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

Reading forward is valid because it is based on prior OT prophecies or types and thus future fulfillment and greater clarity.

However, that is not what you are doing. There is no preceding teaching or type of regeneration connected with immersion but only with sprinkling and washing. You have NOTHING prior to the NT to even base this wholly water baptism related theory upon - NOTHING!

If I practiced this kind of hermeneutics I could invent doctrines galore based simply on my presumptive interpretations of New Testament scripture and then force them back into the Old Testament when there is neither a hint of it found in the OT in precept or types and my New Testament interpretation is subject to debate and highly questionable.

 

With all due respect, you are missing the point. First, your interpretation and that of Moo's is a very debatable and highly questionable interpretation and "new" in this theological debate and I think is based upon misinterpretation of the context in Romans 3-6 which has been addressing our LEGAL position "in Christ" by justification rather than by spiritual union. Second, It is has its SOLE and ONLY basis in "water" baptism as it is "water" baptism that furnishes Moo with such an argument.

However, more important it is in contradiction to the OT types that are used for spiritual union with God.The OT types use water but not immersion in water, but sprinkling and washing with water. So you have NOTHING but a highly speculative and debatable source for this interpretation. Both NT ordinances have parallels in the OT but none of these parallels support this theory. Every doctrine in the NT has parallels in the OT but this theory has NO PARALLELS whatsoever, but is created out of a completely NT ordinance.

 

There is an additional and greater problem to your theory. The problematic issue "in Adam" is spiritual separation, as this is the root cause for all the developmental forms of death in this world and eternal death in the world to come.

However, entrance "in Adam" is due to an act of CREATION not an act of baptism. Likewise, Paul explains entrance "in Christ" as an act of CREATION (Eph. 2:10) not an act of baptism.

Moreover, spiritual union is the antithesis to spiritual separation and if spiritual separation is spiritual death than spiritual union is spiritual life and spiritual life is quickening/regeneration/rebirth as the efficient Cause rather than the consequential effect which is gospel conversion. So the term "baptism" has no valid association with entrance "in Christ" or with quickening as both are equally described as an act of CREATION.

However, the term baptism does have OT parallels with the gospel of Christ with regard to FIGURE or LIKENESS as in the case of the ark - 1 Pet. 3:20-21.

 

Symbolism is not new, but what he is including in that symbolism is what is being debated right now!

With regard to either physical union "in Adam" or spiritual union "in Christ" the term is CREATED not baptized. Baptized is only used in connection with the gospel not with regeneration as that to0 is a CREATIVE act not a baptismal act.

 

My objections to this "shorthand" theory is that it is taking a highly speculative theory that has no parallels with any precept or type in the Old Testament and basically inventing it wholly based on a NT ordinance in order to explain salvation from Genesis to Revelation.

Second, the Biblical contrast to "in Christ" is "in Adam" and entrance "in Adam" is by CREATION rather than any kind of baptism. Likewise, the entrance "in Christ" is said to be a CREATIVE act not a baptismal act with regard to salvation (Eph. 2:10). With regard to gospel conversion, baptism is associated because it is a picture of the gospel in the Old Testament (the ark - 1 Peter. 3:20) and in the New Testament (1 Pet. 3:21).

Third, Paul is defending the doctrine of justification without works or our LEGAL POSITION "in Christ" with regard to the accusation that such a doctrine gives a license to continue in sin (Rom. 6:1-2). He is defending our LEGAL death to sin and the evidence is that the term "free" in verse 7 is the same Greek term consistently translated "justified" in Romans 3-5, and why we are called upon to "RECKON" ourselves dead to sin rather than being actually dead to sin (Rom. 6:11).

It is this basis of the knowledge of LEGAL DEATH in Christ that Paul refers to in verses 8-10 that forms the foundation for him to command them in verse 11 to "reckon" it as so.

The problematic statement is found in verse 5 with the words "For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:'

This can't refer to spiritual union because that doctrine teaches that the elect was in spiritual union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection as an ALL PAST TENSE completed action. However, Paul uses the future tense "we shall be" with regard to the likeness of his resurrection. So what is Paul's point for shifting from the past tense to the future tense while yet still retaining the word "likeness"?

