk thru the door (salvation/faith) in order to have actual relationship with our heavenly Father. Jesus said He is the "door" to the sheepfold.

An individual may have inherited (free gift) of millions, yet if the individual does not draw on that inheritance, he will continue to wallow in poverty and not live out any of his inheritance. It is still hid, however his physical life is not enhance by this inheritance.

[SDG]

Mizpeh must every verse speaking of baptism always refer to water baptism only or exclusively ....?

Where do you get this notion that water baptism activates the Spirit to regeneration?

John the Baptist was clear that what made Jesus baptism distinctive from his own baptism was not water ... but a baptism from above ... or Spiritual New Birth and immersion.

The efficacy is in the Spirit of Life....

31I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel." 32Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' 34I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

[SDG]

A look at Romans 6:

http://www.bible-truth.org/Rom6-whatbaptism.html

I would like to suggest that the reference is to both spiritual and water baptism. You cannot separate the symbol from that which it symbolizes. I believe Paul is using what water baptism signifies to strengthening his point of verse two, by reminding them of the purpose and significance of their water baptism.

Water baptism pictures the death, burial and resurrection with Christ where the sins of the world were conquered and put to death. In reality this is not an either/or situation, because both spiritual and water baptism are in view. Paul was saying to the Romans that “God forbid that you who died to sin should continue on in sin to appropriate more grace. Remember what your water baptism meant in that it symbolized that you received God’s spiritual baptism in salvation and you were placed into Jesus Christ and to His death” (my expanded paraphrase).

In the following verse Paul continues to support his premise by reminding them that:

1. Because of their being buried with Christ in baptism they should walk in a new life (v. 4).

2. Because they have been planted in the “likeness” of Christ’s death which destroyed the body of sin . . . that they should not serve sin (vv. 5-6).

3. Paul uses the example of a dead person. “He that is dead is freed from sin” (v. 7).

4. Because we are dead to sin we should live for Him because sin has no more control over the believer (vv. 8-9).

5. Because Christ died to sin once and now lives unto God the believer should consider himself dead to sin and alive unto God (vv. 10-11).

6. The believer should not let sin reign in their body and obey its lusts, nor let yourself sin (vv. 12-13). 7. Because a believer is under grace and not under law then sin should not dominate his life (v. 14).

If we see the reference to baptism as spiritual baptism and which water baptism signifies there is no confusion and the illustration Paul is using is clear and well makes its point; Christ died to destroy the penalty of sin, which baptism signifies, and that was one reason for not continuing in sin. However, we must deal with the problem of those who see water baptism as being a part of receiving salvation. To answer the problem all we must do is to apply sound biblical hermeneutical principles. One foundational principle of interpretation is the all Scripture must be interpreted within the analogy of the faith. This means that God’s word does not contradict itself and that all God says is always consistent with everything else He has said. Scriptures such as Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:5, and many other passages clearly teach that salvation is not acquired through ritual or any religious work. Baptism is a religious rite (work) and therefore has no saving properties and is not necessary for salvation.

Further the example in the New Testament is that water baptism always follows the exercise of saving faith and is a public act of submission that pictures and identifies the person being baptized with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection and with the local congregation of believers.

Finally, both water baptism symbolizes Christ’s work of redemption on the cross. Our baptism is only a picture of what He did. The act of redemption could only be done by Jesus Christ, the perfect Lamb of God. The whole point of baptism is to point to and picture Christ’s sacrifice and atonement for sin and it is simply illogical to try to present it as being necessary for salvation. Jesus’s death, burial and resurrection paid the price something we could not pay [or need to re-enact].

To use this passage to support baptismal regeneration is simply dishonest and a blatant violation of the New Testament teaching of salvation. Thus, those who hold to the position that this is sacramental water baptism have no biblical grounds to do so. It is spiritual baptism which is the sole work of God that actually places the believer into Christ and into His death. Water baptism is a proper symbol instituted by God to illustrate God’s action in salvation that could not be seen. Spiritual baptism and its outward symbol proclaims the same truth and cannot be separated. I like the way Robinson states this: “If we ask how this critical union was effected, Paul’s answer is that it is through baptism (Rom. 6:4) or, more fully, in baptism . . . through faith” (Col. 2:12).” In verse 3, the baptism is of water that symbolizes the spiritual baptism that Christ accomplished for the believer in His death, burial, and resurrection.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[SDG]

What was Peter's message at Cornelius' house? ... was it the same PAJC message that claims that water baptism causes remission of sin or activates the Holy Spirit to regeneration?

