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

Jon,

As I further analyze your presentation, if all the bells and whistles were removed, you are simply saying exactly what universal invisible church advocates define as the baptism in the Spirit. Namely, that all Christians are spiritually united in the mystical invisible body of Christ, thus made partakers of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and all spiritual blessings which water baptism represents, and which the term "baptized" is used as "shorthand" for in such passages.

We have no disagreement that baptism symbolizes the gospel and the gospel is the shorthand for all spiritual blessing in Christ. Where are disagreement lies is the nature of salvation as you define it. You define it as inseparable with the church and inseparable with the baptism in the Spirit, thus a competely different kind of salvation the Bible teaches which is without membership in any kind of church as the "foundation" of the church is 4000 years too late to be included in Biblical salvation and without any kind of baptism as the baptism in the Spirit is 4000 years too late to be included in Biblical salvation.

In essence, you are defending "another gospel" completely different than the Biblical gospel as yours is one that ADDS to Biblical salvation what is absolutely foreign to it.

 

However, I never said Paul said that. He didn't have to say that as that is obvious to any observer as it is not the literal Christ they see identified in the symbolism of baptism. This would be like Paul saying the color of black is black - it is a self-evident truth that is undeniable as that is what "identification" is all about and the earliest usage of bapto was in the dyeing business where the cloth was immersed into the dye until it IDENTIFIED with the color.

You never respond to the metaphorical "member" and metaphorical church "body" argument as you would look foolish as it also is self-evident and demonstrated by your own use of the terms "member" and "membership" in reference to a local visible church body.

Your statements above are a mass of confusion due your unbiblical definitions and concepts.CREATION not baptism and BIRTH and not baptism is what identifies us and places us "in Adam" as also "in Christ." Your views are not merely unbiblical but irrational.

We differ because I believe that Paul is talking about water baptism symbolizing this literal act of man dying to sin and becoming alive to God in Christ. Far too often conversion is reduced to a decision or a metaphysical concept. When we were saved we literally experienced a death, burial, and resurrection in Christ as we were recreated and made new creatures. This baptism “in and with” Christ is just as literal as was our sin “in and with” Adam.

But I never said any such thing! I never said baptism symbolizes man standing in the place of Christ! The man is very literal, while the act is symbolic. What I said, is that the LITERAL Christ is not being water baptized and thus it is not the literal Christ being identified with baptismal symbolism of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What the audience see is the believer instead of Christ being identified in the symbolism of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Thus, they see the believer IN THE PLACE of Christ with regard to this symbolism and it is believer being baptized literally INTO what symbolizes Christ's death, burial and resurrection. So it is proper to say that in water baptism we are baptized into his death, burial and resurrection as that is precisely what the audience views.

Of course the way you have defined my view makes you right. The problem is that you have wrongly defined my view as I never state that baptism symbolizes man. No baptism symoblizes the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, but it happens to be a fact of reality that it someone else besides the literal Christ standing in that position where they are being identified with that gospel symbolism.

Yes, and who is it that is being identified with that symbolism? Christ or the believer? Who is it that is being buried in the water? Who is it that is rising up again from that water? Is it Christ or the believer? However, who is it that the burial in water symbolizes? Is it Christ or the beleiver? Who is it that rising up from the water symbolizes? Is it Christ or the believer. The believer is STANDING IN THE PLACE of Christ with regard to the symbolism and is therefore seen as being IN CHRIST symbolically BY THE ACT of baptism.

Here is another error of your position. The death in Christ to sin is not literal in this context or else they would not have to "reckon" it so. The death is POSITIONAL just as the preceding context is about the doctrine of justification and just as verse 7 declares by the term "free". The term "free" translates the same Greek term that is translated consistently in every instance prior to this point as "justified." Baptism in water provides a PICTURE whereby the observer can see our judical POSITION "in Christ" as the believer is being baptized into what is symbolic of the basis for justifcation - the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ which is the object of faith that justifies. Our literal body has not been literally crucified with Christ so that we are literally free from sin or else we would not have to "reckon" it so. We have been JUDICIALLY freed from our body of sin. Our bodies of sin have been JUDICIALLY crucified with Christ, buried and dead "in Christ" JUDICIALLY. The symbolism in baptism provides the visible basis for FAITH by which we are justified or positionally "IN CHRIST."

