Peterlag

All humans do inherit Adam's fallen nature.

It is written that... The fruit of the Spirit... It is not written... That The fruit of the Trinity... I trust @Aries2020 you will have your answer once you find out what the spirit of Christ is.

I believe our difference is that we both see "walking in the spirit" or "through Jesus" differently.

Our difference is we both see "walking in the spirit" differently.

It's real easy to understand. Walk by the spirit and we have the fruit of the spirit. Walk by the flesh and we have the works of the flesh. I finally know why when you follow after the spirit you will not walk after the lust of the flesh. The reason I cannot lust in the flesh when following after the spirit is because it's impossible to do so since the spirit of Christ does not lust after the flesh. Religious people don't follow after the spirit, but rather they follow after their flesh and call it spiritual. The religious folks lead with their flesh and call it Christian. The church folks clean up their flesh by making themselves nice. Then they say this is Christian because we are being nice like the way Jesus was. In contrast to that, I believe we should walk after the spirit of Christ.

@Justin AdamsThanks for posting this.

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 reformer's 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. The Catholic church declared baptism by imparting the life of Christ's grace, and thereby erasing the original sin, and then that would allow one back toward God. The thinking that the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist and summon the human to spiritual battle, and therefore weakened and diminished by Adam's fall, and still free will was not destroyed in the human race. Irenaeus, put forth his doctrine of the original sin, which is rather mild compared with what would later be found in the writings of Augustine. One recurring theme in Irenaeus, is his view that Adam, in his transgression is essentially a child who merely partook of the tree ahead of his time. For Irenaeus, knowing good and evil was an integral aspect of human nature; the "sin" of Adam, was snatching at the fruit of the tree rather than waiting for it as a gift from God. In the years of 354 to 430 Augustine, taught that Adam's sin is transmitted by concupiscence, or a "hurtful desire" resulting in humanity becoming condemned with an enfeebled, though not destroyed freedom of will. When Adam sinned, human nature was therefore transformed, and Adam and Eve via sexual reproduction recreated human nature. Their descendants now live in sin, in the form of concupiscence, a term Augustine, used in a metaphysical and not a psychological sense. Augustine, insisted that concupiscence was not a being but a bad quality, meaning a wound. He admitted that sexual concupiscence (libido) might have been present in the perfect human nature in paradise, and that only later it became disobedient to the human will as a result of the first couple's disobedience to God's will in the original sin. In Augustine's view (termed "realism") all of humanity was really present in Adam, when he sinned and therefore all have sinned. Augustine, was the first to add the concept of inherited guilt from Adam, whereby an infant was eternally damned at birth. Augustine, held the traditional view that free will was weakened, but not destroyed by the original sin until he converted in 412 to the Stoic view that humanity had no free will except to sin, which was the result of his later thinking on infant baptism. Augustine, believed that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of the original sin. The Latin church fathers who followed Augustine, adopted his position, which became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the middle ages. In the later medieval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine's view and others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all. Augustine, states that God's grace and not human free will is responsible for everything that pertains to salvation and that includes even our faith. We are often told that people suffer because they deserve it. And we seem to be able to go into great explanations expressing a confidence in God's absolute sovereignty, defined here as control, that seems to provide many believers with a great deal of security. We teach in our churches that everything is under God's control, and thereby everything is proceeding as divinely planned, and that somehow it all fits together. This concept did not attain the status of a universal explanation until years after a man was born on the planet who was called Augustine. It's indeed historically true that what has constituted the most frequent explanation in the church and in western culture for why people suffer is due to the fact that a man was born on the planet called Augustine. And so this concept of God being in control of both good and evil is why we often consider a secret "divine blueprint" behind everything that is both good and evil being somehow an extension of God's good (but very mysterious) will. Opposition to Augustine's ideas about the original sin, which he had developed arose rapidly, and after a long and bitter struggle several councils, especially the second council of Orange in the year of 529, confirmed the general principles of Augustine's teaching within western Christianity. However, the church did not entirely endorse Augustine, and even some of Augustine's followers identified the original sin differently even after Augustine's authority was accepted. 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 it's unrenewed mind that it suppose 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. And so in my mind the 4 verses below fit perfectly. Every single person I know has told me about Romans 7 when I tell them I do not believe Paul taught about a "sin nature" for the Christian. What Paul talks about in the seventh chapter of Romans is what occurs to the believer who still thinks the Law applies to them. They end up spiritually dying by the commandment and realize that the commandment does not produce life. The war is with their flesh because they are still believing the Law has power over them. In the eighth chapter of Romans is where it explains how we overcome this whole issue by living in the spirit and being dead to the Law. We cannot live by faith in what Christ has done for us and still think our obedience to written laws are necessary. To do so takes away from the perfect work of Christ and places salvation and righteousness back in our own hands. Romans 6:2 How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Romans 6:6 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. Galatians 5:16,18 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

1. First of all, you cherry pick a genre of NT writing YOU THINK water is not mentioned and then try to make some point. Whatever that is. Of course water is mentioned in the Epistles. Water is mentioned in I Peter 3:19-20 in context with baptism. Water is also mentioned in Eph 5:26 where Paul uses the word “wash” as a synonym for baptism. *** Peter is talking about Noah and the ark and not water baptism. 2. The book of Acts gives us examples of how baptism is to be administered. *** Chapter and verse please? The Epistles teach what baptism does and how it is to be applied in Christian life and living. *** Chapter and verse please? 3. We interpret Scripture on the basis of the totality of the NT. If water is not specifically mention in one book of the Bible, then we use the interpretative rule “Scripture interprets Scripture” and we find it in another. *** Are you saying water baptism is not mentioned in the Epistles so you have to look else where for it? PETERLAG: From reading your posts on different threads you seem to a bee in your bonnet if water is specifically not mentioned in a text, it is not baptism. You have made your point here and you don’t have to repeat on this anymore *** Does it bother you that I am an expert on the New Testament and debate and discus Scripture with the group here? Or are you interested in only your thoughts to be heard?