I think not!!! ... we have 3 accounts/witnesses of his message that day ... all from Peter's mouth ...

---------------------------------------------------

Witness #1 [Acts 10]

The first account is a transcript of the Gospel message preached by Peter at Cornelius home:

Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.

36You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 37You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— 38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

39"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, 40but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.

The only mention of water baptism here is that of John the Baptist's in verse 37 ...

but verse 43 ... tells us what Peter preached and believed would result in forgiveness/remission of sins. The same message he preached at Pentecost when he echoed the words of the prophet Joel and all the other prophets who proclaimed ... "whosever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved".

We know the sequence of events that then followed after those sitting in room heard and believed this message. They were filled w/ the Holy Ghost ... and then ... and only then were they baptized.

-------------------------------------

Witness #2 [Acts 11]

Peter then recounts this same experience at Cornelius' house and his message to a group of circumcised Jewish believers in Chapter 11.

15"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with[a]water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"


18When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."

Please take special notice that Peter in rehearsing his message remembered the Lord's words [ also John 1] when he made distinction between John's water baptism and the promise of a better baptism ... that of the Spirit.

He also says that the gift both the Jewish believers and Gentile believers received came through belief ... the Jewish brethren acknowleged that LIFE was granted by God to the Gentiles through repentance [v.18]

Please also note that Peter never says that forgiveness came from their subsequent water baptism or water baptism is necessary for the New Birth.

----------------------------------------------

Witness #3 [Acts 15]

Peter is compelled to recount his message and the response of those that gathered in Cornelius' house to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Peter sought to defend against those who felt that an outer ritual, in this case, circumcision, was necessary for salvation. Also, conspicuously missing is a stress on their water baptisms in this account ... for a guy like Peter that's "strong" on doctrine it's puzzling that it never even comes up in the conversation.


The first speech of the council was given by Peter who was no doubt wondering why the issue had not been settled in the eleventh chapter of Acts when he reported the conversion of the household of Cornelius as follows:

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God
made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe (Acts 15:7).

Peter again rehearsed how that the Gentiles had received the Gospel from him and believed, no doubt remembering his own words at the house of Cornelius: To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins (Acts 10:43).

He goes on to say, not that baptism purified them ... but it was the Lord Jesus Christ through their faith in Him ... and that God Himself had verified this by giving them the same baptism of the Holy Spirit that the disciples received on the Day of Pentecost.

11 Peter explained, therefore, that whether one is a circumcised Jew or an uncircumcised Gentile his heart can only be purified by faith in Christ apart from ritual— And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9).

Peter knew that no one had ever kept the Law of Moses, especially those who were making the argument that day. He therefore wanted to know why the Judaizers were asking the Gentile disciples to do something that neither themselves nor the Old Testament fathers were able to do. He also stresses that their purification came by faith - not by water baptism.

Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (Acts
15:10)

Peter then concluded his argument by saying in effect, no it's not the baptism or a circumcision that saves them but ... GRACE:

—But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they (Acts 15:11).

The Apostle Paul confirmed this same affirmation when he wrote to the Romans:

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the
deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the
Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall
justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith
(Romans 3:28-30).

Their Jewish hearts must be purified by faith apart from the Mosaic Law and
circumcision or else remain unpurified altogether. Peter would later take the position that these Judaizers were false prophets. Although they professed Christ to be the Messiah who died on the cross, they were denying Him by their gospel of circumcision and law,

as Peter stated:

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there
shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable
heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon
themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious
ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of (II
Peter 2:1, 2).

Peter’s words silenced the multitude at the Jerusalem Council so that Paul and Barnabas could be called upon to give their report.