I believe that Paul is using water baptism to demonstrate that the reason why justified people without works does not give a license to continue in sin is because baptism brings together both the doctrine of justification and the doctrine of regeneration in one picture, just as they are inseparable with each other with regard to time, although distinct actions. Romans 6 is the transition chapter between the doctrine of justification (Rom. 3-5) and the doctrine of regenerative life and good works (Rom. 7-8). So at the juncture of the resurrection likeness (displayed in baptism as much as the death and burial), Paul shifts to a future tense to make a direct application of that resurrection picture to the life of the believer after (hence future tense) initial salvation.

The idea is that the believer who is identifying with the symbol of the resurrection in baptism is also a partaker of that resurrection power in the "likeness" as it was applied to the dead body of Christ so that Christ had victory of "the body of death" so the Christian (whose body is not literally dead to sin nor is he literally dead to sin) can also have the same victory over indwelling sin and ultimately will have complete victory in glorification. So the future tense refers to the direct application of what is symbolized to the Christian life after justification to glorification thus denying that any true justified saint will continue in sin.

Therefore,Paul is making a direct application of the resurrection of Christ as symbolized in baptism to the life of the believer with regard to regenerative life. What you see symbolized in baptism is directly applied to the life of the Christian due to previous regenerative life that makes the Christian life "likened" to the resurrected life of Christ. What is symbolized in baptism is "likened" to the resurrection life of Christ and the regenerative life of the believer. There is a direct application from the symbol to the life of the believer that is "likened" to the life of Christ.

 

"For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:'

Paul presents water baptism which combines the truth of the doctrine of justification (our legal position in Christ's death, burial and resurrection) with the doctrine of regeneration (as seen in resurrection over death) and directly applies the resurrection symbolized in baptism to the believers life which has its root in regeneration. The consequence is a life "likened" unto Christ's resurrection or victory over death.

However, it must be united with the doctrine of justification or LEGAL POSITION because that is the basis to "reckon" it so, as faith is the modus operandi that engages the resurrection power in the child of God. Justification gives us the LEGAL right to engage while the resurrection power gives us the victory when we power engage indwelling sin.

In Romans 7 our legal right does not prevail over sin in our body. However, our legal position does gives us the legal right to engage by faith in the resurrection power (rom. 8) that gives us victory.

 

Neither the context or the issue is one of love. The issue is why justification by grace does not lead to continuance in sin.

But Moo and You admit it is water baptism in Romans 6:4-6! Your view is not only unnecessary but contradicts the consistent means of entrance "in Adam" and "in Christ" and that is not baptism or anything to do with baptism - it is by CREATION. It is unnecessary because water baptism conveys the gospel truth of the death, burial and resurrection in and of itself, which combines in that picture both justification and regenerative power as well as it is "shorthand" for the gospel conversion BUT NOT REGENERATION.

I understand your view and thank you for clarifying it but I reject it.

 

Bro.Jon,

Some final questions that have been unanswered. Douglas Moo and those whom you draw your "shorthand" theory on baptism from freely admit that such passages as Romans 6:4-6 do refer to water baptism (found in the very quote you sent me) and yet you have stated that this passage does not refer to either of three baptisms I had listed (water, Spirit, suffering) and so you are at odds with the very ones you draw your very arguments from. They admit that water baptism is the very basis for their "shorthand" view while you adopt their view and language but reject the very basis upon which their theory and language is based. Can you explain why you adopt their theory and their language but repudiate the very basis upon which their language and theory is based? They base it upon the admission that water baptism is what Romans 6:4-6 speaks about. If you doubt this, look at the very quote from Moo that you sent me. In contrast, I presented the three uses of baptism in Scripture (water, Spirit, suffering) and you denied any of these three were the subject of Romans 6, Gal 3; 1 Pet. 3.

This is further confirmed by the fact that in your final post you define the baptism in Romans 6 as "referring specifically to this baptism into Christ's death, burial and resurrection (death and burial to our former selves, and alive to God in Christ" which is the classic theology textbook definition of what other theologians define as the baptism in the Spirit. I have asked you three times to define your view of the baptism in the Spirit but thus far no response.

Can you explain why you adopt their theory and their language but reject the very basis upon which both their theory and langauge is based? Can you explain your view of the baptism in the Spirit specifically in whatever relationship it might have to salvation?

 

Jon, I asked you to give me your response to these questions rather than start a fresh attack on my position. You are still misrepresenting my view. I have never said that the baptism in the Spirit is conversion or ever charged anyone else as defining the baptism in the Spirit is conversion. Never! I said it is the theological textbook explanation of SPIRITUAL UNION with Christ as you and others define Romans 6:4-6 to be an actual IMMERSION into Christ spiritually.

