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

Will you do me a favor and reread my post until you understand what I have said? Does not verse 26 precede verse 27? Is not the context about justification by faith rather than the baptism in the Spirit? Verse 27 uses the MIDDLE voice - do you understand what that means? It means the believer is the one doing the acting NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT with regard to the baptism in verse 27. Think about that now! Who is doing the acting? The believer. What kind of baptism can the believer perform? Think before you respond!

 

Jon, has checked the disagreement box with regard to this post so I will just quote his own words:

And yes, baptism of the Spirit (as I defined it using Ezekiel 36 where God puts His Spirit in us) is a part of salvation. You must be born of water and Spirit (I do not read that Jesus left another option out there). - JonC - Post#69

However, as every Bible student knows, the baptism in the Spirit is nothing but a prediction prior to Pentecost - Acts 1:4-5 - whereas the new birth Jon quotes in John 3:36 and Ezekiel 36 is pre-Pentecost.

 

I do believe that all Christians are “baptized in the Spirit”. -JonC - Post#29

As I said in post# 29, I believe that baptism in the Spirit is a part of conversion that all believers experience.- JonC - post #54

And yes, baptism of the Spirit (as I defined it using Ezekiel 36 where God puts His Spirit in us) is a part of salvation. You must be born of water and Spirit (I do not read that Jesus left another option out there). - JonC - Post#69

Notice the development from "all Christians" in the first quote to "all believers" in the second quote to "part of salvation" in the third quote. Notice that John makes the baptism in the Spirit EQUAL to new birth in his last post quoted. Now, he denies the baptism in the Spirit = New Birth was for Old Testament "believers" in the gospel.

 

Oh, but brother Jon, I supplied much more contextual evidence than the Roman custom that is spelled out in clear words by Paul just following in Gal. 4. I supplied the overall context of justification by faith which precedes this baptism as verse 26 precedes verse 27 just as justification by faith in the gospel precedes water baptism throughout the New Testament (Mk. 16:16; Mt. 28:19; Acts 2:40; Acts 8:35-37; etc.). I supplied grammatical proof - MIDDLE VOICE. The fact that the reader would have no reason but to understand this as a reference to water baptism as the logical order is it follows justification by faith in the gospel and there is no contextual explanation that says "I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT BAPTISM IN THE NORMAL SENSE of the Great Commission which follows faith in the Gospel."

If context is the determining factor your view vanishes into thin air.

 

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 ¶ The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Remember, Jon's view is that the term "baptism" is merely "shorthand" for the LITERAL salvation experience or doctrine but he denies the text is actually describing the ACT of baptism in water.

1. Note the salvation of verse 21 is in "FIGURE" not literal as Jon's interpretation demands.

2. Note the "like" or corresponding "figure" is a salvation "by water" in verse 20 again denying a literal spiritual salvation is the subject as Jon's view demands.

3. Water baptism does remove literal filth from the flesh, but this filth and flesh is metaphorical of the sinful nature of the flesh as this phrase is being contrasted to the phrase "but the answer of a good CONSCIENCE toward God." Peter is saying the "FIGURE" does not literally remove sin from the defilement of the sinful flesh, but rather is the consequence of an already cleansed conscience.

4. The identification of what baptism is a "FIGURE" of is "the resurrection" of Jesus Christ" which has a corresponding Old Testament "figure" with the Ark being raised up by water.

5.In water baptism the believer's body comes up out of the water as a "figure" of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but it is not the salvation "figure" that saves but the salvation reality (resurrection of Christ) that saves as the resurrection is both proof and power of victory over sin and death. However, it is the act of baptism that provides the "FIGURE" in this passage.

Hence, the term "baptism" is not being used as mere "shorthand" for salvation while the act is not being addressed, but the ACT of baptism is the subject ALONG WITH its application of salvation contained in the FIGURE of baptism.

 

There is so much obvious error in this post, in addition to name calling, condescending rhetoric and inferences, that it is difficult to know where to begin to deal with such a mess.

I guess I should deal with the most obvious error and that is salvation of any kind could NOT be obtained under the "old covenant" as that covenant was never designed by God to save, to grant eternal life, to justify or sanctify much less glorify.

However, it seems you are confusing the "Old Covenant" with a period of time period between Genesis to the Cross rather than the "old covenant" established at Mount Sinai under which no man could be justified, saved, regenearated etc.