 

You want me to provide OLDER references to my position than the last 50 years???????? If I quote Dr. J.R. Graves in 1851 would you accept it? No, you would ridicule it. If I quote Dr. J.B. Moody in the late 1800's would you accept it? No, you would ridicule it. If I quoted numerous men accredited doctor degrees from 1900-1950 would you accept it (Dr. T.P Simons, Dr. Roy O. Beaman, Dr. Rosco Brong, Dr. C.D. Cole, or associational minutes of English Baptists from 1640-1660 would you accept it? No, what you want is references from Protestants or from universal church advocates as they are the only credible sources you would accept.

However, Dr. John Gill was considered one of the most learned scholars of his generation among all denominations and this is 200 years before your "view" of "shorthand" appeared. Here is what he said, and be careful to note his careful wording as Gill believed that regeneration rather than any kind of baptism wrought literal spiritual union with Christ.

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.

Gill does not say baptism is a "shorthand" nor does he interpret this passage any other way than a description and application of the symbolism in literal water baptism. He believed spiritual union with Christ is attained by CREATION through regeneration not through any kind of "baptism" salvation whether water or Spirit.

 

Jon,

I think we have both now fully clarified our positions and we both fully understand the position of the other. Now we are engaged in dismantling the other's view. From this point forward, I think I will defend my interpretations of Galatians 3:27 and 1 Peter. 3:20-21.

Thanks again for a very robust discussion.

 

Quoting universal invisible church advocates would not be useful either as what do you expect them to teach? Jon has quoted universal churchites, appealed to universal churchites and you expect me to cite those who advocate the very thing that I oppose? Really? If he is citing from sources that advocate his position why is it wrong for me to cite from sources that advocate my position?

His position when all the bells and whistles are removed is that the baptism in the Spirit is what immerses us into spiritual union with Christ. Now, if I cite those who take his position on the body of Christ, then is that supposed to be neutral???

I cited Dr. John Gill!!!

 

Precisely, and your "body of Christ" is not entered by water baptism is it? No, Your body of Christ is INSEPARABLE from your view of salvation!! That means your view of the body of Christ must begin in Genesis because if it does not then ANOTHER KIND of salvation begins in Genesis. Your view of the body of Christ is inseparable from the baptism in the Spirit! That means your view of the baptism in the Spirit must begin in Genesis because if it does not then ANOTHER kind of salvation begins in Genesis. The death of your view is that both the "foundation" and the baptism in the Spirit are NT in origin not Genesis in origin. My view is CONSISTENT with Biblical salvation from Genesis to Revelation as it REPUDIATES any and every kind of church, any and every kind of baptism from Biblical salvation. That in itself, demands the Biblical church, and thus Biblical body of Christ is local visible and merely for SERVICE and never for salvation.

 

I have denied this now three different times and yet you still attribute this position to me. I DO NOT APPLY ROMANS 6 TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP IN ANY SENSE as the context has to do with living in sin not living in the church.

Of course water baptism is speaking about only those who are in local churches as water baptism does not put you into an invisible universal church. Baptism symbolizes the gospel but it does not mean unbaptized people are lost.

 

No, I have not! I have never accused you of believing salvation is inseparable from the LOCAL CHURCH - Never!

However, you have clearly stated more than once, that the local visible assembly is the visible expression of another kind of church altogether consisting of all the elect and that is the true meaning of your "in Christ" definition of Romans 6. So you do believe in church salvation, just not LOCAL church salvation. For example, do you believe there is anyone that is true saved OUTSIDE of you say the local church is a visible expression of? OUtside what you say is "the body of Christ" which the local assembly visibly gives expression? So to be inside is to be saved and to be outside is to be lost as that is your "in Christ" union with Christ is it not?

