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

I have no contempt for you at all. Up to a point, I thought that we were having a good (but lively and sometimes over the top) discussion.

That changed when you declared, after me clarifying my position, that I rejected water baptism as an ordinance in Romans 6. I just wanted to see how you would react if I did the same to you. Chalk it up to exploration.

My answer is the same. Water baptism is symbolic of the believer’s death, burial and resurrection in Christ. It symbolizes conversion under the New Covenant to include that act of submission in obedience to God as a result of His work of redemption – that is, water baptism itself.

You asked me if the word “baptized” was used for more than in water, Spirit, and suffering. And I answered “Yes” because it is also used for what it symbolizes (the reality baptism points to). I thought that this was obvious because this is the purpose of symbols. When you say something represents something else, then it is implied that it can be used to represent that something.

I believe that when Paul uses the word “baptized” he is using the term “water baptism” (an ordinance). But I believe that he is using that term for what it represents (the believers death, burial and resurrection in Christ,.i.e., the justification for saying we are dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus). As an ordinance baptism points to this reality.

No, I haven’t changed my mind. Paul is referring to water baptism here, but he does not intend it to be seen in isolation but as a part of a larger set of events to include especially faith ,repentance, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. We come to Christ in faith, God gives us His Spirit and we submit to water baptism. And this – not water baptism by itself – brings us into union with Christ.

This is the dumbest thing you’ve said so far. I have not reduced myself to condescending rhetoric and name calling. It comes natural – no reduction needed. And welcome to the club.

 

Sorry. I responded in kind because I not realize either of us were taking the banter to heart. At first I looked over your insults but when the conversation had exhausted itself I just thought I'd play along. If I have hurt your feelings, I am sorry. I didn't take your language towards me seriously, and just thought you'd be of the same mind.

I did not mean for you to take seriously that I was calling you a “fool” or “foolish”. That is why I used the smiley. Also, I thought your reply to me was childish but I was not referring to you as a child or as childlike. I apologize if it looked as if that was my intent, and I certainly see how it would have come off that way (especially if you have been sincere with your insults). I was partly just poking fun at you because of some of the things you said.

Now I did call you biblically illiterate.

 

TheBiblicist and I have had many discussions, and we typically end up on fairly good terms. He believes what he believes very strongly, as do I (not what he believes, but what I believe). And I never doubt that he is a brother in Christ. I never hold him in contempt (his doctrine, maybe, but not him as my brother). That does not mean that we cannot learn from each other.

But we disagree on several issues. I don’t really know that we will ever get to the source of our disagreement, but it is not really on the nature of water baptism at all. We disagree about baptism here because we disagree about what it means to be “in Christ”. We disagree about what it means to be “in Christ” because we disagree about the definition of the “Body of Christ”. We disagree about the “Body of Christ” because we disagree about what defines a “church”….and so forth.

So we typically end up arguing…and not arguing in the way of debating the issue, but in the way of insulting each other. And sometimes we do get out of hand and unChristlike.

But I love the guy. It's like having a second wife (who, BTW, knows I am right but won’t admit it).

 

Then you have my apology. Your charge is wrong, so perhaps we can simply clarify the issue and continue as brethren.

By something like “shorthand” I do not mean “merely” at all. As I said when I introduced that term, it is not mine but something I had read of Douglas Moo. I would, like Paul, would simply use the word “baptism”. But here is the definition as I have explained it and provided to you:

Some view baptism as merely a symbol. But Scripture seems to place too much emphasis on baptism for that. Some view it as the means through which God saved. But Scripture puts too much emphasis on faith for that. Paul speaks of baptism not only as an ordinance but also as somehow effecting something.

What Moo suggested, and I echoed, is that Paul here is not taking water baptism in isolation. He is not taking water baptism apart from those things that it represents or symbolizes. When we come to Christ in faith, God gives us His Spirit and we submit to water baptism. And this complex of events – not water baptism as an ordinance and by itself – is what places us “in Christ”. By “something like shorthand” I am referring to Paul’s usage as being water baptism as an ordinance but also including all that it represents (Paul is using the symbol as both a symbol and to speak of what it symbolizes…i.e., what the ordinance means in application but also something real beyond the symbol itself – what it symbolizes).

In other words, I am not only emphasizing the water baptism as an act of obedience (an ordinance) but also what it represents. I believe this is what Paul has in mind in Romans 6.