I have never once stated that Romans 6:4-6 is about baptism into church membership. I have already denied that but you keep repeating it. Romans 6:4-6 is speaking in context, NOT ABOUT CHURCH MEMBERSHIP but the PRACTICAL THEOLOGY behind the SYMBOLISM of water baptism in the response to the objection that justification by grace without works will give a license to sin.

That brings me to your last misrepresentation of my view. My view that one is "in Christ" METAPHORICALLY by membership in the local congregational body of Christ is not only sound logically and Biblically but has equal historical attestation.


1. Logically, the church body is not the LITERAL flesh and blood body of Christ. It is a METAPHORICAL body.


2. Logically, the individual is not a LITERAL "member" of the LITERAL "body of Christ" but is a METAPHORICAL "member" of the church body.


3. If the above are not true, then why do you and everyone on this forum use the term "member" when speaking of their own relationship to the local church body where their "membership" belongs if their local church is not regarded as a METAPHORICAL "body"?


With regard to the Biblical veracity of my position: I provided a whole thread to 1 Cor. 6:15 challenging anyone to overturn the exegetical evidence that the church body referred to at Corinth was not composed of an assembly of PHYSICAL HUMAN BODIES called "members." The response? Everyone avoiding the OP and just started making attacks on everything else but the OP.


I present the same evidence to you that 1 Cor. 6:15 demands the metaphorical "body" of Christ at Corinth was composed of metaphorical "members" that are characterized as an assembly of PHYSICAL HUMAN BODIES which is indisputable proof that the "members" and "body of Christ" at Corinth are both METAPHORICAL descriptions of a LOCAL VISIBLE ASSEMBLY and not some universal invisible concept.

 

Finally,your view of the baptism in the Spirit is IMPOSSIBLE as the baptism in the Spirit does not predate Pentecost as it is time fixed and yet you claim it occurs inseparable from regeneration of every believer. In reality, your view is nothing but the same universal invisible church view of the baptism in the Spirit as in the end both are identical and both are wrong as they both are 4000 years to late to be tied with personal salvation.

 

I must restate my interpretation of Romans 6:4-6 again so there can be no further misrepresentations of my view.

1. I do not believe he is talking about how baptism brings one into church membership here.

2. I believe he using the THEOLOGY provided in the gospel picture in baptism to repudiate the accusation that the DOCTRINE of justification leads to continuance in sin - Rom. 6:1-2

3. In the act of baptism due to its mode, the believer STANDS IN THE PLACE OF CHRIST with regard to this act of baptism and thus is publically identified WITH Christ in his death, burial and resurrection. Therefore, what the viewing audiance is actually seeing as the ordinance is visibly administrated is the believer "in Christ" symbolically.

4. Your view that this is a LITERAL IMMERSION into Christ SPIRITUALLY or a LITERAL SPIRITUAL UNION with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection is repudiated by the future tense "shall be" in verse 5 with regard to His resurrection. BECAUSE if this has reference to ACTUALLY being spiritually baptized into Christ's death, burial and resurrection Paul would have continued using the Aorist tense as that is a COMPLETED WHOLE EVENT that already occurred on the cross as Romans is a POST-Cross epistle.

5. However, Paul's intent is to show that in the SYMBOLISM of baptism the DOCTRINES of justification and Regeneration are also seen depicted in the SYMBOLISM of baptism JOINED together to show that justification does not occur in a vacuum apart from regeneration and it is both of these joined together that deny a justified person can continue in sin. His readers have a common experience they share where both doctrines can be seen in the act of water baptism. Death to sin LEGALLY (justification) thus "in Christ" POSITIONALLY. A Resurected Christ (Regenerative life) thus (spiritually) "in Christ."

6. The Doctrine of Justification which is our LEGAL position "in Christ" is seen by the beleiver TAKING THE PLACE of Christ in the act of baptism thus the believer is visibly being identified with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as SYMBOLIZED in the mode.

7. The Doctrine of regeneration which is our SPIRITUAL position "in Christ" is seen by the believer TAKING THE PLACE of Christ in the act of baptism, thus the believer is visibly being identified with the resurrrection of Christ which is the POWER for living the Christian life.

