"In Christ" What does it mean and How?

[The Biblicist]

The Baptism of/by the Holy Spirit is required for us to be saved , but wate baptism is not, so Paul was addressing th spiritual union with Jesus the water symbolized!

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!

 

[JonC]

There does seem to be a difference bewteen NT Body of Christ and Israel Covanent people , as related to the work/operation of the Spirit, correct?

I believe that those saved today are "grafted in" to "true Israel". So my understanding is that there is one people of God (although I do believe God still has a purpose for Israel as a nation).

But yes, there is a difference. I don't believe Old Testament saints were "baptised in the Spirit". Ezekiel seems to look forward to this. We are saved under the New Covenant but salvation is still the same. Abraham was saved, "counted righteous" through faith and looking forward to the Promise (Jesus tells us Abraham looked to His day and rejoiced to see it...how wonderful is that!). And Abraham lived 400 years before the Law was given! Salvation has ALWAYS been in Christ and through the Cross. And salvation has ALWAYS been a Triune work of God - Father, Son, and Spirit.

But no, I don't think that the believers were "baptized in the Spirit" before Pentecost. Remember, Jesus went and sent the Spirit (which I take to mean in a special way).

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

I see...Lord forbid we view Paul's words in context of Scripture when we have Roman customs at hand. Sorry brother, but I am not buying what you are selling. Paul is pointing to Scripture, not Roman culture.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe that those saved today are "grafted in" to "true Israel". So my understanding is that there is one people of God (although I do believe God still has a purpose for Israel as a nation).

But yes, there is a difference. I don't believe Old Testament saints were "baptised in the Spirit". Ezekiel seems to look forward to this. We are saved under the New Covenant but salvation is still the same. Abraham was saved, "counted righteous" through faith and looking forward to the Promise (Jesus tells us Abraham looked to His day and rejoiced to see it...how wonderful is that!). And Abraham lived 400 years before the Law was given! Salvation has ALWAYS been in Christ and through the Cross. And salvation has ALWAYS been a Triune work of God - Father, Son, and Spirit.

But no, I don't think that the believers were "baptized in the Spirit" before Pentecost. Remember, Jesus went and sent the Spirit (which I take to mean in a special way).

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

I see...Lord forbid we view Paul's words in context of Scripture when we have Roman customs at hand. Sorry brother, but I am not buying what you are selling. Paul is pointing to Scripture, not Roman culture.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

 

[JonC]

Jon, has checked the disagreement box with regard to this post ....

Of course I checked the “disagree” box. I disagree with your post. You have a habit of twisting what I say to suit what you want it to read, which is understandable given the practice you’ve had with Scripture.

In Ezekiel it is explained that God will put his Spirit within them. His Holy Spirit – the Spirit of holiness; the author of internal sanctification, of that new heart and spirit through whose grace and strength the saints will walk in God’s statutes and keep His judgments. This looks forward to the New Covenant

Sometimes God gave people in the Old Testament things to record that were to come to pass in the future. These people were often called prophets. Those words in Ezekiel is a prophesy...that is, something that one of these prophets recorded about the future. Here, Ezekiel is telling of a something that will happen, but not in Ezekiel's lifetime. In fact (and I know you this will be a lot to take in at once) the Old Testament actually foreshadows the New Testament. And there's more - it is all about Jesus Christ!

But what is Jesus saying to Nicodemus? Is Jesus talking of Old Testament saints? No, and any bible student worth a grain of salt would have recognized that Jesus is speaking of the New Covenant and the Kingdom of God towards which those Old Testament saints gazed from afar. Jesus is speaking of the Kingdom of God and access into that kingdom. This is the New Covenant. Your error is that you are putting Old Testament saints under the New Covenant during their lifetime. Even a brief reading of Scripture shows you are wrong.

I disagreed because your assessment and comments were nonsense and nonreflective of what I said, of Scripture, and of common sense. You seem to be denying that the Old Testament points to the New Covenant, and instead seem to hold a theory of the New Testament Church based more on Rome than on Christ.

... 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.

Eh….folks….ladies and gentleman….whoever we are addressing….never mind the man behind the curtain. It is a fool’s task to tell people what someone else believes, and I see we found one up to the task.