On one hand you restrict salvation to the New Covenant and denies salvation obtained by the New Covenant could be applied in the life of pre-cross saints in their own lives, but on the other hand wants to say they were "saved" and yet does not define what that means and of course cannot define what that means unless he applies the benefits of the cross that he restricts in application between the cross and the second coming.

You simply generalizes "saved" because he has denied that any cross applications occur before the cross. For example, they were "in Adam" and thus "in the flesh" because they were "born of the flesh" as they were created "in Adam." Their problem is the same as our problem - spiritual death = spiritual separation from God. Thus the essence of any true salvation must BEGIN with spiritual union or all remain in spiritual death-separation from God.

If his "new covenant" time frame were actually true with regard to its application only from the cross forward, then how can he explain how Abraham actually obtained IN HIS LIFE TIME remission of sins and justification and manifest fruits of the Spirit as these are all New Covenant characteristics??. How can he explain Ezekiel's demand that those who minister in the temple be circumcised in heart in addition to being circumcised in the flesh (Ezek. 44:7-9).

Your problem is that he fails to understand that God exists OUTSIDE OF TIME and administers salvation based on the "everlasting" covenant of redemption rather than TIME based covenants (Old and New). The cross does not obtain the right for God to administer its benefits, but only justifies his administration of its benefits when and as he pleases based upon His promise of the cross. It is the everlasting covenant that justifies his right to administer salvation when and where he pleases.

Again, it is your view of the church and the baptism in the Spirit that blinds his understanding that salvation is applied prior to the cross in the very same sense as after the cross as there is no salvation possible at any time outside of Christ, so spiritual salvation must begin "in Christ" or there is no salvation at all as all spiritual blessings are found only "in Christ."

So for Jon to say the Old Testament saints were "saved" but the New Covenant benefits were not and could not be applied in their own life time is simply empty meaningless rhetoric because if he begins to define what "saved" actually means he has only two options - (1) law keeping or New Covenant benefits being applied before the cross.

He attempts to avoid his problem by saying they looked forward by faith, but yet saving faith is part of the New Covenant benefits of salvation as it is a gift of God, and even if that is rejected, what benefit is it for them in any PRACTICAL sense of "saved" if they simply looked forward to the cross? Does that change their "in Adam" condition of total depravity? Does that enable them to "walk by faith"? Does that produce progressive sancation in thei lives? Does that obtain actual justification before God then and there in their lifetime at the point of faith? Does that obtain remission of sins? All of these are benefits of the cross which he denies could be applied in their own lifetime. So his use of "saved" is meaningless rhetoric.

 

JonShaff, it is really disappointing that you have so little spiritual discernment.

 

Are you so utterly and completely blinded by your contempt of me that you can't even understand what you have read from my posts many different times? I have repeated over and over again that the symbolism in baptism is of real salvation and those truths are being applied in the text. My oh, my.

Now, you are being wholly deceptive and misleading. You know very well when I asked you point blank if the word, the term "baptized" is used in the New Testament for more than (1) in water; (2) in Spirit; (3) in suffering that you answed YES, and then said the term is used as "shorthand" in Romans 6, Gal. 3; 1 Peter 3 for the truths symbolized in water baptism but the ACT or water baptism is not the subject or is not being referred to in those texts.

Have you now changed your mind and come to my position which is that water baptism is what he is referring to ALONG WITH its symbolism and APPLICATION of true salvation??

 

Please explain how those spiritually dead "in Adam" could please God or do anything the bible attributes to the fruits of the Spirit if they are without the new birth? Paul says we cannot even please God with the new birth apart from the power of the INDWELLING Spirit and demonstrates it in Romans 7 that the regenerate will is powerless over indwelling sin (Rom. 7:18). However, you have OT saints walking with God living by faith and manifesting the fruits of the Spirit without either the new birth or indwelling Spirit of God. Paul says that any one "in the flesh" without the indwelling Spirit is "none of his" (Rom.8:8-9) but your soteriology repudiates Paul as all those born prior to the cross were "in the flesh" and you say without the indwelling Spirit of God.

Again, your views are determined by your interpretation of the baptism in the Spirit.

 

The reader should see easily that Jon has had no substantive response for my interpretations of Galatians 3:26-27 or 1 Peter. 3:21. Instead Jon has reduced himself to condescending rhetoric, name calling as the primary substance of his responses.

 

Like, I said, it sad that you have so little spiritual discernment. It is one thing to call a position heretical, it is another thing to call the other person a "fool" and "childish" and speak condescending toward the very person. I don't think you will find that I have ever used such langauge with regard to his person. However, forgive me for condescending to even defend myself as that is immature as well.