8. The future tense in verse 5 has to do with public identity with Christ's resurrection and the "likeness" of that resurrection in the VISIBLE PHYSICAL LIFE of the believer which is the power to overcome sin. He changes from the aorist tense to the future in order to make a direct transition from Christ's resurrected life symbolized in baptism to the life of the believer due to the doctrine of regeneration that is symbolized in baptism in the rising up out of the water. This direct transition ties together our legal position "in Christ" with our spiritual condition "in Christ" both depicted in the symoblism of baptism.

9. Therefore, the doctrine of justification - v. 7 ("free" translates the same Greek term consistently translated "justified" in Romans 3-5) is proclaimed in the physical visible act of baptism.

10. Therefore, the doctrine of resurrection regenerative power over death (vv. 8-10) is proclaimed in the physical visible act of baptism.

11. Therefore, this doctrine combination clearly and visibly symbolized in the act of water baptism is the legal basis for believers to "reckon" (vv. 11-13) themselves dead to sin (not literally dead to sin or there would be no need to "reckon") and thus by faith that engages the SPIRITUAL power to actually obtain victory over indwelling sin as both most be the basis for victory over indwelling sin or the result is Romans 7:14-20.

So in short, Paul says LOOK AT WATER BAPTISM and what it is that you publically identified with Christ as you STOOD IN HIS PLACE visibly as you were water baptized into the "likeness" of his death, his burial, thus dead to sin LEGALLY, and therefore, you "SHALL" identify with the likeness of his resurrection power in YOUR OWN LIFE with regard to the indwelling power of sin that water baptism also identifies you with and THAT IS WHY A JUSTIFIED BELEIVER CANNOT CONTINUE IN SIN BECAUSE JUSTIFICATION IS JOINED WITH REGENERATIVE POWER AND BOTH ARE SEEN IN THE GOSPEL SYMBOLISM DECLARED IN WATER BAPTISM where the believer TAKES THE PLACE OF CHRIST in that act thus pictorially "in Christ".

In short, your view consists of nothing but a series of logical and Scriptural inconsistencies, and in reality your "new" view is nothing more than what Sacramentalists do with the Lord's Supper, They MERGE the symbolism with the REALITY

 

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. I claimed that Romans 6:4-6 has been interpreted far longer back in history than your view in the past 60 or so years. I don't know why you ask me to prove this as you know very well I can cite historical evidence from Landmark Baptist scholars well over a 100 years that support my position. I can cite the minutes of the associational minutes of English Baptist between 1600 and 1660 that support water baptism and its gospel symbolism is expressed in Romans 6.

However, I fear we are speaking past each other again and trying to burn straw men. What I mean is that you seem to appear to think that my position denies the reality that is behind the symbolism of baptism when I actually do not. Therefore, when the act of baptism occurs the symbolism of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is displayed which represents the truth of gospel salvation. However, you are responding as though I don't believe that or my position does not teach that, It does. So I think we are speaking past each other on that precise point.

However, the real difference between us is two fold.You believe that the term "baptism" transcends water, spirit and suffering applications and is used as simply a "shorthand" term in Romans 6:4-6; Galatians 3:27 and 1 Peter 3:21 for a literal spiritual union with Christ that equals what most Protestant theologians describe in the terms and explanation of "the baptism in the Spirit."

I may be wrong, but I assume this spiritual union with Christ is also equal to what you would call the universal invisible body of Christ, which union is again described as "the baptism in the Spirit."

You have made it clear that you believe every child of God is baptized in the Spirit at the moment of regeneration.

Therefore, you have taken water baptism in its symbolism to represent the baptism in the Spirit aka immersion into spiritual union with Christ's death, burial and resurrection, which immersion is the modus operandi for attaining spiritual union in the universal invisible body of Christ. Thus you have confused regeneration with the baptism in the Spirit when it is really regeneration, not the baptism in the Spirit that obtains spiritual union.

However, this is impossible as the baptism in the Spirit does not precede Pentecost but spiritual union with Christ does precede Pentecost and must as without it there would have been only spiritual separation from God which is spiritual death prior to the cross. Therefore, according to your theory IF YOU WERE CONSISTENT with your langauge, definitions and such, would leave all before Pentecost OUTSIDE of Christ spiritually as the mechanism for spiritual union that you claim is inseparable from salvation is 4000 years too late. So your theory is false.

So we are back to square one - your view is not biblical, it is not possible as it hinges on a description of salvation that is inseparable from the baptism in the Spirit which does not precede Pentecost. So once again, your view is 4000 years too late to be truth.