The Water Baptism of Cornelius

[Seabass]

Then you are in denial that to not sin is a command. See also 1 John 2:1.



No.

Those Corinthians were commanded to not CONTINUE in sin, not commanded live their life perfectly sinless which Paul did not even live a perfect sinless life.

1 Jn 2:1
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

John just previously addressed the fact Christian do sin 1 Jn 1:7-10 and the Christian lies if he says he has no sin. "These things I write untp you" John wrote to them that his written message would help them avoid sinning, to keep clear of sinning...this is not a command for Christian to live perfectly sinless life for John sinned himself. For if the Christian sins, he has an advocate. John warns against the idea that if the Christian has an advocate for his sin, and there is forgiveness of sins (1 Jn 1:9) then why not keep sinning. Yet John does not excuse sin.."for if any man sin".

If Christians can live perfectly sinless lives no need for an advocate, no need for grace for perfectly sinless people have no need for grace for God owes than thier reward. Rom 4:4. No need to walk in the light for the Christian would have no sins to b e cleansed away.

 

[Seabass]

I can copy and paste too...and leave links to show what I posted is not my own:

An Inquiry into Baptism

Sprinkling, Pouring, or Immersion, Which Shall It Be? by Jefferson David Tant Introduction Since the Bible teaches that baptism is an essential part of my relationship with Christ (Mark 16:16; Gala…

www.lavistachurchofchrist.org

Sprinkling, Pouring, or Immersion, Which Shall It Be?​

by Jefferson David Tant

Introduction​

Since the Bible teaches that baptism is an essential part of my relationship with Christ (Mark 16:16; Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3-5, etc.), then it behooves me to make sure that my baptism is pleasing to the one who has given the ordinance. It isn’t to please family, my church, or myself. I can only strive to please the Lord. “For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still striving to please men, I should not be a servant of Christ” (Galatians 1:10).

The Bible teaches also that there is now but one baptism (Ephesians 4:5). The religious world now offers multiple types, from immersion in water to sprinkling of rose petals, to baptism on behalf of one’s dead ancestors. Therefore, a decision and choice need to be made concerning this.

Other factors that have a bearing include not only the mode of baptism but also the purpose, the proper subjects, as well as the element in which baptism takes place. The Bible clearly teaches that only believing adults are to be baptized, and not infants. These topics need to be considered, but the purpose of this study is to inquire into the manner or mode of baptism, as to whether it shall be by immersion in water or by other means.

To the best of my knowledge, all of the scholars, historians, and others quoted herein are those who practice the sprinkling or pouring of water for baptism. I have purposely sought out no author who practices immersion, though there are thousands of reputable men who could be quoted who do practice immersion. The reason for this is that the understanding of those who practice sprinkling or pouring might effectively contradict their own practices. In other words, their understanding of what the scriptures teach shows the inconsistency of their practice. Furthermore, their works in support of immersion cannot be dismissed as the words of those who might be prejudiced by some church doctrine, or whatever, in favor of the practice of immersion.

This study is offered with the sincere desire that it may help us to a more perfect understanding of the Will of God.

The Testimony of the Biblical Context​

“John came, who baptized in the wilderness, and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (Mark 1:4-5).

NOTE 1: They came to the Jordan River. Such would hardly have been necessary if the baptisms were done by sprinkling or pouring. It would have been an inconvenience wholly without reason.

NOTE 2: The text says they were baptized of John in the river. It does not say at, but in.

“Jesus was baptized of John in the Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water….” (Mark 1:9-10).

NOTE: If He came up out of the water, it is obvious that He first went down into the water. Why did He do this, unless his practice was immersion?

“And John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there, and they came and were baptized” (John 3:23).

NOTE: If the scripture is not referring to immersion, then why the necessity of much water? Wouldn’t a few drops of water do just as well? It says he was baptizing there because there was much water. The presence of much water was neither incidental nor accidental.

“And he (eunuch) commanded the chariot to stand still; and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away….” (Acts 8:38-39).

NOTE: It is obvious that immersion is implied in this passage, considering the going down into and the coming up out of the water.

“And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name” (Acts 22:16).

NOTE: Here the washing of the flesh symbolized the washing of the soul. Which best represents the washing of the flesh: immersion, sprinkling, or pouring?

“We were buried therefore with Him through baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4).

NOTE 1: Which best represents a burial: sprinkling, pouring, dropping of rose petals, or immersion?

NOTE 2: Which best represents a resurrection: having water sprinkled on the head, or coming up from an immersion in water?

“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27).

NOTE: In the figure given, we clothe ourselves with Christ, putting Him on as we would a garment. Since this is done in baptism, which best represents the surrounding of ourselves with Christ (putting Him on): immersion, sprinkling, or pouring?

“One Lord, one faith, one baptism…” (Ephesians 4:5).

NOTE: If there is only one baptism now, which shall we choose (of the three that are most popularly offered): immersion, sprinkling, or pouring?

“Having been buried with Him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (Colossians 2:12).

NOTE: (See comments on Romans 6:4).

Testimony of the Greek Lexicons, Dictionaries, etc. on “βαρτιζω” (baptidzo)​

• "1. to dip repeatedly, to immerse, submerge…..2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water…3. to overwhelm…" [GRIMM’S GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, translated, Revised, and Enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D.]. A standard reference work recognized in both Europe and America to be an outstanding work.
• "1. to dip, immerse, sink; 2. To overwhelm…3. To perform ablutions, wash oneself, bathe….4. of ablution, immersion, as a religious rite, to baptize…" [A MANUAL GREEK LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, G. Abbott Smith, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D.]
• "to dip, immerse, or plunge into water." (Parkhurst)
• "to immerse, to sink." (Robinson)
• "to dip repeatedly." (Liddell and Scott)
• "1. of Christian baptism; this, according to the view of the apostles, is a rite of sacred immersion, commanded by Christ, by which men confessing their sins and professing their faith in Christ are born again by the Holy Spirit into a new life, come into the fellowship of Christ and the church" [GRIMM’S GREEK –ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, op. cit.]

COMMENT: Of literally scores of such authoritative works, Greek dictionaries, lexicons, etc., I have never heard of even one that defines “baptize” or “baptism” as sprinkling or pouring. Indeed, there are other works in the Greek language that denote these actions. The word “ραντιζω” (rantidzo) means “to sprinkle,” and the words “εκχεω” (ekcheo) and “βαλλω” (ballo) may be translated as “to pour,” but these words are never used in reference to baptism in water in the New Testament.

It is of more than passing interest to note that in Luke 16:24, the rich man asked if Lazarus might “dip the tip of his finger in water.” The word “dip” here is translated from the Greek “βαρτω” (bapto), the form from which we get “baptize.” Would one be led to think that the rich man simply asked from Lazarus to sprinkle some water on his finger, or for Lazarus to immerse the end portion of his finger in water, that it might give some relief to the parched mouth of the rich man? I think the latter would be obvious, and so did the translators.

 

[Seabass]

The Testimony of the Encyclopaedias​

• Baptism: …”when in the ceremony the candidate for baptism is submerged under the water, he is thereby buried with Christ and dies with Him; i.e., this submersion in water is, for the Apostle, not merely a symbol of purification, not only a symbol of being buried, but a real act of wonderful effect. The candidate for baptism experiences actually and genuinely the death of Jesus in his own body, and is likewise actually laid in the grave, as Jesus lay in the grave…When he emerges again from the water, the resurrection of Christ becomes his.” (“Baptism.” ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITTANICA)
• Baptistery: ....”the round church of Santa Costanza, in Rome, built probably as a tomb for the daughter of Constantine, was also used in early times as a baptistery. Following this tradition, baptisteries throughout the early Church were separate buildings, circular or polygonal in plan, up to the 9th or 10th century. When the change from immersion to sprinkling as the method of baptism rendered large baptisteries unnecessary, the baptistery became a mere chapel within a church.” (“Baptistery.” ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITTANNICA)
• Baptism--that is dipping, immersion, from the Greek word baptizo.” (“Baptism” ENCYCLOPAEDIA AMERICANA)
• “The first law for sprinkling was obtained in the following manner: Pope Stephen II, being driven from Rome by Adolphus, King of Lombards, in 753, fled to Pepin, who a short time before had usurped the crown of France.
  While he remained there the monks of Cressy, in Brittany, consulted him whether in case of necessity, baptism poured on the head of an infant would be lawful. Stephen replied that it would, yet pouring and sprinkling was not allowed except in cases of necessity.
  
  It was not until the year 1311 that the legislature, in a council held at Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent. In Scotland, however, sprinkling was never practiced in ordinary cases until after the Reformation—about the middle of the 16th century. From Scotland it made its way into England in the reign of Elizabeth I, but was not authorized in the Established Church.” (“Baptism.” EDINBURGH ENCYCLOPAEDIA)

COMMENT: The encyclopedias note the original practice of immersion. Please keep in mind that the ordinance authorizing the change was granted by the Pope of Rome, not Jesus Christ.

• A little known (yet documented) fact of history is that the Church of England (1534), the Presbyterian (c.1540), and the Congregational (soon after) churches all practiced immersion for about 100 years, or until the Westminster assembly in 1643. At that time, a number of bishops, seeing how much more convenient sprinkling was, came before Parliament insisting that “the devil of immersion ought to be legislated out of the realm it is so troublesome.”
  “The Westminster assembly convened July 1, 1643. Very naturally the question was brought before this august body of divines, ‘Shall we continue the practice of immersion or shall we adopt sparkling instead?’ When it came to a vote, twenty-four voted to continue the ancient and apostolic practice, and twenty-four voted in favor of sprinkling. Dr. Lightfoot was chairman, and it was his duty to give the deciding vote. He cast his vote in favor of sprinkling.” (EDINBURGH ENCYCLOPAEDIA, Vol. 3, p 236.)

In 1644, Parliament acted upon this, repealing the laws enjoining immersion, enacting in their place laws enjoining sprinkling. Those who were not sprinkled were to be treated as outlaws.

The Testimony of Historians​

• “It is without controversy that baptism in the primitive church was administered by immersion into water and not by sprinkling; seeing that John is said to have baptized in Jordan, and where there was much water, as Christ also did by his disciples in the neighborhood of these places. Phillip also going down into the water baptized the eunuch.” (Ecclesiastical History, Chapter I, Sec. 138.)
• “Immersion and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original form. This is shown by the very meaning of the words baptizo, baptisma, and baptismos, used to designate the rite.” (HISTORY OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH, Schaff, p. 488.)
• “The practice of the Eastern Church, and the meaning of the word, leave no sufficient ground for question that the original form of baptism was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters.” (History of the Early Church, Stanley, p. 34.)
• “The Greek Church in all its branches does still use immersion, and so do all other Christians in the world, except the Latins. All those nations that do now, or formerly did submit to the Bishop of Rome, do ordinarily baptize their children by pouring or sprinkling. But all other Christians in the world, who never owned the Pope’s usurped power, do and ever did dip their infants in the ordinary use. All the Christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about one-third in Europe are of the last sort.” (History of Infant Baptism, Wall, Vol. II, p. 376, 3rd edition.)
• “In this century (the first), baptism was administered in convenient places without the public assemblies, and by immersing the candidate wholly in water.” (Ecclesiastical History, Mosheim. Century I, Part II, Chapter 4.)
• “From the thirteenth century sprinkling came into more general use in the West. The Greek Church, however, and the church of Milan still retained the practice of immersion.” (History of Doctrine, Hagenback. Vol. ii, p.84, note I.)

