How to walk by the spirit.

[Peterlag7]

On the contrary, they would have considered it blasphemous, and they did, which is precisely one of the main reasons they killed him.

Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV)

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Joh 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (ESV)

Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (ESV)


Because it is biblical. It is the most important truth about who Jesus is and central to the gospel and salvation.


There are the teachings that there is only one God, Jesus is the Son of God, that he is God, but that he isn't the Father. It's putting the pieces together, taking God's revelation as a whole, which is what we must be doing.


Which, as I have pointed out, isn't relevant since they couldn't even understand that the Messiah was not going to come and vanquish their enemies. They completely missed that the Messiah was going to die and rise again for the salvation of all.


That Jesus is truly God in addition to being truly man is taught throughout the NT, even by Jesus himself, as I have given above.


When did they supposedly invent the deity of Jesus? There are significantly more than 8 verses.


It is. It's in numerous places in the NT.


Again, it's found by taking the entire revelation of God into account, not by taking one verse at a time, which is what anti-Trinitarians typically do. Besides, on what basis is a doctrine declared true because there is a "whole paragraph or chapter teaching that we should believe," especially when such divisions came later and were somewhat arbitrary? Good theology and doctrinal development are always done by taking all the relevant verses and passages into account.

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (ESV)

Thomas confessed that Jesus was both his Lord and his God, without any rebuke from Jesus, so that makes me think that we should too. John begins and ends his gospel with the clear teaching of the deity of Jesus:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
...
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
...
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
...
Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

And, John shows the deity of Jesus throughout his gospel, some of which I have already given.


But, that isn't true. The deity of Christ is found very early in Christian writings. Take Ignatius, for example, who often speaks of Jesus and the Son as being God: "Jesus Christ, our God" (Ephesians 1); "For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost" (Ephesians 18); "God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life (Ephesians 19); "the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God . . . in Jesus Christ our God" (Romans 1); "For our God, Jesus Christ" (Romans 3); "Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes" (Polycarp 3). He also has some very Trinitarian language, "as being stones of the temple of the Father, prepared for the building of God the Father, and drawn up on high by the instrument of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope" (Ephesians 9).

Or, look at what Polycarp, said to have been a disciple of John, writes in his letter to the Philippians:

'2 Now may God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the "eternal Priest" himself, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, build you up in faith and truth, and in all gentleness, and without wrath, and in patience, and in longsuffering, and endurance, and purity, and may he give you lot and part with his saints, and to us with you, and to all under heaven who shall believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his "Father who raised him from the dead"' (12:2).

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lake.html

Also, when praying at his martyrdom, he reportedly stated: "I praise You for all things, I bless You, I glorify You, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, with whom, to You, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen." (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 14:3).

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/martyrdompolycarp-lightfoot.html

Those are early to mid second century.


No, I don't, because worship of Jesus and claims of his deity started in the NT, which is why those have continued throughout Church history. The doctrine of the Trinity simply best takes into account and makes the most sense of all that the Bible reveals about the nature of God and Jesus.


That was also the Church that gave us our canon. Just because it took time to develop a more robust Trinitarian doctrine and theology, and just because there are other disagreeable doctrines developed, doesn't mean that the Trinity is false or unbiblical. It's a non-sequitur to make such an association.

It's very common anywhere to consider yourself part of the family if you say someone is your father. In governments it means you are a prince and share authority. Or in a family business it would mean you share the profits and management. Jesus never said he was God nor the Jews. They said he said God was his father. And then their custom meant that Jesus was part of God's family.

 

[Peterlag7]

So who exactly is it that Peter giving this warning to that if they are not on guard they may fall victim to Satan's devices ???

1Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

I believe I already answered this question in detail. It seems to me you do not want to accept my answer.

 

[Peterlag7]

Peterlag7
Do you believe you have to be water baptized to be saved?

Water baptism is a carryover from part of the Levitical Law. There are many examples of people in the Old Testament who would wash themselves with water as a final step to being clean. Water baptism was an outward sign of washing, and then you would be clean to God. Baptism in water, and the need to be circumcised passed away with the coming of Pentecost, as did the other Levitical Laws. To be led by the spirit is to not be under the yoke of bondage with the extreme of legalism, seeking the works of the flesh from the old covenant concerning the past Law administration that was written to Israel.

It's clear from the gospels that water baptism had to do with the kingdom, which was ministered by John who was known as the Baptizer, and not a minister for the Church of God. John who was a prophet functioning under the old covenant was appointed by God to prepare and confirm the promises made to Israel. His message was to tell those who lived under the old covenant that the king had come and “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He used water as a sign to baptize those who believed the promised Messiah would be coming in just a matter of months and to illustrate that he would be the Christ, who would baptize them not with material water, but with holy spirit, which is “power from on high.” From the habit of tradition, and only for a short period of time, a small handful of people were baptized with water into the New Testament, but never again afterwards.

