SwordMaster

No reason to apologize, this is EXACTLY what I was looking for. Sometimes passages that don't address a particular subject matter by directly word (righteousness, for example) does address the subject matter in different terms, like every time in the NT that the word "law" is used, covenant is directly implied or referenced. Again, thanks!!! ..

Yes, yes, yes...I hadn't got that one yet. I John 1:7 is one of my favorite verses. I will have to do more research here, because while on the outside it appears that walking in the light is akin to walking in the Spirit, and I don't doubt that it does, but I need to check it out more thoroughly before making a definite determination. Still, a GREAT passage to check out on this subject matter, thanks again!!! ..

This is a good one...thanks! ..

Thanks for the input, Waggles. But no where in the text you provided does it tell us what "walk by the Spirit" means. Its like telling someone who doesn't know how to drive a car, to "Drive the car to the store." It just tells us to drive the car, not how to drive it. Blessings! ..

Before I got on this morning, I had the chance to go back and do some more studying, and in case it helps anyone else, this is what I have discovered on the subject... Romans 8:4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but (who walk) according to the Spirit. ἵνα τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου πληρωθῇ ἐν ἡμῖν τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα· “walk” (Peripateo) is the word used here meaning to walk. Used with the Accusative, as it is here, it takes on the figurative meaning of manner or rule of something. In this sense, “walk” means living a lifestyle of practicing behavior according to the manner or rule of the Spirit. Also, peripateo here is in the Present Participle, meaning continuous or repeated action – in other words, practicing doing something. We receive more information about walking in the Spirit in the next verse... Romans 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. οἱ γὰρ κατὰ σάρκα ὄντες τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς φρονοῦσιν, οἱ δὲ κατὰ πνεῦμα τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος. The first word here we need to examine, is the Greek word translated as “minds.” Here it is phroneo, which basically means to think, one’s mindset on something, to be minded, one’s attitude (thought patterns) about something. It directly implies the involvement of the will, affections, and/or conscience. In other words, one is doing the action of minding what he does mind. Phroneo here is in the present tense, again meaning that one is continuously, repeatedly, minding; he is practicing minding what he does. This again demonstrates (along with the Active voice) that the person is the one doing the action of thinking and dwelling upon these things in his mind. According to Zodhiates, “according to the flesh/Spirit” means “conforming to the will of the flesh or of the Spirit.” In this sense, it means that one is ‘minding’ (obeying) the Spirit (“You better mind me, young man!”). If one is conforming to the will of the Spirit, it means more simply that he is walking in obedience to the Spirit. If that is so, then what does “the Spirit” mean? Does it mean spiritual, godly things? Or does it mean doing what the Spirit might tell you to do, like Romans 8:14 says in those “who are led by the Spirit,” meaning that they follow and obey the leadings and unctions of the Spirit? So, I guess my thought that minding the Spirit as a result of walking in the Spirit was wrong, because Scripture here seems to dictate that the act of minding the things of the Spirit is a choice of our will. Therefore, perhaps, as with some of you who said the same thing, walking in the Spirit consists of "minding the things of the Spirit." Now, I am OK with that, but for how verse 9 reads, because it seems to be a direct contradiction... Romans 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. This seems to indicate that walking in the Spirit is something that automatically takes place "if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you," but the previous verses speak contradictively against this interpretation. Got some things to do, will have to continue my examination later... . .

We agree so far... Here there are some problems according to Scripture. We are told in Scripture that over 400 people were present with Jesus on one of His subsequent appearances after the resurrection, we can safely assume that most of the 120 (if not all) were so present. Along with the apostles who were officially "saved" in John 20:22, we can also safely assume that these 120, if not the entire 400, experienced the same thing. Even if all of the 120 were not saved before they received the baptism, the 11 were. The 120 were already converted and saved, which are synonymous, before Pentecost. As for Cornelius and his household, when we pay attention to the entirety of Acts 10, we find that Cornelius was already saved because God had accepted him. The whole of chapters 9-11 have to do with the fact that the Jewish church up to this time had refused to preach the gospel to gentiles, and God had to sovereignly act in order to show the church that He also wanted gentiles too...anyone who would come to Him. Therefore, taking all of the facts into consideration, Cornelius and his household is not a prima-facie piece of evidence that supports your suggestion. The same goes with the Samaritans - they accepted the gospel and received water baptism into Christ, therefore they were saved and had the indwelling Spirit already. The ONLY reason Peter and John went down to Samaria was to baptize them in the Holy Spirit. They were already saved according to a strict reading of Scripture. Actually, you are reading into Scripture what it does not say. No where in Acts 9 is it directly, or indirectly, implied that Paul was baptized in the Spirit when he converted to Christ. Acts 9:18 states only that he arose after regaining his sight, and received water baptism into Christ. No where does it imply that he ever received baptism in the Spirit. No then, I am not saying that he wasn't baptized with the Spirit, because I believe it is obvious by his life and words that he was. What I am saying is that Scripture does NOT tell us when he was baptized in the Spirit. And besides all this...nothing here actually addresses the question of the OP. But thanks for the input! Blessings ..