We are not under the Old Covenant. We are in the New Covenant. Paul is not addressing Old Testament saints, he is addressing people AFTER Pentecost. I hope that at least one person here can see the difference. Each time I say something about the Old Testament foreshadowing the New Covenant, or even reference an Old Testament passage, the…er….man behind the curtain…comes back with “but this was before Pentecost”.

To clarify for the biblically illiterate, those in the Old Testament were looking forward to God’s Provision. They were faithful to God’s Promise, His faithfulness. Sure, they did not think of the Cross as we do. And sure, they did not benefit from the fuller revelation of the New Testament or the fullest revelation that is in Christ Jesus. But their faith was still ultimately in Jesus Christ. Sure they did not have a “Christian baptism”. But their salvation is through the Lamb that was slain before the foundations of the earth were laid. They were saved through Christ, plain and simple.

As you cannot understand, brother, that those in the Old Testament were saved through the Triune work of God (which you seem to adamantly reject…as this was my point which you adamantly rejected), yet saved apart from the New Covenant experience, I should not be surprised that you view the believer “stands in the place of Christ”.

Oh, but brother Jon, I supplied much more contextual evidence than the Roman custom that is spelled out in clear words ….

Yes, there is much about your theories that reminds me of Rome. Which, for a Landmarkist, I find a bit ironic.

...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....

I’ll just stop the nonsense here. I’ve already stated over, and over, and over again that while I believe water baptism is a symbol for something real (which you seem to strongly deny), I also believe it is an ordinance in and of itself (and, to an extent, a part of what it symbolizes). I explained this in detail speaking of conversion. I feel like someone talking slowly to someone who doesn’t understand English, thinking that somehow my words would get through. You just don’t comprehend, and I know as I write this that you still believe that I do not believe the text in Romans 6 speaks of the ordinance of water baptism.

 

[JonShaff]

Not to take away from this thread, but something keeps prodding my brain...At what point does, "Avoid foolish questions," come into play?

 

[JonC]

Not to take away from this thread, but something keeps prodding my brain...At what point does, "Avoid foolish questions," come into play?

I don't know....obviously not on this thread.

 

[JonShaff]

I don't know....obviously not on this thread.

This made me chuckle

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

Of course I checked the “disagree” box. I disagree with your post. You have a habit of twisting what I say to suit what you want it to read, which is understandable given the practice you’ve had with Scripture.

In Ezekiel it is explained that God will put his Spirit within them. His Holy Spirit – the Spirit of holiness; the author of internal sanctification, of that new heart and spirit through whose grace and strength the saints will walk in God’s statutes and keep His judgments. This looks forward to the New Covenant

Sometimes God gave people in the Old Testament things to record that were to come to pass in the future. These people were often called prophets. Those words in Ezekiel is a prophesy...that is, something that one of these prophets recorded about the future. Here, Ezekiel is telling of a something that will happen, but not in Ezekiel's lifetime. In fact (and I know you this will be a lot to take in at once) the Old Testament actually foreshadows the New Testament. And there's more - it is all about Jesus Christ!

But what is Jesus saying to Nicodemus? Is Jesus talking of Old Testament saints? No, and any bible student worth a grain of salt would have recognized that Jesus is speaking of the New Covenant and the Kingdom of God towards which those Old Testament saints gazed from afar. Jesus is speaking of the Kingdom of God and access into that kingdom. This is the New Covenant. Your error is that you are putting Old Testament saints under the New Covenant during their lifetime. Even a brief reading of Scripture shows you are wrong.

I disagreed because your assessment and comments were nonsense and nonreflective of what I said, of Scripture, and of common sense. You seem to be denying that the Old Testament points to the New Covenant, and instead seem to hold a theory of the New Testament Church based more on Rome than on Christ. Eh….folks….ladies and gentleman….whoever we are addressing….never mind the man behind the curtain. It is a fool’s task to tell people what someone else believes, and I see we found one up to the task.

We are not under the Old Covenant. We are in the New Covenant. Paul is not addressing Old Testament saints, he is addressing people AFTER Pentecost. I hope that at least one person here can see the difference. Each time I say something about the Old Testament foreshadowing the New Covenant, or even reference an Old Testament passage, the…er….man behind the curtain…comes back with “but this was before Pentecost”.

To clarify for the biblically illiterate, those in the Old Testament were looking forward to God’s Provision. They were faithful to God’s Promise, His faithfulness. Sure, they did not think of the Cross as we do. And sure, they did not benefit from the fuller revelation of the New Testament or the fullest revelation that is in Christ Jesus. But their faith was still ultimately in Jesus Christ. Sure they did not have a “Christian baptism”. But their salvation is through the Lamb that was slain before the foundations of the earth were laid. They were saved through Christ, plain and simple.

As you cannot understand, brother, that those in the Old Testament were saved through the Triune work of God (which you seem to adamantly reject…as this was my point which you adamantly rejected), yet saved apart from the New Covenant experience, I should not be surprised that you view the believer “stands in the place of Christ”. Yes, there is much about your theories that reminds me of Rome. Which, for a Landmarkist, I find bit ironic.



I’ll just stop the nonsense here. I’ve already stated over, and over, and over again that while I believe water baptism is a symbol for something real (which you seem to strongly deny), I also believe it is an ordinance in and of itself (and, to an extent, a part of what it symbolizes). I explained this in detail speaking of conversion. I feel like someone talking slowly to someone who doesn’t understand English, thinking that somehow my words would get through. You just don’t comprehend, and I know as I write this that you still believe that I do not believe the text in Romans 6 speaks of the ordinance of water baptism.

 

[The Biblicist]

This made me chuckle

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

 

[The Biblicist]

I’ll just stop the nonsense here. I’ve already stated over, and over, and over again that while I believe water baptism is a symbol for something real (which you seem to strongly deny),

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.

I also believe it is an ordinance in and of itself (and, to an extent, a part of what it symbolizes). I explained this in detail speaking of conversion. I feel like someone talking slowly to someone who doesn’t understand English, thinking that somehow my words would get through. You just don’t comprehend, and I know as I write this that you still believe that I do not believe the text in Romans 6 speaks of the ordinance of water baptism.

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??

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

By that, you would be saying that refers toact of water baptism. but Paul would so us that is the Spirit Himself placingus into union with Christ!

 

[The Biblicist]

In Ezekiel it is explained that God will put his Spirit within them. His Holy Spirit – the Spirit of holiness; the author of internal sanctification, of that new heart and spirit through whose grace and strength the saints will walk in God’s statutes and keep His judgments. This looks forward to the New Covenant

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe that those saved today are "grafted in" to "true Israel". So my understanding is that there is one people of God (although I do believe God still has a purpose for Israel as a nation).

But yes, there is a difference. I don't believe Old Testament saints were "baptised in the Spirit". Ezekiel seems to look forward to this. We are saved under the New Covenant but salvation is still the same. Abraham was saved, "counted righteous" through faith and looking forward to the Promise (Jesus tells us Abraham looked to His day and rejoiced to see it...how wonderful is that!). And Abraham lived 400 years before the Law was given! Salvation has ALWAYS been in Christ and through the Cross. And salvation has ALWAYS been a Triune work of God - Father, Son, and Spirit.

But no, I don't think that the believers were "baptized in the Spirit" before Pentecost. Remember, Jesus went and sent the Spirit (which I take to mean in a special way).

That is my understanding of this issue, as the Spirit worked different fashion in OT times, just came upon those such prophets/kings for a purpose, but not on all saved...
Now in NT, the Spirit Himself created the Church at Pentacost, and All forward have the Spiit in them and now in union with Christ!

Our friend seems to say that unless the OT believer had Spiirit exact same way we do now, none were saved!

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

 

[JonShaff]

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

Well, Brother, Let's put this into perspective.

Both of you are strong, mature, God-Loving, Christ-Honoring, Spirit Filled, Truth Warriors for Christ. I'm sure you both make it a point to make disciples and desire a lifestyle of obedience and Worship to the Savior that bought you.

Yet both of you, at one time or another has called each other's view on this subject heresy.

How on earth did you BOTH mature when you are diametrically opposed to each other's view concerning the OP????????

and i have little spiritual discernment. OK

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, Brother, Let's put this into perspective.

Both of you are strong, mature, God-Loving, Christ-Honoring, Spirit Filled, Truth Warriors for Christ. I'm sure you both make it a point to make disciples and desire a lifestyle of obedience and Worship to the Savior that bought you.

Yet both of you, at one time or another has called each other's view on this subject heresy.

How on earth did you BOTH mature when you are diametrically opposed to each other's view concerning the OP????????

and i have little spiritual discernment. OK

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.