The first record of pouring or sprinkling is that of Novatian in 251 A.D. Eusebius, the father of church history, describes it: “He (Novatian) fell into a grievous distemper, and it being supposed that he would die immediately, he received baptism, being besprinkled with water on the bed whereon he lay, if that can be termed baptism.”

COMMENT: We could go on for page after page citing such quotations, but these will serve our purpose of establishing the unanimity of thought on the part of historians. One might wonder how the word “baptize” ever came to be used in the English text, rather than the translation “immerse” or “dip”. Perhaps a bit of historical background will be of interest.

When King James I (Church of England) authorized the translation of the Bible, which was completed in 1611, he gave the scholars some fourteen rules to follow. Two of those rules were: 1. “Old ecclesiastical words must be kept, as, the word ‘church’ must not be translated ‘congregation’ etc.” 2. The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishop’s Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the originals will permit.” (See Lewis’ History of the English Translation of the Bible)

It was during this time that the controversy over immersion vs. sprinkling was heating up, and it was in this atmosphere that the King James translation was done. Some of the Bishops had gone before Parliament affirming that “the devil of immersion ought to be legislated out of the realm, it (was) so troublesome.” When these men came to the word baptizo, they had a problem. If they were to translate the word by its accepted meaning of immerse or dip, it would effectively serve to “legislate the devil of immersion” into the realm, rather than legislating it out.

They decided not to translate the word at all, but rather transfer it from Greek into the English language. They dropped the Greek letter omega (ω) at the end of the word, replacing it with the English letter “e.” So from baptizo in Greek, we have baptize in English. Therefore, the Bishops did not translate the word at all but left it in the Greek to cover up their pious fraud. Those who could read could then assign whatever meaning they wanted to this new English word.

As earlier indicated, all historians of whom I am aware are unanimous in their statements concerning the practice of immersion by the early church, which, we remember, was under the direct and inspired guidance of the apostles.

An Inquiry into Baptism

Sprinkling, Pouring, or Immersion, Which Shall It Be? by Jefferson David Tant Introduction Since the Bible teaches that baptism is an essential part of my relationship with Christ (Mark 16:16; Gala…

www.lavistachurchofchrist.org

 

[Seabass]

The Testimony of the Church Fathers​

• Basil the Great, A.D. 370: “The bodies of those baptized area as if buried in the water.”
• Barnabas, A.D. 119: “We indeed go down into the water. Again, “Blessed are they, who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water.” (Epis. XI, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 144)
• Origen, A.D. 184-254: “Man, therefore, through this washing is buried with Christ; is regenerated.” (Comment on Matthew)
• Gregory, A.D. 240: “He who is baptized in water is wholly wet.” Again, “Immerse me in the streams of Jordan, even as she who bore me wrapped me in the children’s swaddling clothes.” (Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 70)
• Chrysostom, A.D. 347: “To be baptized and to submerge, then to emerge is a symbol of descent to the grave, and of ascent from it.” (Hom. 40 in I Corinthians 1.)
• Canon of the Council of Calcuth, A.D. 816: “Let the presbyter also know, that they may not pour the holy water over the infants’ heads, but let them always be immersed in the font.”

Comment: The early church fathers lived and wrote while Greek was still a living language, and history furnishes us with not even one example in all their writings where baptizo is ever used to mean sprinkle or pour.

Even in later years, after infant baptism had been introduced, immersion was yet the practice, as evidenced by the decree of the Council of Calcuth in 816 A.D.

The Testimony of the Scholars​

• MacKnight (Presbyterian): “In baptism the baptized person is buried under the water. Christ submitted to be baptized, that is, to be buried under the water.”
• Luther (Lutheran): “Baptism is a Greek word and may be translated immerse. I would have those who are to be baptized to be altogether dipped.”
• John Wesley (Methodist): “Buried with Him into baptism—alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion.”
• Wall (Episcopalian): “Immersion was in all probability the way by which our blessed Savior, and for certain the way the ancient Christians, received their baptisms.”
• Brenner (Catholic): “For thirteen hundred years was baptism an immersion of the person under water.”
• Calvin (Presbyterian): “Whether the person baptized is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that is was the form used by the primitive church.” (INSTITUTES, 4:15:19)
• International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, article on “Baptism (Non-Immersionist View)”, Vol. I, p. 388-394.
  1. Immersion: “It may be admitted at once that immersion, where the whole body including the head is plunged into a pool of pure water, gives a more vivid picture of the cleansing of the soul from sin; and that complete surrounding with water suits better the metaphors of burial in Rom. 6:4 and Col. 2:12, and of being surrounded by a cloud in I Cor. 2.”
  2. Affusion: “The two usages (immersion and affusion-JDT) which were recognized and prescribed by the beginning of the second century may have been in use throughout the apostolic period although definite information is lacking.” (Typist’s note: Affusion is pouring of water over the body or parts of the body).
  3. Aspersion: “It was in the early centuries exclusively reserved for sick and infirm persons too weak to be submitted to immersion or affusion. There is evidence to show that those who received the rite in this form were somewhat despised {……} it was long of commending itself to minister and people, and did not attain to almost universal use until the thirteenth century.”
• Professor Moses Stuart: “Baptizo means to dip, plunge, or immerse into any liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this.” (ESSAY ON BAPTISM, p. 51. Biblical Repository, 1833, p. 298.)
• “Catholics are fully aware that the early practice of the Church (cf. the baptism of Christ, Matt. 3:16: Mark 1: 10; that of the eunuch, Acts 8:38-39, and St. Paul’s symbol of burial and resurrection, Romans 6:4, Col. 2:12) was to immerse, and that this custom prevailed in both East and West in the solemn administration of the sacrament till the end of the thirteenth century.” (Question Box, 364, 1913 edition.)
• Bishop Bossuet, celebrated French Catholic: “To baptize signifies to plunge, as is granted by all the world.” (Stennett and Russen, p. 174).
• Calvin (Presbyterian) “The Church hath granted to herself the privilege of somewhat altering the form of baptism, retaining the substance, that is, the words.”