 

First, Ezekiel 36 has no reference at all to the baptism in the Spirit as "sprinkled" is not "immersion" and he is dealing with regeneration not baptism.

Second, read your own words above. Nobody has accused you of believing salvaiton equals or is inseparable from LOCAL church membership!!!!! Please let that last sentence soak in! Read your own words above as you clearly state the local church is the VISIBLE EXPRESSION of SOMETHING ELSE! That something else you explicitly identify a "the body of Christ." Paul says the body of Christ is THE CHURCH. So obviously you have some other kind of church body than a local body in your soteriology as well as eclessiology don't you?!?

It is that kind of "body of Christ" church that is inseparable with your doctrine of salvation. To be in it is to be "in Christ" savingly and to be outside of it is to be outside Christ savingly - that my friend is church salvation.

Your baptism in the Spirit, which ignores the clear and explicit BIBLICAL TIME FRAME is baptismal salvation. You clearly state all the elect are thus baptized. Therefore, those outside this baptism are not saints while those thus baptized are - that is baptismal salvation.

 

Yes, we crossed paths again, and again I had to respond to what I believe were misrepresentations, although not intentional, but nevertheless misrepresentations the same.

I too have enjoyed our discussions and thanks for putting up with me as well. I don't know if it is going to stop though, because when I respond to your conclusions, you in turn respond to mine and so on!

 

When I preach and teach our view on the nature of the church to those who hold a universal invisible church EQUALS salvation position, your question represents the natural confusion that occurs, not because of what I believe, but because of what they believe. My belief is consistent, no church of any kind, no baptism of any kind "in Christ" with regard to the spiritual nature of salvation. With regard to the external nature of baptism and church membership both lost and saved can be "in Christ" symbolically in baptism and be a metaphorical "member" in Christ's metaphorical body.

They believe "in Christ" = an INTERNAL and SPIRITUAL membership in the "body of Christ - church"wherein is the inclusion of regeneration, baptism in the Spirit and therefore "in Adam" equals lost condition EXTERNAL to the body of Christ without regeneration, without baptism in the Spirit. They believe water baptism and membership in a local body of Christ are completely EXTERNAL relationship and therefore have no relationship to any kind of "in Christ" reference at all.

We also believe "in Christ" = and INTERNAL and SPIRITUAL relationship to God through Christ with regard to their legal position and spiritual condition of a person (regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification). Therefore, not to be "in Christ" with regard to salvation means no INTERNAL and SPIRITUAL "in Christ" relationship with regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification.

However, with regard to water baptism and membership in the church we believe that introduces an EXTERNAL "in Christ" application to baptism and church membership. The first is "in Christ by the symbolism of baptism, while the second is "in Christ" by the metaphor of a "member" of the church body. Of course false professors can share in this EXTERNAL "in Christ" application as false professors can be water baptized and false professors can be "members" of the church body.

So, those still in Adam, but false professors can "put on" Christ externally in the symbolism of baptism and in the metaphor as a "member" of the church body and not be "in Christ" SPIRITUALLY with regard to salvation essentials.

 

Gill does NOT believe the term "baptized" is used here as "shorthand" for another kind of spiritual baptism but that real water baptism is being described and he expressly says so in his comments of verse 4. So this does not support your "shorthand" view of the term baptized.

Second, "This is not to be understood of an implantation of Jews and Gentiles together in One body; nor of an implantation of believers together in a church state;" as YOUR VIEW DEMANDS from Genesis to Revelation.

Third, his "secret union" which he defines as being "ingrafted" is elsewhere defined by him to refer to regeneration in "conversion" as a creative act and never to any kind of baptism. So Gill does not support any of the essentials of your view at all.

 

Your welcome. Make sure you read my response to your quotation by Gill as Gill does not support your theory at all.