I can see where one can get that out of the passage as given, but if I may, the Greek doesn't read like this. This is what verse 13 says according to the Greek and its grammar: Philippians 2:13 because God is also producing in you the desire and the ability to do what pleases Him. So, while I have no doubt that God helps us to walk in the Spirit, as He wants to help us in all things spiritual, the verse says that He produces the desire and ability to do what pleases Him, but He does not cause us to walk in the Spirit. That is what it sounds like in the version you gave, that's the only reason why I gave the more accurate translation above. Blessings! ..

Most of the first part of your response was confusing, but here I need to ask another question: if what you conclude here is true, then there are millions of born again Christians who have never been baptized in the Spirit, and your conclusion condemns them to never be able to walk in the Spirit. I find this very sour according the the attitude of Scripture. If only those who have been baptized in the Spirit can walk in the Spirit, and most Christians today have never been baptized by the Spirit, then is this not a black eye to Christ and the Spirit, who wants every Christian to walk in the Spirit? It seems so to me. There are those who believe, in direct contradiction to what Scripture teaches, that every person is baptized in the Spirit the moment they are saved...but again, Scripture does not teach this. If Scripture did teach this, then I could see your response had some Biblical legitimacy. But Scripture doesn't, so I can't see what you suggest as Scriptural (for lack of a better way to say it). Blessings! . .

Actually, the only time in Scripture that people were converted and received the baptism in the Holy Spirit at the same time, was (maybe) Cornelius and his household. The 120 on the Day of Pentecost were already believers, they just received the baptism on that day but were already saved by what Scripture seems to indicate. So, the majority of people evidenced in Scripture did not get saved and receive the baptism of the Spirit at the same time. As for the question as to whether a person who has not been baptized in the Spirit can walk in the Spirit, that is actually a good question. Having spent some time considering that question before I continued typing, I think the answer is most likely yes. Paul gives no indication anywhere that in order to walk in the Spirit one must be baptized in the Spirit, nor can I find anything on that point anywhere else in the NT. The sentiment of Scripture seems to indicate that a person who has the indwelling Spirit is capable of walking in the Spirit, and part of that conclusion comes from Paul's comments regarding the carnal Corinthian church who most were obviously saved, but not walking in the Spirit. The direct opposite of walking in the Spirit, is walking in the flesh and being carnal, which he upbraids the Corinthians for being carnal and in the flesh. Thanks for the input! Blessings! ..

While I agree with this to a certain extent, it doesn't appear that it is the whole issue. For example... Romans 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Most commentaries on this verse agree that here Paul is again meaning "walking in the Spirit," but if walking in the Spirit is only following the voice and unctions of the Spirit when He would speak to us about something, which isn't very often, then what about the other times in between? Also, how does walking in the Spirit "put to death the deeds of the body" particularly if it is far and few in between when He speaks to us? And from personal inquiry of many people over the last 30 years, most people never hear the Spirit speak to them about anything. Just putting that out there. So, while I agree that following the leading of the Spirit is part of the issue, it doesn't appear that it is the whole of the issue. Thanks! . .

What do you think "walking in the Spirit" means? There are 310 passages in the NT alone that have the word "spirit", and out of those less than 30 seemingly address directly or indirectly the subject matter. Out of those, only 3 actually have the phrase "walking in the Spirit" or kin to it (walk by the spirit, live in the spirit, etc.). I am just starting a study on the subject and the more brains involved always help...what do you think "walking in the Spirit" means, with Scripture references please. Another note: up until last night, I thought that Rom. 8:5 taught that walking in the Spirit was imply minding (thinking about, walking in obedience to) the things of the Spirit...but last night it hit me that Paul wasn't saying (or so it seems) that this is walking in the Spirit, but rather than minding the things of the Spirit is the RESULT of walking in the Spirit. Any input is welcome and helpful. Blessings! ..

