Featured "In Christ" What does it mean and How?

This is deplorable! Your challenge was to find any Baptist scholar that believed that Romans 6:4-6 was actually referring to and describing THE ORDINANCE of baptism by this langauge as you denied that, and claimed the TERM "baptized" was use here ONLY as "shorthand" for salvation but the ORDINANCE is not being described but Gill says the ORDINANCE is being described and there is no kind of "shorthand" here at all but a FULL description of the ordinance, its sybolism and its application.

Yes, you will spare us quoting the full quotation because you are misrepresenting him as my fuller quotation spells out in no uncertain terms. He does not use the TERM "baptized" as "shorthand" for salvation. There is no "shorthand" here according to Gill. Unlike you, I will give not spare the lengthy quotation from the readers:


Romans 6:4

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death
The nature and end of baptism are here expressed; the nature of it, it is a "burial"; and when the apostle so calls it, he manifestly refers to the ancient and only way of administering this ordinance, by immersion; when a person is covered, and as it were buried in water, as a corpse is when laid the earth, and covered with it: and it is a burial with Christ; it is a representation of the burial of Christ, and of our burial with him as our head and representative, and that "into death"; meaning either the death of Christ as before, that is, so as to partake of the benefits of his death; or the death of sin, of which baptism is also a token; for believers, whilst under water, are as persons buried, and so dead; which signifies not only their being dead with Christ, and their communion with him in his death, but also their being dead to sin by the grace of Christ, and therefore ought not to live in it: for the apostle is still pursuing his argument, and is showing, from the nature, use, and end of baptism, that believers are dead to sin, and therefore cannot, and ought not, to live in it; as more fully appears from the end of baptism next mentioned;

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;
for the end of baptism is not only to represent the death and burial, but also the resurrection of Christ from the dead, which is here said to be "by the glory of the Father", some read the words, "unto the glory of the Father"; meaning either, that the Father might be glorified hereby; or that Christ, being raised from the dead, might enjoy glory with the Father, as he does in human nature; but rather the phrase expresses the means by which, and not the end to which, Christ was raised from the dead: and by the "glory of the Father" is meant, the glorious power of the Father, which was eminently displayed in raising Christ from the dead; and as baptism is designed to represent the resurrection of Christ, which is done by raising the person out of the water, so likewise to represent our resurrection from the death of sin, to a life of grace: whence it must be greatly incumbent on baptized believers, who are raised from the graves of sin by the power of Christ, to "walk in newness of life"; for since they are become new creatures, and have new hearts and new spirits given them, new principles of light, life, grace, and holiness implanted in them, and have entered into a new profession of religion, of which baptism is the badge and symbol, they ought to live a new life and conversation.


I never denied that application of the symbolism is ommitted as my interpretation applied the ordinance and its symbolsim of gospel salvation.

Again, Gill is an example who does not believe all that is found here is just the TERM "baptized" as a "shorthand" of salvation but he believes the ORDINANCE is being described here FULLY with its symbolism and its application with regard to justification and regeneration.

 

I never denied the application of salvation was present as I made that application in my interpretation and that is why I stated at the time you issued your challenge that the very wording of your challenge was "crafted...very deftly" as there was no point of disagreement in what you were challenging. However, it was my assumption that your challenged was with regard to your "shorthand" view of the word "baptized" which denied the ACT of baptism was being referred to in the text.

You have crafted your question very deftly. What you are challenging me to show is something quite different than what I claimed. You want me to show repudiation of YOUR position rather than historical affirmation of MY position. - The Biblicist


Moreover, your question posed something quite different than the position you were defending. Here is what you were defending and I was opposing:

When we see the word “baptism” we should automatically think “water baptism” unless it is stated otherwise. But my point was not that this was a different kind of baptism, but that Paul was using the word here to refer to what water baptism stood for and not the act itself. - JonC

I claimed that older interpreters viewed this text as referring to the ACT ITSELF along with applications AS THAT WAS MY INTERPRETATION AS WELL. Look at the interpretation of the text that I gave you. Your challenge was no different than my interpretation, as my interpretation included the application of the symbol with regard to the doctrine of salvation. So in essence you were asking me to find an interpreter to disprove my own interpretation. However, I chose Gill because no objective interpreter of Gill's comment can deny that Gill believed that Paul had THE ACT ITSELF in view and not merely using the term "baptized" as "shorthand" for some other application. REMEMBER, you denied that the term "baptized" in this text referred to any of the three baptisms that I presented (1) in water; (2) in spirit; (3) in sufferings but said it was simply being used to represent the whole of salvation.

Of course trying to reason with you is a complete waste of time as I can see you are not going to deal with this fairly. You next post makes some wild accusation about "heresy." I will not respond in like kind of language but My discussions with you are concluded.

 

READERS,

I ask you to give the discussion between Jon and myself an unbiased consideration. Jon's position begins by denying that the rite of baptism is to found in Romans 6; Gal. 3 and 1 Pet. 3 and only that the term "baptized' is found in those passages and only as a "shorthand" that does not describe baptism in water, in spirit or in suffering but for the whole salvation doctrine and its application to the believers. He then begins to change his position to include the rite of baptism as part of the conversion experience and thus part of salvation which the term "baptized" is "shorthand" while still denying the actual rite of baptism is being referred to directly in these passages.