COMMENT: Surely there is no need to go on, page after page, citing such quotations from men of learning, recognized by their peers and others. Calvin’s remarks were most enlightening. In the first reference, he admitted that it “is evident that the term "baptize" means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive church.” But this is of no consequence to him as churches “should be at liberty” to make their own laws, as his second quote infers.

Is there to be no respect for the laws of Him who is “King of Kings”, nor for the meaning of the words spoken by the only One who can save us—Jesus Christ?

The Testimony of the Commentators​

• “This passage cannot be understood unless it be borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion.” Romans 6:4.
• “The candidate says to himself, ‘Now I enter into fellowship with the death of Christ; I am to be buried with Christ in the immersion, and in the emersion I rise with Christ to newness of life.” Commentary on Romans, Meyer, Romans 6:4.
• “Here is a plain allusion to the ancient custom of baptizing by immersion; and I agree with Koppe and Rosemuller that there is reason to regret it should ever have been abandoned in most Christian churches, especially as it has so evident a reference to the mystical sense of baptism.” (Rscens. Synop. Bloomfield, Romans 6:4.)
• “Verse 4: We are buried with Him by baptism into death. It is probable he that the apostle here alludes to the mode of administering baptism by immersion, the whole body being put under the water, which seemed to say the man is drowned, is dead; and when he came up out of the water, he seemed to have a resurrection to life. The man is risen again; he is alive!” (Commentary on Romans 6:4, Adam Clarke [Methodist Protestant Church], 1836)
• “4. Therefore we are buried {….}. It is altogether probable that the apostle in this place had allusion to the custom of baptizing by immersion. This cannot indeed be proved, so as to be liable to no objection: but I presume that this is the idea which would strike the great mass of unprejudiced readers.” (Commentary on Romans 6:4, Albert Barnes [Presbyterian])

COMMENT: These commentators, along with multitudes of others recognized as scholarly men, were all of the denominations that did not practice immersion. Their statements, though, show their understanding of what the New Testament teaches, even though they did not choose to follow this teaching in their personal lives and although there is evidence that some of them were immersed.

It is interesting to note the comment of Barnes that immersion “is the idea which would strike the great mass of unprejudiced readers.” In other words, just the simple, unadorned word conveys the idea of immersion. But if minds have been prejudiced by custom, tradition, or creeds of man, the conclusion might be different.

Conclusion​

Although volumes could and have been written on this subject, perhaps it has been helpful to sift through the multitude of materials and collect some of the more significant and cogent thoughts for consideration.

Is it not noteworthy that the combined testimonies of authorities in the Greek language (the language of the original writings of the New Testament), of Biblical scholars and commentators, of Church historians, of the Church Fathers, of the encyclopedias, and of the Biblical text itself ALL agree? They all agree that the apostolic teaching was immersion, that our Lord himself was immersed, that the early Christians practiced immersion, and that sprinkling as a substitute was not generally accepted until the thirteenth century.

Therefore, if I am convinced that baptism is an essential part of my obedience to the Lord, and I have a choice in the matter, which should I choose—that which all the evidence recognizes is the Biblical practice (immersion), or that which has been invented by men through the passing years (sprinkling or pouring)? Remember the words of the Lord, “In vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men” (Matthew 15:9). Furthermore, Jesus said, “Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21).

Jesus said, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved…” (Mark 16:16). If, as the evidence supports, a correct translation of that verse is “He that believes and is immersed shall be saved…” (and there have been some translations on the market so reading), then what hope is there for those who have obeyed “He that believes and (is sprinkled) shall be saved…” If we are at liberty to change the manner (immersion to sprinkling), then why cannot we give approval to those who have changed the element (water to rose petals)? Or even to those who have changed the command itself to, “He that believes and is (not) baptized shall be saved?”

An Inquiry into Baptism

Sprinkling, Pouring, or Immersion, Which Shall It Be? by Jefferson David Tant Introduction Since the Bible teaches that baptism is an essential part of my relationship with Christ (Mark 16:16; Gala…

www.lavistachurchofchrist.org

 

[Seabass]

Hi @Johann,

You have witnessed to the truth, as it is written in the word of God, you can do no more.

He has copied and pasted everything without addressing issues raised nor proving what he copied and pasted is truth.

 

[Johann]

He has copied and pasted everything without addressing issues raised nor proving what he copied and pasted is truth.

Are you feeling better, lighter-unburdened?
Should I Be Water Baptized?

Justin Johnson

Only if you are ignorant of the revelation of the mystery.

The church is divided into a hundred different camps regarding this extremely controversial subject. Unfortunately, they are all ignorant of the revelation of the mystery given to Paul, and are oblivious to the cause of their confusion.

If you cannot understand Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, then you will naturally conclude that we are somehow related to Israel and that we are to follow the preaching and teaching of John the Baptist and Jesus while he walked the earth.

What most do not realize is that water baptism did not originate with John the Baptist nor with Jesus. The people of Israel knew exactly what John was doing. The Pharisees did as well, but they did not know why.

“And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?” – John 1:25
The Pharisees knew that before the coming kingdom there would come a messenger who would clean the house of Israel in order for them to enter the ‘holy priesthood’ and take their rightful position as the ‘Priests of the Lord’

“But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.” – Isaiah 61:6
Originally God excluded only the tribe of Levi to maintain the temple and only a select few of Israel were to be priests. However, it was always God’s intention to make the entire nation a nation of priests to all the world!

“Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” – Exodus 19:5-6
It was written in the Levitical law that the priests were to be first washed with water before entering their holy position.

“And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.” – Lev 8:6

“And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water.” – Exodus 40:12
So then, John the Baptist came proclaiming the kingdom of God (the kingdom where Israel would be priests) and the remission of sins through water washing.