------------------------------------------

Where is the doctrine of baptismal remission/regeneration in Peter's message at Cornelius' house ...? Why isn't his doctrinal stress and message impetus the 3 step template offered by the W&S crowd? Why is there no mention of sins being washed away through a religious rite like baptism?

I know that my PAJC brethren will try to read in between the lines and ask us to make the "revelatory" connections they've made ... but even the most elementary reader of Peter's witness sees that the 3 step salvational process isn't the core of his spoken message to Cornelius.

Did he forget his notes on the New Birth at Pentecost?

[Adino]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

Looks like he is going all TaeKwonDo on y'all

J-Roc,
That is ancient and hilarious! Where in the world did you dig this up?

Wait.... you know, this was a demo at an ALJC Michigan District camp meeting. I remember the day. I gashed my thumb on the concrete.

My hair is a little grayer at the moment.

Thanks for the memories. Nowadays I'd be more apt to Jujutsu y'all

On to work....

[KwaiQ]

Originally Posted by Adino

Hello KwaiQ, nice to meet you.

The concept is that a holy God cannot fellowship with sin simply because sin causes separation from God. Sin violates the sovereignty of God. Sin says that God's rule is not to be followed thereby making the one who commits the sin "a god himself" (Gen 3:5) by taking his word above that of the true God. Lordship transfers from the true God to the transgressor. Since there is but one God, this breach of the first commandment simply cannot be. The wage of sin is death (Romans 6:23). You cannot have sin present and God present at the same time. The transgressor vies for Lordship when he sins. God's Lordship demands that all sin be removed from his presence. Sin's consequence is separation.

Aside from this simple fact of sin's consequence we are also to understand that by virtue of being in Christ we are "in God" (Romans 8:1, 12:5; John 6:56, 10:37 ). We are to understand that God is holy (Psalm 99:5; Lev 11:44,45; 1Peter 1:15,16). We are to understand that in God there is no unrighteousness (Psalm 92:15), no darkness (1John 1:5) and, above all, in God there is no sin (1John 3:5).

Because God does not change (Mal 3:6) his holiness cannot be compromised. Therefore, we who are united with God via his Spirit must be viewed as sanctified in his eyes. Only those sanctified are acceptable to God (Romans 15:16). We are saved through sanctification of the Spirit (2Thessalonians 2:13). We are sanctified by virtue of being "in Christ/in Him" by the Spirit (1Corinthians 1:2; 6:11). God will not/cannot fellowship with the unsanctified. In fact, the priests were to be sanctified when in His presence or die (It seems that pesky principle will simply not go away. Where there is sin there is always death/separation.) (Exodus 28; 30; 40; Numbers 18). This brings us back to Cornelius. How could Cornelius be unsanctified yet have the indwelling Spirit?

Can you help us to understand how God became spiritually united with Cornelius before sin, the cause of his separation from God, was removed?

Thanks

This is putting limits on God where God Himself placed none. Sin is what separates us from God. Sin does not separate God from God. God is omnipresent. He can and does go everywhere. He fills everything. The only thing we can do is not worship Him or follow Him by continuing in lawlessness or "sin".

[KwaiQ]

This is not "proof" that God does not use water baptism for the remission of sin. The blood does remit sin, I whole-heartedly agree, but if the blood stays dripping off of the cross, and never applied to the life of the believer, than it is of no effect. It must be applied to be of value for our redemption from the effects of sin.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by KwaiQ

This is not "proof" that God does not use water baptism for the remission of sin. The blood does remit sin, I whole-heartedly agree, but if the blood stays dripping off of the cross, and never applied to the life of the believer, than it is of no effect. It must be applied to be of value for our redemption from the effects of sin.

So the blood is applied how and when, Kwai Q?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Adino

J-Roc,
That is ancient and hilarious! Where in the world did you dig this up?

Wait.... you know, this was a demo at an ALJC Michigan District camp meeting. I remember the day. I gashed my thumb on the concrete.

My hair is a little grayer at the moment.

Thanks for the memories. Nowadays I'd be more apt to Jujutsu y'all

On to work....

AW ... we do our homework.