It is indisputably clear that John Gill and my interpretation demand that the baptismal rite is being directly referred to in the passage ALONG WITH application of its salvational symbolism.

Do you see the difference between our positions? His view says there is no baptism in water being addressed directly in these passage along with application. My view says there is baptism in water being directly addressed in all of these passages ALONG WITH application.

However, the real issue that divides us is the nature of salvation baptism symbolizes. His kind of salvation is inclusive of the church and the baptism in the Spirit and he denies that we are in Christ by the creative act of regeneration but rather by some kind of spiritual baptism. In contrast, I believe we are in Christ by a creative act of regeneration or supernatual PRO-CREATION without any relationship to any kind of church or any kind of baptism.

Concerning his charge of heresy. If I had said that "in Christ" by baptism or church membership was literal and spiritual then there is a basis for his charge. But I denied that. I said that baptism only provides a FIGURE of being in Christ and that church membership is only METAPHORICAL. Jon is simply a desperate man and his charge of "heresy" is silly.

On the other hand, I could rightfully make that charge against his position(but I won't) as he is forced to read back the church and the baptism in the Spirit into Genesis forward even though clear and explicit scripture deny that (Acts 1:4-5; Eph. 2;20; 1 Cor. 12:28). He makes the word "baptize" equal with "sprinkled" in Ezek. 36:26. He replaces the creative act of BIRTH (procreation) with baptism as the means to become "in Christ" and thus "in Adam"(if he was consistent). In truth, his erroneous view denies anyone before the Pentecost were or even could be "in Christ" IF the Bible restrictive time frame for both the baptism in the Spirit and the church is accepted. In reality, he is teaching both church and baptismal salvation and that is genuine basis to make such a charge of heresy (but I won't).

 

This is not a correction as this has NOTHING to do with our points of disagreement - NOTHING! We aer in agreement on the gospel looking forward to the cross as well as looking back.

Our specific points of disagreement are:

1. You say the ordinance of baptism in water is not being directly addressed in any of these texts but the term "baptized" is a mere "shorthand" for salvation and I say the term "baptized" has direct reference to water baptism WITH its symbolism of salvation and WITH application of that symbolism.

2. You say that "in Christ" with regard to salvation is inclusive of the baptism in the Spirit and membership in your view of the church and I say the baptism in the Spirit and the Biblical church has no origin, thus no existence prior to the first coming of Christ.

3. You say we are spiritually "in Christ" by some kind of non-water immersion into Christ, whereas I say we are in Christ by supernatural PRO-Creation (new birth).

 

Correct! That is Jon's view that the baptism in the Spirit was part of the salvation of all the elect from Genesis forward is error.

 

Nobody is arguing that water baptism is salvational or that baptism puts anyone "in Christ" spiritually, literallly or salvational. However, Jon is arguing that the baptism in the Spirit and salvation are co-extensive from Genesis and thus inseparable from salvation.

 

.

With regard to salvation God saves the Jew exactly as he saves the gentile there is not one kind of salvation for one kind of sinner and another kind of salvation for another kind of sinner.

The SAME problem from Genesis requires the SAME solution for all sinners regardless when they lived.

That SAME problem is spiritual SEPARATION and the ONLY possible solution to SEPARATION from God is UNION with God.

That SAME problem is spiritual DEATH = SEPARATION and the only possible solution to SEPARATION = DEATH is spiritual UNION=LIFE.

It is just that simple. That is why you both have a false salvation as your solution is a CHURCH UNION (membership into a phantom church) and a BAPTISMAL UNION (baptism in the Spirit)

 

Galatians 3:27 says that in the act of baptism we "put on" Christ. The langauge is taken from clothing being put on someone. That means they are "IN" those clothing. Thus we are water baptized "INTO" Christ as in baptism we "PUT ON" Christ. This refers to the Roman custom of the heir PUTTING ON a white toga to DECLARE his rightful position (not to obtain it). So baptism does not obtain being "in Christ" spiritually as that is a CREATIVE act of God but baptism does SYMBOLICALLY "put on" Christ.

In contrast, the sinner has NOTHING to do with the creative act of being placed "in Christ" as Paul says, "for we are his workmanship CREATED in Christ." So your view cannot possibly fit in Gal.3:27 as Paul employs the MIDDLE voice.

26 For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Moreover, in the context faith in Christ precedes baptism into Christ just as in the Great Commission order and the context is about justification or our LEGAL POSITION in Christ by faith, and what follows justification by faith is water baptism. Your view would require the reverse. Your kind of baptism would precede our LEGAL POSITION in Christ by justification by faith at least logically. So the order, the langauge, and the grammar repudiate your view.

 

You are wrong on two counts.

1. Jesus Himself IS GOD, thus we are brought into spiritual union with God
2. The Holy Spirit is not the administrator of the "baptism IN the Spirit" but God the Son is the Administrator