“John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” – Mark 1:4
John preached his water baptism in the river Jordan for the remission of the sins. However, this water washing was not the only prerequisite for the priesthood.

“And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.” – Exodus 40:13
Under the Levitical law the priests put on holy garments and were anointed with oil after their water baptism, but John the Baptist describes the true anointing with the Holy Ghost:

“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:” – Matthew 3:11

Both the water baptism and the Holy Ghost anointing were necessary requirements as described in the Levitical law in order for Israel to enter the kingdom.

In Luke 7:29-30 submission to water baptism was how believing Israel justified their faith in the coming kingdom as taught by Jesus.

Water Baptism Today

While baptism was commanded by Jesus for the remission of sins, Jesus also taught the entire law while confirming the promises given to Israel.

“Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:” – Romans 15:8
It was not until after Pentecost when God instituted the dispensation of grace that he gave first to Paul. He would then reveal the secret of the meaning behind his death on the cross.

This message of the cross was made available to all men without distinction, covenant status, circumcision, or water baptism.

Instead of becoming priests and reigning in an earthly kingdom, the body of Christ today is to assume a heavenly position with Christ as our mediator. No one today can become the priestly mediator to Christ through the washings and anointings of the law.

Rather, by his grace, God freely gives those that believe a high calling in Christ Jesus! Once we believe that Christ was the much needed blood propitiation for our sins, then we are baptized into the Lord himself!

“For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body…” – 1 Corinthians 12:13
We are not baptized into water to remit our sins, we are baptized into Christ! This baptism is not just a cleansing, it is an extermination. Our baptism into Christ crucifies our flesh and places us into his death. Likewise we will take part in his resurrection.

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by 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.” – Romans 6:3-4

Paul’s Message of Baptism

Just as John the Baptist came baptizing with water in obedience to God, we too must obey the instructions of God for this distinct and separate dispensation.

In Paul’s writings alone do we find the instructions given by the risen Lord Jesus to us today, for no one before Paul knew of the grace of God through the secret kept hidden from the foundation of the world.

Contrary to the instructions for the apostles in other dispensations, Paul was not sent to baptize.

“For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” – 1 Cor 1:17

However, his reason for not water baptizing is even more instructive than his admission to not being sent. The reason Paul was not sent to water baptize was because it would make of no effect the cross of Christ.

Upon the cross of Christ our sins were nailed, and our flesh was crucified (Gal 2:20). Our baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ magnifies the truth of the operation of God by the cross to be received by grace.

Rather than being an act of grace, water baptism is something that must be performed in order to meet the qualifications of entering the kingdom. It is the same conditional prerequisite that the law always places upon Israel.

Instead of proving the grace of God in the cross of Christ, water baptism proves the obedience to the law. Wherefore, if Paul were to place his followers back under the law, he would be doing a great disservice to the message to which he was committed – the gospel of the grace of God.

So it is today, that those who submit themselves to water baptism believing that it is necessary in order for God to be satisfied are also placing their trust back under a conditional system originating from the law.

Paul teaches us that we have been delivered from the curse of the law with its numerous requirements. Today we have a more glorious testimony of the grace of God, which is to believe in the ‘one baptism’ of Ephesians 4:5.

Water baptism is for those entering the kingdom come to Israel, or who are ignorant of the greater mystery truths given to the apostle Paul. It is not by water baptism, but by the spiritual baptism of 1 Cor 12:13 that we can proclaim,

For it is the Lord’s work, his work alone,
that seized my berth in heaven’s home
and nothing more than this I know
than Christ crucified, a cleansing flow.

Rather lengthy-my apologies for hurting your feelings re baptism but we are ALL in search for truth-Yes?
Oh-before I forget-

Should I Be Water Baptized?

graceambassadors.com

The LINK.

 

[Johann]

Are you feeling better, lighter-unburdened?
Should I Be Water Baptized?

Justin Johnson

Only if you are ignorant of the revelation of the mystery.

The church is divided into a hundred different camps regarding this extremely controversial subject. Unfortunately, they are all ignorant of the revelation of the mystery given to Paul, and are oblivious to the cause of their confusion.

If you cannot understand Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, then you will naturally conclude that we are somehow related to Israel and that we are to follow the preaching and teaching of John the Baptist and Jesus while he walked the earth.

What most do not realize is that water baptism did not originate with John the Baptist nor with Jesus. The people of Israel knew exactly what John was doing. The Pharisees did as well, but they did not know why.

“And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?” – John 1:25
The Pharisees knew that before the coming kingdom there would come a messenger who would clean the house of Israel in order for them to enter the ‘holy priesthood’ and take their rightful position as the ‘Priests of the Lord’

“But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.” – Isaiah 61:6
Originally God excluded only the tribe of Levi to maintain the temple and only a select few of Israel were to be priests. However, it was always God’s intention to make the entire nation a nation of priests to all the world!

“Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” – Exodus 19:5-6
It was written in the Levitical law that the priests were to be first washed with water before entering their holy position.

“And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.” – Lev 8:6

“And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water.” – Exodus 40:12
So then, John the Baptist came proclaiming the kingdom of God (the kingdom where Israel would be priests) and the remission of sins through water washing.

“John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” – Mark 1:4
John preached his water baptism in the river Jordan for the remission of the sins. However, this water washing was not the only prerequisite for the priesthood.

“And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.” – Exodus 40:13
Under the Levitical law the priests put on holy garments and were anointed with oil after their water baptism, but John the Baptist describes the true anointing with the Holy Ghost:

“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:” – Matthew 3:11

Both the water baptism and the Holy Ghost anointing were necessary requirements as described in the Levitical law in order for Israel to enter the kingdom.

In Luke 7:29-30 submission to water baptism was how believing Israel justified their faith in the coming kingdom as taught by Jesus.

Water Baptism Today

While baptism was commanded by Jesus for the remission of sins, Jesus also taught the entire law while confirming the promises given to Israel.

“Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:” – Romans 15:8
It was not until after Pentecost when God instituted the dispensation of grace that he gave first to Paul. He would then reveal the secret of the meaning behind his death on the cross.

This message of the cross was made available to all men without distinction, covenant status, circumcision, or water baptism.

Instead of becoming priests and reigning in an earthly kingdom, the body of Christ today is to assume a heavenly position with Christ as our mediator. No one today can become the priestly mediator to Christ through the washings and anointings of the law.

Rather, by his grace, God freely gives those that believe a high calling in Christ Jesus! Once we believe that Christ was the much needed blood propitiation for our sins, then we are baptized into the Lord himself!

“For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body…” – 1 Corinthians 12:13
We are not baptized into water to remit our sins, we are baptized into Christ! This baptism is not just a cleansing, it is an extermination. Our baptism into Christ crucifies our flesh and places us into his death. Likewise we will take part in his resurrection.

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by 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.” – Romans 6:3-4

Paul’s Message of Baptism

Just as John the Baptist came baptizing with water in obedience to God, we too must obey the instructions of God for this distinct and separate dispensation.

In Paul’s writings alone do we find the instructions given by the risen Lord Jesus to us today, for no one before Paul knew of the grace of God through the secret kept hidden from the foundation of the world.

Contrary to the instructions for the apostles in other dispensations, Paul was not sent to baptize.

“For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” – 1 Cor 1:17

However, his reason for not water baptizing is even more instructive than his admission to not being sent. The reason Paul was not sent to water baptize was because it would make of no effect the cross of Christ.

Upon the cross of Christ our sins were nailed, and our flesh was crucified (Gal 2:20). Our baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ magnifies the truth of the operation of God by the cross to be received by grace.

Rather than being an act of grace, water baptism is something that must be performed in order to meet the qualifications of entering the kingdom. It is the same conditional prerequisite that the law always places upon Israel.

Instead of proving the grace of God in the cross of Christ, water baptism proves the obedience to the law. Wherefore, if Paul were to place his followers back under the law, he would be doing a great disservice to the message to which he was committed – the gospel of the grace of God.

So it is today, that those who submit themselves to water baptism believing that it is necessary in order for God to be satisfied are also placing their trust back under a conditional system originating from the law.

Paul teaches us that we have been delivered from the curse of the law with its numerous requirements. Today we have a more glorious testimony of the grace of God, which is to believe in the ‘one baptism’ of Ephesians 4:5.

Water baptism is for those entering the kingdom come to Israel, or who are ignorant of the greater mystery truths given to the apostle Paul. It is not by water baptism, but by the spiritual baptism of 1 Cor 12:13 that we can proclaim,

For it is the Lord’s work, his work alone,
that seized my berth in heaven’s home
and nothing more than this I know
than Christ crucified, a cleansing flow.

Rather lengthy-my apologies for hurting your feelings re baptism but we are ALL in search for truth-Yes?
Oh-before I forget-

Should I Be Water Baptized?

graceambassadors.com

The LINK.

"It is not true, it is not true," he shouts. Then why is he upset? Does he so react to every untruth he hears? If this is righteous indignation at error, will he sit down for a calm consideration of the matter? That is one's best opportunity to teach the truth.

But who are we fooling? Not even ourselves — for experience has taught us that people are cut to the heart when their conscience agrees with the thing taught. It is the conflict within ourselves that stirs our anger (a defense mechanism), and he who tells us the truth becomes our enemy because he has invaded our little fort. If we did not recognize it as the truth we would not feel insecure in our error.

And if this analysis is valid, the number of people who knowingly accept and practice error must be great. Do these people love God's truth? Can they claim to be searching for truth?

I do not mean to imply that my conclusions are the equivalent of God's truth. I only plead for a truth lover, truth seeker attitude, as we study God's word together.

 

[Johann]

Seabass doesn't play that game.

Neither do Johann-time is short and we have regular load shedding's in Africa-sitting in darkness twice a day and in some rural areas up to 10 hours without electricity.
Count your blessings.

 

[Fred]

Those Corinthians were commanded to not CONTINUE in sin,

By sinning they are continuing in sin.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The new birth takes place when one is water baptism.

Totally FALSE!!! The new birth occurs when one is infilled by the Holy Spirit, when they call on God in FAITH for salvation.

THEN Baptism in water is appropriate.

 

[Johann]

Totally FALSE!!! The new birth occurs when one is infilled by the Holy Spirit, when they call on God in FAITH for salvation.

THEN Baptism in water is appropriate.

I guess baptismal regeneration is what he has in mind.

Eph 1:13 In Whom ye were made an inheritance also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation: in Whom ye also on believing were sealed with the Holy Spirit [gift] of the promise,
Eph 1:14 (Which is a pledge of our inheritance unto the redemption of the purchased possession), unto the praise of His glory.

"after listening to the message of truth, the gospel. . .having also believed" These are both aorist active participles. Salvation is both a message to believe and a person to trust. It involves both a mental acceptance of the truthfulness of the Bible (worldview) and a personal welcoming of Jesus! The gospel must be personally received (cf. John 1:12; 3:16,18,36; 6:40; 11:25-26; Rom. 10:9-13). The essence of the gospel can be summarized as

1. a person to welcome/receive (personal relationship

2. truths about that person to believe (worldview)

3. a life like that person to live (Christlikeness)





"you were sealed in Him" In the Greco-Roman culture sealing was a sign of security, genuineness, and ownership (cf. Eph. 4:30; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Rev. 7:1-4). This sealing (aorist passive indicative) is theologically parallel to the Spirit's baptizing new believers in Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13; possibly Eph. 4:4-5).



"with the Holy Spirit of promise" The coming of the Spirit was the sign of the New Age (cf. Joel 2:28; John 14:26ff). He was the Father's promise (cf. John 14:16, 26; 15:26; Acts 1:4-5; 2:33). The Spirit indwelling believers is the assurance of their resurrection (cf. Rom. 8:9-11).

1:14 "who is given as a pledge" This concept of a pledge had an OT precedent.

1. a promise to pay a debt (cf. Gen. 38:17,18,20; Deut. 24:10-13)

2. a promise of providing sustenance (cf. 1 Sam. 17:18)

3. a personal promise (cf. 2 Kgs. 18:23; Isa. 36:8).

This Greek term refers to a "down-payment" or earnest money (cf. 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5). In modern Greek it is used of an engagement ring, which is the promise of a marriage to come. The Spirit is the fulfilled promise of a new age of righteousness. This is part of the "already" and "not yet" tension of the NT, which is the overlapping of the two Jewish ages because of the two comings of Christ (see the excellent discussion in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Fee and Stuart, pp. 129-134). The Spirit is a pledge given now for a future consummation.

 

[charismaticlady]

Those Corinthians were commanded to not CONTINUE in sin, not commanded live their life perfectly sinless which Paul did not even live a perfect sinless life.

1 Jn 2:1
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

John just previously addressed the fact Christian do sin 1 Jn 1:7-10 and the Christian lies if he says he has no sin. "These things I write untp you" John wrote to them that his written message would help them avoid sinning, to keep clear of sinning...this is not a command for Christian to live perfectly sinless life for John sinned himself. For if the Christian sins, he has an advocate. John warns against the idea that if the Christian has an advocate for his sin, and there is forgiveness of sins (1 Jn 1:9) then why not keep sinning. Yet John does not excuse sin.."for if any man sin".

If Christians can live perfectly sinless lives no need for an advocate, no need for grace for perfectly sinless people have no need for grace for God owes than thier reward. Rom 4:4. No need to walk in the light for the Christian would have no sins to b e cleansed away.

and @Fred and @Johann and @Bob Carabbio

I have found an ugly truth in the Church, the Bride of Christ who is to be spotless and without blame. Those who read 1 John 2:1 NEVER underline or highlight the message that "

these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.

No! They instead highlight the rest of the verse who is for all mankind. Jesus didn't die just for Christians, but for the whole world. THAT is the "any man."

 

[Johann]

and @Fred and @Johann and @Bob Carabbio

I have found an ugly truth in the Church, the Bride of Christ who is to be spotless and without blame. Those who read 1 John 2:1 NEVER underline or highlight the message that "

No! They instead highlight the rest of the verse who is for all mankind. Jesus didn't die just for Christians, but for the whole world. THAT is the "any man."

I don't deny this-

1Jn 2:1 My sons, these things I write to you, that you should not sin. And if any should sin, [a comforter we have] with the father Jesus Christ the righteous.
1Jn 2:2 And he is atonement for our sins; [not for ours but only], but also for the whole world.
1Jn 2:3 And by this we know that we have known him if the commandments of his we keep.
1Jn 2:4 The one saying, I know him, and his commandments is not keeping, is a liar, and [in this one the truth is not].
1Jn 2:5 But who ever should give heed of his word, truly in this one the love of God has been perfected. By this we know that [in him we are].
1Jn 2:6 The one saying [in him to be abiding], ought as that one walked, also himself so to walk.

--but we also know from experience that not the WHOLE world are saved-or is this what you are promulgating?

it is only applicable to "the whomsoever" and the natural man RUNS from the Light-yes?

 

[charismaticlady]

I don't deny this-

1Jn 2:1 My sons, these things I write to you, that you should not sin. And if any should sin, [a comforter we have] with the father Jesus Christ the righteous.
1Jn 2:2 And he is atonement for our sins; [not for ours but only], but also for the whole world.
1Jn 2:3 And by this we know that we have known him if the commandments of his we keep.
1Jn 2:4 The one saying, I know him, and his commandments is not keeping, is a liar, and [in this one the truth is not].
1Jn 2:5 But who ever should give heed of his word, truly in this one the love of God has been perfected. By this we know that [in him we are].
1Jn 2:6 The one saying [in him to be abiding], ought as that one walked, also himself so to walk.

--but we also know from experience that not the WHOLE world are saved-or is this what you are promulgating?

it is only applicable to "the whomsoever" and the natural man RUNS from the Light-yes?

In my email I saw sb ask if Fred "Are you suggesting God requires perfectly sinlessness." but I couldn't find it still in the thread. Anyway, I have been concerned for the Church because we can see that we are living in the last days. The Bride of Christ must be spotless, but there are so many doctrines of demons out there telling us we will always sin until we die and receive our new bodies. That is a slick twist of scripture because if you aren't sinless in life you won't be after death. Revelation 22:11.

I'm not saying anything about the whole world except what sb was highlighting was for those still unsaved.

 

[Johann]

In my email I saw sb ask if Fred "Are you suggesting God requires perfectly sinlessness." but I couldn't find it still in the thread. Anyway, I have been concerned for the Church because we can see that we are living in the last days. The Bride of Christ must be spotless, but there are so many doctrines of demons out there telling us we will always sin until we die and receive our new bodies. That is a slick twist of scripture because if you aren't sinless in life you won't be after death. Revelation 22:11.

So you advocate sinless perfection-Present Tense-correct?

 

[charismaticlady]

So you advocate sinless perfection-Present Tense-correct?

No! There is no such thing. But answer me this: 1 John 1:9 if you are cleansed of all unrighteousness are you sinless?

cc: @Fred @Seabass @Bob Carabbio

 

[Johann]

No! There is no such thing. But answer me this: 1 John 1:9 if you are cleansed of all unrighteousness are you sinless?

Why "skip" these verses?

1Jn 1:6 If we should say that [fellowship we have] with him, and in the darkness should walk, we lie, and we do not observe the truth.
1Jn 1:7 But if [in the light we should walk], as he is in the light, [fellowship we have] with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanses us from all sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we should say that [sin we do not have], we mislead ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we should acknowledge our sins, he is trustworthy and just that he should have forgiven us the sins, and should have cleansed us from all iniquity.
1Jn 1:10 If we should say that we have not sinned, [a liar we make him], and his word is not in us.