Nobody here as ever been able to produce one verse from the Epistles where water is mentioned and taught as doctrine. Not one of you.

Nobody here has ever been able to produce one verse from the Epistles where water is mentioned and taught as doctrine. Not one of you.

And yet there is not one mention of this from any body teaching about water or even a mention of water being a doctrine in the Epistles. We only have Philip, and doing it once to someone who asked for it. Yes, 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.

And here's more... There are some people who say that this phrase means a person has to be water baptized to be saved, but that cannot be the case. When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, no one had to be baptized to be saved. There in Judea John and Jesus both baptized as a sign of recommitment to obedience to the Law, and there is evidence that proselytes to Judaism were water baptized, but in no case did the Word of God, or John or Jesus, say it was a requirement for salvation. It is clear that baptism was not a requirement for salvation in the Old Testament, so if baptism became a requirement for salvation during the ministry of John or Jesus, the Bible should tell us that, and it never does Furthermore, water baptism was not universally practiced by Jesus or his disciples. When he sent out the 12 and when he sent out the 72, in neither case did he tell any of his disciples to baptize those who listened and believed the message. This fact is made even clearer when the rich man came to Jesus and specifically asked how to be saved. Jesus answered: “If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.” Jesus did not mention baptism because it was not essential in order to be saved. Jesus just said the phrase “born of water” when he was speaking to Nicodemus, but he never explained it, so it must have referred to something that Nicodemus could understand without any explanation. Based on that, and the context that “that which is born of flesh [with water] is flesh,” the best conclusion is that “born of water” is literal, and should be understood literally. In the context in which Jesus was speaking, before the Church Age, in order to be saved a person had to be 1) born of water (when he is born from his mother) and 2) born of the spirit (when the earth gives birth to him.

Here's someone else's take on it... “born of water.” This phrase refers to the birth of the person from his mother’s womb, and Jesus used it because Nicodemus spoke of being born from the womb, somewhat sarcastically asking if a person could enter into the womb a second time. Jesus patiently pointed out that was not necessary, but to enter the Kingdom of God a person had to come from the womb once and be born of water.

Thanks @Walter Goraj jr

Many of us here seem to agree that we need the spirit of Christ to get into heaven. And to achieve this one would have to be born in the first place. But sit down and think about what water sprinkled on you could accomplish? Do you think you could wash all your sins away by taking a bath? What could water or milk or grape juice do to accomplish anything concerning getting into God's kingdom? Was Christ not enough?

You need to get born again so as to be filled with the spirit of Christ to be able to be happy in heaven.

Everyone is born of water. Most of the human body is water, with an average of roughly 60%.

May I add to this that faith without the spirit of Christ is also dead.

We will fall from the understanding of the grace that is in Christ, and succumb to the doctrines and theories that are dictated by human conception if we seek justification by our own works. The concision was from those who taught circumcision was necessary for salvation. Circumcision is a work of the flesh required by the Old Testament Law, and by the way so is water baptism, which 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. To suggest water baptism has anything to do with the only begotten resurrected Son of God, who is functioning within the New Testament as the head of the body of Christ, has led to nothing but confusion and has provided a bomb that has blown the local churches into pieces.

We will fall from the understanding of the grace that is in Christ, and succumb to the doctrines and theories that are dictated by human conception if we seek justification by our own works. The concision was from those who taught circumcision was necessary for salvation. Circumcision is a work of the flesh required by the Old Testament Law, and by the way so is water baptism, which 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. To suggest water baptism has anything to do with the only begotten resurrected Son of God, who is functioning within the New Testament as the head of the body of Christ, has led to nothing but confusion and has provided a bomb that has blown the local churches into pieces.

Mixing a little Law and Grace together only ends in more Law. Perhaps a verse in the New Covenant would be better understood.

I have not seen a dark shadow but have heard of others who said they did. What I get is a few over the years of spirits talking through people. Nobody can ever really see a spirit because spirits are invisible to us. I have known when a spirit is talking to me when I talk back and they hear me and yet I never spoke audibly but rather spoke through the spirit of Christ.

E. W. Bullinger., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1975), p. 322. Glorify: To invest with dignity, make anyone important, to cause him honor by putting him into an honorable position. Hence, the New Testament meanings are 1. To recognize, honor, praise. 2. To bring to honor, make glorious; glorify, but strictly, to give anyone importance. (When predicated of Christ it means that his innate glory is made manifest and brought to light.) By bestowing honor, praise, or admiration. To elevate to great beauty, charm. To be better than the actual condition. This new position. Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus;

I just heard a great teaching yesterday that said just the opposite of what you're saying. It's called "The Perfect You" and can be found on YouTube if you search for it under Andrew Farley - The Perfect You Part 5

I would encourage you to find on YouTube the teaching called "The Perfect You" by... Andrew Farley, and listen to Part 5. Why? Because he says the complete opposite of what you just said.