Posted on 09/27/2010 7:50:21 AM PDT by pastorbillrandles
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.(Romans 6:11-14)
There is much misunderstanding around the doctrine we have been discussing, in Romans 5 and 6, therefore I believe it would be useful to clear a few misunderstandings up, by listing what Paul is truly saying, and what he is not saying about our deliverance from sin.
First of all , What Paul is not saying in these passages;
* Paul is not telling us to “die to sin” as if it were some kind of devotional experience. He is stating facts, present realities of our position in Christ.
* Paul is not telling us that a True Christian will never sin again-or that sin in my life is dead and gone. Sin is very much alive and well, and indeed christians do sin, unfortunately, though they now hate sin.
* Paul is not telling us that ‘if you reckon yourself dead to sin, that will make it so’, as some kind of positive confession scheme.
What is Paul saying, when he tells us we have already died to sin, and that sin shall no longer have dominion over us?
* Paul is only telling us that what is true of Jesus Christ is also true of us by virtue of our Union with him. When Jesus died to sin, we did also, when he rose from the dead, we who are in Him did so also.
If what was true of Adam became true of us when we were born, how much more could New Birth, bring us into vital union with Jesus?
Jesus entered into the ‘reign of sin and death’ for us, and actually died there! He entered into a relationship with sin, (by bearing ours, not by sinning), and of condemnation and death.
But that relationship has been broken by the resurrection, death’s rule is over for Jesus. And so it is for we who are “in Him”,we have been translated out of that dominion, we are dead to it.
* Has all sin been eradicated out of me? No! we are the ones who have died, not sin. It is the rule of Sin over us that has been destroyed, because of our standing “In Christ”.
A christian may still sin, but he will never be under the rule of sin, as he was when in Adam.His whole connection to sin as a dominating principle has been severed.”Sin shall not have dominion over you…”
.
* The “body of sin”, that is my body which was once the chief instrument of the expression of sin, has been disabled, disconnected. it is in a neutral position, now, I could sin with it, but I don’t have to.I can now present my body unto righteousness.
* We have “died to the Law”, and are no longer “under the law”. My relationship as a subject to the Law which condemned me,exposed me and was against me,(and rightfully so), is over. All of its claims against me have been answered by Jesus.
Ironically, I can now appreciate the very law which was so hostile to me as a sinner. I love the law of God, because I can now see it as a revelation of God, a thing of beauty, it is indeed the right(eous) way to be human. “His commandments are not burdensome“, as I john says.
So being set free from Law doesn’t make me a lawless person, but it liberates me from law as a principle which only evokes the rebellion and transgression which I inherited from Adam. The law hasn’t changed, indeed can never change…it is I who have been transformed, by being “in Christ”.
* We are “alive to God”, which means that I can now respond to God, I am resurrected unto a new life in Him. I have been reconciled to God, I can know Him, love him in response, I am set back into His marvelous plan.I have been qualified by Jesus for the blessings of God!
What a salvation! Jesus, how generous and lovely you are! You bought me with your own blood! O Father God how we love you, because you loved us first, to you be all of the glory, majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever, Amen!!
Romans 6 is a great chapter on baptism; however, I did not see a single mention of baptism in your list, unless I missed it.
Romans 6 is a chapter on Baptism into Christ, his death and resurrection, union with Christ, and the believers victory over sin.
Yes. Romans 6 is the key chapter on spirit baptism (not water), but Holy Spirit baptism into Christ. Christ even clearly said in the Gospel of John, as reported by John, that future Christian baptism would be performed by the Holy Spirit; not water baptism into Christ, but baptism by means of the Spirit, into a relationship In Christ.
I understand that is how some that deny the power of water Baptism interpret this verse, but the Bible does not make a distinction between Spirit Baptism and water Baptism. The separating of the Spirit from Baptism, there is no other baptism than a water baptism, has created a huge division among denominations. Romans 6 is a prime example of where ecclesiology determines the interpretation of the Scriptures.
Let's observe the Scriptures in John:
John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with WATER, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth WITH THE HOLY GHOST.
The Apostle John identifies the ONE who will baptise with the Holy Ghost / Spirit:
John 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
So, if now, there is no other baptism than a water baptism; then either John is a liar or God is a liar...God Forbid!
Clearly now it is most probable, based upon Scripture in the Word of God in John, that the baptism which the Apostle Paul mentioned in Romans 6, is the baptism which the Apostle John in John 1 mentioned.
Note, however, that John's words are not his own words, but they are the very Words of God; therefore, we should tread lightly upon them these Words of God.
Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were [Spirit] baptized into Jesus Christ were [Spirit] baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by [Spirit] 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. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
The Old Testament has many baptisms, some record over six different types of baptisms. The primary baptism of the Jewish Old Testament is baptism by means of water. If some so called "church" today practices primarily water baptism, then that "church" is practicing Jewish baptism. That practice is in the wrong dispensation...
Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were [Spirit] baptized into Jesus Christ were [Spirit] baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by [Spirit] 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. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
What translation has those brackets? Just because a commentator proudly proclaimed somewhere that “there is not a drop of water in Romans 6” does not make it so. If you read the first 8 chapters of Romans, you will see that it is perfectly aligned with Acts 2:38, basically Paul’s exposition of what happened on Pentecost after Peter’s sermon.
Every example of conversion in Acts is in water. Peter’s sermon on Pentecost could not have been interpreted by anyone there as anything other than baptism in water. Cornelius the Roman Centurion was baptized a Jew?
I believe that Nosterrex is correct in this case. Ecclesiology has trumped historical Christian doctrine and practice (pre-16th century anyway). The fear of “baptismal regeneration” provoked an overreaction in the other direction. The result has been to deny the climactic importance and beauty of baptism in water that pervades the New Testament.
I am not here to persuade. This is an old argument, and I have nothing new to add to it.
Well, just for curiosity sake, take a look at this thread for some interesting debate:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2597349/posts
particularly #s 25, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47
cheers
It is almost impossible to discuss baptism with those that have no understanding of sacraments as a means of grace and have an anti-incarnational theology. Zwingli is alive and well within American Protestantism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.