For my doctoral dissertation, which was on ancient near eastern covenants and how the affect interpretation of Scripture, I read many...Trumbull, Black, Gehman, Dahl, Mendenhall, Brown, Freedman, and many others. Blessings! . .

Quite incorrect and untrue ... Yes indeed! When examining Scripture to ensure that one comes to the intended meaning of a text, one must take historical and cultural things into consideration also, and failing to do so has caused numerous people to start their own false teachings. For example, both calvin and luther failed to take these two factors into consideration when reading Paul's writings on law and righteousness, and especially luther, read those passages out of his own personal battles, reading into Paul's writings the teachings of his day from the RCC, thus perverting the meaning of Paul's words. No where in Scripture do we find the nonsense of Scripture alone, because God was smart enough to know that some things would be lost to the church over time, just as it has been, such as certain historical things and accurate knowledge and understanding of Ancient Near Eastern covenants and their principles of operation. These became completely lost to the church when it became predominantly gentile in gentile cultures that didn't have covenants. . .

"POV?" I am not familiar with what that stands for. No, you understood that correctly, but let me be more detailed - according to a STRICT reading of Scripture, without any biased intervention, a person only comes to salvation when they come to God on His terms, which are faith, repentance, and receiving water baptism into Christ, which is (again) the only Biblical means of entering into Christ according to Scripture. That being said, there is one exception, and we see that in the thief on the cross...he did not have opportunity to come down off the cross to be baptized. But again, the only way we come to the full conclusion of Scripture, is by taking the whole Word of God together...taking a passage like Acts 16:31 by itself, and declaring that this is how one gets saved, is a juvenile way of looking at things (not saying that is what you do, just using this verse as an example of how Scripture is not fully examined for truth). And, no to the other question...I believe that arguing over "Jesus" or "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is also a very juvenile (immature) thing to do. Jesus is God in the flesh, thus when one invokes His name, one invokes the whole of the person of God which includes all of the trinity. Blessings. ..

Actually, that is not what I have done. I can demonstrate in Scripture anything that I claim. This is why it is so important to interpret Scripture utilizing a complete Biblical hermeneutic, because that is what prevents one from allowing carnal thoughts and ideas from entering the final outcome. In understand completely...and yet many who do not claim to be calvinist hold to different calvinist doctrines. For example, many who do not claim calvinism hold to the calvinist doctrine that a man gets saved the moment he chooses to believe in Christ. Others who claim not to be calvinist hold to the false doctrine that they are not responsible for maintaining their stand in Christ as having eternal life. And what I read yesterday that you wrote, even though you claim not to be a calvinist, you hold to the false doctrine that God maintains our state of being in Christ, when Scripture directly contradicts such an idea. That is what I mean...a person can not hold to all points of calvinism, yet cling to false doctrines that originated from calvinism. I understand. I have studied Scripture since I was 16 (actually, even before that), and came to understand at the age of 21 that unless we study Scripture according to a complete Biblical hermeneutic, listening to the moving of the Spirit, then the chances of one coming to the Spirit's intended meaning of a text is severely hampered. I have met others who claim to have studied Scripture for years...and yet still their interpretations were more false than true because they failed to understand that critical point of a complete Biblical hermeneutic. Its like a cosmologist studying cosmology while failing to include the laws of physics in his studies - and that is no exaggeration. The historical realities of the cross, for example, are firmly based in the atonement given to Moses by God. When people fail to understand that key point of interpretation, they usually butcher the point and purpose of the cross...as many on this site that I have read do. I reign in my biases, I have learned to many years ago, but thanks for the advice. As for what you wrote, I did read most of them later, and it added nothing to my understanding of Scripture, but gave me a perfect picture of where you are coming from. Blessings. ..

There is a real Scriptural distinction between salvation from sin and eternal life, and by your remark you show that you confuse the two. "Law keeping" as you say doesn't have to do with salvation, on that point you are absolutely correct. However, according to Scripture, not the false doctrines of men, you maintain abiding in Christ by walking in obedience to Christ. That is not only Scripture, that is how God ordained it to be since salvation and eternal life are both covenant gifts. Perhaps you do not understand Biblical covenants and their principles of operation; God patterned His Biblical covenants after those principles so man can understand His Word. According to Scripture, your life is only "hidden in Christ" as long as you remain abiding in Christ. If you cease to do so - again, according to Scripture - then you are no longer in Christ. There are a plethora of passages that teach that Biblical truth contrary to the false teachings of men. Yes...I could only read a few lines, because it full of calvinistic nonsense doctrines. I have a far better understanding of Scripture since I discovered those doctrines as false years ago, but thanks anyway. I pray God will bless you with understanding.

Yes indeed...and its also important to understand that not every case where Paul uses the word "law," that he is always addressing the law of Moses. He does not make a clear distinction to us because he was not writing to us...he was writing to his First Century Christian audience who did know the difference of when he was addressing the law of Moses or the Law of Christ. For example, here he is addressing the law of Moses, which Christ had fulfilled and abrogated: Romans 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Yet in the following verse, Paul is addressing the Law of Christ (otherwise he would be directly contradicting himself in the same letter): Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. It is not always clear to us because we do not live in a covenant culture like they did in the First Century, and law always originates from covenant. The old covenant and all that came with it was gone when Paul was preaching, and this is why he says that no one will be made righteous by walking in obedience to the law of Moses...because they only place the law of Moses has today is for those who are not saved. We today are under the new covenant, with its new law, the Law of Christ. Anyone, according to Scripture, that does not walk in obedience to the law of Christ, is not in Christ and does not have eternal life, whether they believe in Christ or not. The only way to come to the full and accurate understanding of the gospel is to take the whole Word of God into account. When we do so, forsaking the false teachings of men, we find that we do have to do with maintaining our state of being in Christ. Blessings! ..

Justin said... Granted, and I agree, we must be careful. However, I wasn't so much addressing "traditions" than I was the truth of Scripture. Blessings!

Justin said... Citation/reference, please? Granted, I have not read all of his work, but I have read a few and I don't remember coming across that. Thanks. ..

Except that by today's standard, the KJV has many, many translation errors. I would never recommend the KJV to anyone. ..

I John 5:3 Because this is how we love on God, by obeying His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. Yes, indeed...if one only claims to love God, but does not strive to walk in obedience to Him, then he demonstrates that he really does not love God. And, just in case someone gets an itch because of the words "obeying His commandments," John is not speaking of the 10 commandments of the old covenant, but the two commandments of the New Covenant. Blessings! ..

kingdombrat said... What I am referring to is stuff like the Benny Hinn nonsense...waving his jacket around on stage and his die-hard followers "fall out" supposedly under the Spirit. Claiming to heal people and having them come on stage claiming they were healed, only later to be approached by news personalities and confessing that they were never sick in the first place. I do believe in miracles, I have seen my share. I believe that God works through certain people in a special way (or He used to, anyway, before the degradation of the church in its present form)...but there are so many charlatans in the pentecostal-charismatic movement that it gives both movements a bad name. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against pentecostals in general, but there are always "black sheep" in the house...faking tongues, faking healings, etc. But, I just try to remember that we are all people, and satan gets under people's skin and causes them to think and act in...undignified ways. ..

"R" said... You offend yourself. Nothing I stated was meant in a caustic spirit...All I did was ask you what you meant. It that hurt your feelings, then it was from your side of the screen, not mine. And, just in case, I will apologize if it seems that I did say something purposely to offend. You sound like you started on the right track, hopefully you will pursue it further. ..

"R" said... To clarify, I stand with Scripture which teaches that the gift of tongues (when the Spirit is speaking through a person, not when they are abusing their prayer language) is a medium which God chooses to speak to His people, which is a sign for believers that God is active in that particular church body. I never stated nor implied that the gift of tongues somehow gives people power. The gift of tongues is, however, according to Scripture, when the Spirit is speaking through a person, evidence that the Spirit is working at least in that person, and most likely also in and through that church body. If no one is manifesting any of the gifts of the Spirit, as listed by Paul in 2 Cor. 12, then most likely the Spirit is not in that church...and usually because of either false doctrine, or false pastors who God had never called into the ministry. ..

David said... Yes, some are really out of the ball park. I had my first minister's license through one until one year they chose to endorse the Brownsville Revival in Florida, particularly after a little girl was crushed to death by a woman supposedly "falling out" after one of the performers waved his jacket around him in a circle, and people in the front rows were supposedly slain in the Spirit. She fell backwards on top of the girl and killed her. The performers from the stage, said that it was her time...God wanted to take her, and what better place than in their revival. I told them they had lost their spiritual sensitivity and I turned in my license. I could not be a part of an organization that was that blind. Then you have snake dancers...yah, just because people believe in Christ doesn't mean that all of them have their marbles. ..