In the epistles written just a little bit past the beginning of the New Testament is where we read the only time water baptism is mentioned is to note there is no more need for it, and that we are now to be baptized with holy spirit. And this is why in Acts 2:38, Peter commands “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 8:16, Peter and John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48, Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” In Romans 6:3, it declares “that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ.” There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time period when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established.

 

[Consecrated Life]

So who exactly is it that Peter giving this warning to that if they are not on guard they may fall victim to Satan's devices ???

1Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

I believe I already answered this question in detail. It seems to me you do not want to accept my answer.

This was your previous answer to the question

Christians who do not have a sin nature

And your answer to the first question does nothing but create a need for clarification?
Your above claim that Christians do not have a sin nature makes no sense at all in context to Peter's warning which assumes a sin nature as a basis that Satan may cause a non-vigilant Christian to sin.

So based on your claim that Christians do not have a sin nature only two possibilities exist ,
Either Peter is wrong in the premise of his warning to Christians that Satan "MAY" cause one who is not sober and vigilant to sin ?
Or you are wrong in your claim that having no sin nature, it is impossible for a Christian commit a sin ?

1Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

 

[Peterlag7]

This was your previous answer to the question




And your answer to the first question does nothing but create a need for clarification?
Your above claim that Christians do not have a sin nature makes no sense at all in context to Peter's warning which assumes a sin nature as a basis that Satan may cause a non-vigilant Christian to sin.

So based on your claim that Christians do not have a sin nature only two possibilities exist ,
Either Peter is wrong in the premise of his warning to Christians that Satan "MAY" cause one who is not sober and vigilant to sin ?
Or you are wrong in your claim that having no sin nature, it is impossible for a Christian commit a sin ?

1Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

I see the "sin nature" as something that existed before Jesus Christ destroyed it when the spirit of Christ came within the believer. This spirit is indeed a life form that is in all Christians and it seems to me one cannot understand and therefore function or be in the spirit if our old nature (which is dead) thinks in its unrenewed mind that it supposed to be fighting against the new nature. Paul wrote in Galatians 2:20, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:" That's what I'm talking about. I now understand being in Christ is being in the spirit and neither of them (in Christ or in the spirit) has anything to do with the darn flesh. It now seems perfectly clear to walk in the spirit is the same as putting on the Lord Jesus Christ. See post 206 for more on this...

 

[Peterlag7]

I believe God gave us a new nature when we are born again and that this is what the apostle Paul taught. Then where did this idea come from that we are still sinners by nature, and that the spirit of Christ makes our flesh spiritual, but still alive to sin whereby we must with much effort, frustration, and failure be in a battle with our sin nature the rest of our lives? Who taught us that it's not the spirit that has become our new nature, but that after we received Christ within, we still have the old sin nature left as we live the rest of our lives trying to restrain it? If the apostle Paul taught that we do experience a death to our old sin nature once we are baptized into Christ, and that it’s dead and gone and therefore we are dead to sin? Then where did this idea come from that we are still alive to sin? Could it have come from these guys...

The concept of the original sin was first alluded to in the second century by Irenaeus, (Bishop of Lyon) who was working for the Catholics and not for the apostle Paul. Some two hundred years later another church father who went by the name of Augustine, (Bishop of Hippo) whose writings shaped and developed the doctrine of sin as he considered that humanity shared in Adam's sin. Augustine's formulation of the original sin after the year of 412 was popular among protestant reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated the original sin with a hurtful desire meaning that it persisted even after baptism and therefore completely destroyed the freedom to do good. At first Augustine, said that free will was weakened, but not destroyed by the original sin. But after the year of 412 this concept changed to a loss of free will except to sin, and it's this Augustine's concept that influenced the development of the western church and western philosophy and indirectly all of western Christianity.

 

[Consecrated Life]

I see the "sin nature" as something that existed before Jesus Christ destroyed it when the spirit of Christ came within the believer. This spirit is indeed a life form that is in all Christians and it seems to me one cannot understand and therefore function or be in the spirit if our old nature (which is dead) thinks in its unrenewed mind that it supposed to be fighting against the new nature. Paul wrote in Galatians 2:20, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:" That's what I'm talking about. I now understand being in Christ is being in the spirit and neither of them (in Christ or in the spirit) has anything to do with the darn flesh. It now seems perfectly clear to walk in the spirit is the same as putting on the Lord Jesus Christ. See post 206 for more on this...