I have heard many, many interpretations on this.
But to answer your question-we SHOULD be sinless-but are we?

 

[charismaticlady]

Why "skip" these verses?

1Jn 1:6 If we should say that [fellowship we have] with him, and in the darkness should walk, we lie, and we do not observe the truth.
1Jn 1:7 But if [in the light we should walk], as he is in the light, [fellowship we have] with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanses us from all sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we should say that [sin we do not have], we mislead ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we should acknowledge our sins, he is trustworthy and just that he should have forgiven us the sins, and should have cleansed us from all iniquity.
1Jn 1:10 If we should say that we have not sinned, [a liar we make him], and his word is not in us.

I have heard many, many interpretations on this.
But to answer your question-we SHOULD be sinless-but are we?

J, to read chapter 1 with a western mind, and not the eastern view of the Jews (the apostles) can lead you down the wide highway. Chapter two can show you what those you highlighted actually means.

4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Why do you contradict verse 9. Did Jesus fail His mission in you? He was manifest to take away our sin and in Him there is no sin. So are you in Jesus or still an active sinner? Does 1 John 1:9 actually mean you are cleansed of all unrighteousness or not?

 

[Johann]

J, to read chapter 1 with a western mind, and not the eastern view of the Jews (the apostles) can lead you down the wide highway. Chapter two can show you what those you highlighted actually means.

4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Why do you contradict verse 9. Did Jesus fail His mission in you? He was manifest to take away our sin and in Him there is no sin. So are you in Jesus or still an active sinner? Does 1 John 1:9 actually mean you are cleansed of all unrighteousness or not?

I don't live a life of HABITUAL sinning or in a STATE of sin-read carefully-I read the Scriptures with an Eastern mindset-
Doeth no sin (hamartian ou poiei). Linear present active indicative as in 1Jn_3:4 like hamartanei in 1Jn_3:8. The child of God does not have the habit of sin.

His seed (sperma autou). God’s seed, “the divine principle of life” (Vincent). Cf. John 1.
And he cannot sin (kai ou dunatai hamartanein). This is a wrong translation, for this English naturally means “and he cannot commit sin” as if it were kai ou dunatai hamartein or hamartēsai (second aorist or first aorist active infinitive).

The present active infinitive hamartanein can only mean “and he cannot go on sinning,” as is true of hamartanei in 1Jn_3:8 and hamartanōn in 1Jn_3:6.

For the aorist subjunctive to commit a sin see hamartēte and hamartēi in 1Jn_2:1. A great deal of false theology has grown out of a misunderstanding of the tense of hamartanein here.

Paul has precisely John’s idea in Rom_6:1 epimenōmen tēi hamartiāi (shall we continue in sin, present active linear subjunctive) in contrast with hamartēsōmen in Rom_6:15 (shall we commit a sin, first aorist active subjunctive).

The believer's normal direction is against sin; the law of God after the inward man is the ruling principle of his true self, though the old nature, not yet fully deadened, rebels. Contrast 1Jn_5:18 with Joh_8:34 : cf. Psa_18:22-23; Psa_32:2; Psa_119:113; Psa_119:176. The magnetic needle, the nature of which is always to point to the pole, is easily turned aside, but always re-seeks it.

A question-would you say the sinful nature in man -regenerate-is somehow "surgically removed" being IN Christ?

 

[charismaticlady]

I don't live a life of HABITUAL sinning or in a STATE of sin-read carefully-I read the Scriptures with an Eastern mindset-
Doeth no sin (hamartian ou poiei). Linear present active indicative as in 1Jn_3:4 like hamartanei in 1Jn_3:8. The child of God does not have the habit of sin.

His seed (sperma autou). God’s seed, “the divine principle of life” (Vincent). Cf. John 1.
And he cannot sin (kai ou dunatai hamartanein). This is a wrong translation, for this English naturally means “and he cannot commit sin” as if it were kai ou dunatai hamartein or hamartēsai (second aorist or first aorist active infinitive).

The present active infinitive hamartanein can only mean “and he cannot go on sinning,” as is true of hamartanei in 1Jn_3:8 and hamartanōn in 1Jn_3:6.

For the aorist subjunctive to commit a sin see hamartēte and hamartēi in 1Jn_2:1. A great deal of false theology has grown out of a misunderstanding of the tense of hamartanein here.

Paul has precisely John’s idea in Rom_6:1 epimenōmen tēi hamartiāi (shall we continue in sin, present active linear subjunctive) in contrast with hamartēsōmen in Rom_6:15 (shall we commit a sin, first aorist active subjunctive).

The believer's normal direction is against sin; the law of God after the inward man is the ruling principle of his true self, though the old nature, not yet fully deadened, rebels. Contrast 1Jn_5:18 with Joh_8:34 : cf. Psa_18:22-23; Psa_32:2; Psa_119:113; Psa_119:176. The magnetic needle, the nature of which is always to point to the pole, is easily turned aside, but always re-seeks it.

A question-would you say the sinful nature in man -regenerate-is somehow "surgically removed" being IN Christ?

There is seen in 1 John 1 a Semitic writing style starting with verse 5. It starts a CONTRAST between Light vs. Darkness.

5 LIGHT
6 DARKNESS
7 LIGHT
8 DARKNESS
9 LIGHT
10 DARKNESS

Once you recognize what the apostle meant, you will see we must focus on 1 John 1:7 and WALK in the Spirit. That is because the apostles also use key words. In chapters one and two the key word is "SAY". Now you can see a contrast between those who just talk the talk vs. those who walk the walk. We are commanded to WALK IN THE SPIRIT.

9 He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now. 10 He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him. 11 But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.