So what you "see" and what Peter sees remains two views at odds with each other
We established that at three times now .
Still you have not said who is correct in what they see?
Peter who sees a sin nature remaining in the flesh that still makes the Christian susceptible to the attacks of our adversary the devil ?
Or you who sees no sin nature & thus no possibility to sin ?
Simple question really , it's either you or Peter who is correct on a very specific verse ?
You or Peter, who is correct on this ?
1Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

 

[JLB]

Water baptism is a carryover from part of the Levitical Law.

That’s completely false.


John’s baptism was unique to the New Testament.


“The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. Luke 16:16

 

[Hopeful 2]

Peterlag7
Do you believe you have to be water baptized to be saved?

Yes.
It is a command of both Jesus, the apostles, and others in Christ.
Jesus..."He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16)
Jesus..."Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" (Matt 28:19)
Peter..."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." (Acts 2:38)
Philip..."And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." (Acts 8:38)
Ananias..."And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16)
Paul..."Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19:4-5)

Without water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, there is no remission of past sins. (Acts 2:38, Rom 3:25)

 

[Peterlag7]

That’s completely false.


John’s baptism was unique to the New Testament.


“The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. Luke 16:16

Water accomplishes nothing other than getting you wet. The fact that you think water splashed on someone means something to God causes me to be sad.

 

[Peterlag7]

So what you "see" and what Peter sees remains two views at odds with each other
We established that at three times now .
Still you have not said who is correct in what they see?
Peter who sees a sin nature remaining in the flesh that still makes the Christian susceptible to the attacks of our adversary the devil ?
Or you who sees no sin nature & thus no possibility to sin ?
Simple question really , it's either you or Peter who is correct on a very specific verse ?
You or Peter, who is correct on this ?
1Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

What Peter sees and what I see is the same. What you see is different because you are stuck on this idea taught to you by the Catholics that you have a sin nature.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Water accomplishes nothing other than getting you wet. The fact that you think water splashed on someone means something to God causes me to be sad.

It isn't just water, when God is using it as the blood of Christ.
1 John 5:8..."And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
1John 1:7..."But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."
Acts 22:16..."And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

 

[Hopeful 2]

Water accomplishes nothing other than getting you wet. The fact that you think water splashed on someone means something to God causes me to be sad.

"Baptizo" means immerse...not splash.

 

[Peterlag7]

"Baptizo" means immerse...not splash.

Water accomplishes nothing other than getting you wet. The fact that you think jumping in water means something to God causes me to be sad.

 

[Peterlag7]

It isn't just water, when God is using it as the blood of Christ.
1 John 5:8..."And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
1John 1:7..."But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."
Acts 22:16..."And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

1 John 1:7 does not mention water baptism.
The water you quote in 1 John 5:8 is referring to the water that makes up our bodies. We are water, body, and spirit.
Acts 22:16 is referring to being baptized in the Lord Christ Jesus. Water is not mention because water does nothing other then get you wet.

 

[Consecrated Life]

So what you "see" and what Peter sees remains two views at odds with each other
We established that at three times now .
Still you have not said who is correct in what they see?
Peter who sees a sin nature remaining in the flesh that still makes the Christian susceptible to the attacks of our adversary the devil ?
Or you who sees no sin nature & thus no possibility to sin ?
Simple question really , it's either you or Peter who is correct on a very specific verse ?
You or Peter, who is correct on this ?
1Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

What Peter sees and what I see is the same.

Peter clearly says that for the Christian the sin nature will always be with these bodies we live in and vulnerable to our adversary .
1Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

You say there is no sin nature .
Peterlag7 said:
"Christians who do not have a sin nature"

Your view is diametrically opposed to Peter's
How do you conceive them to be the same ?
Please be specific ?

 

[Roberto Cisneros]

We cannot sin when we are in him. It's the "in him" that I believe is what most people don't understand.

2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

If we are the righteousness of God. Then we are not sinners.

Would you call this “sanctification” perhaps?

 

[JLB]

Water accomplishes nothing other than getting you wet. The fact that you think water splashed on someone means something to God causes me to be sad.

You either believe the scripture or you don’t. The choice is yours.

 

[Free]

I was responding to another person's contention that the Lord's Prayer applies only to Jews and not to Christians.

I've never heard that one before.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Water accomplishes nothing other than getting you wet. The fact that you think jumping in water means something to God causes me to be sad.

The thought of your rejection of Jesus' words makes me sad.
Jesus said..."Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matt 28:19-20)

Who was it that told you to reject water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins ?