"In Christ" What does it mean and How?

[The Biblicist]

1. One must be REDEMPTIVELY "in Christ" by a Creative act by God (called new birth):

For you hath he quickened.....For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them. - Eph. 2:1,5,10

But of him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made to us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: - 1 Cor. 1:30

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature:[lit. "new creation"] old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. - 2 Cor. 5:17

For though you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have you not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.- 1 Cor. 4:15

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. - Gal. 6:15

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures. - James 1:18

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which lives and stays for ever.- 1 Pet. 2:21

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.- Jn. 3:6


NOTE: This is the only way a sinner becomes "in Christ" or else they remain "in Adam." "In Christ" in This did not occur at Pentecost


2. The object of saving faith

For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.- Gal. 3:26

That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. - Eph. 1:12

Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which you have to all the saints, - Col. 1:4

And that from a child you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. - 2 Tim. 3:15

For neither did his brothers believe in him. - John 7:5

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? - Rom. 10:4

NOTE: There is no other name given under heaven whereby we can believe in for salvation (Acts 10:43; Acts 4:12; Heb. 4:2). "In Christ" in This did not occur at Pentecost


3. The Sphere of all Salvation

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: - Rom. 3:24

Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.- Rom. 8:39

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: - Eph. 1:3

But now in Christ Jesus you who sometimes were far off are made near by the blood of Christ. - Eph. 2:13

According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:- Eph. 3:13

Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brothers which are with me greet you. - Philip. 4:21

And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot cancel, that it should make the promise of none effect.- Gal. 3:17

To the saints and faithful brothers in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. - Col. 1:2

You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. - 2 Tim. 2:1

Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.- 2 Tim.2:10

Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. - Rom. 16:7

For all the promises of God in him are yes, and in him Amen, to the glory of God by us. - 2 Cor. 1:20

NOTE: There is no salvaiton OUTSIDE of Christ for anyone at anytime. "In Christ" in This did not occur at Pentecost



4. The experientially "walk" in Christ or our conduct or conversation that manifests Christ.

As you have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk you in him: - Col.2:6

Yes, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. - 2 Tim. 3:12

And I, brothers, could not speak to you as to spiritual, but as to carnal, even as to babes in Christ. - 1 Cor. 3:1

He that said he stays in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.- 1 Jn. 2:6

But the anointing which you have received of him stays in you, and you need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, you shall abide in him. - 1 Jn. 2:27

NOTE: "in Christ" or "in him" in the experiential sense is the same as walking "in the Spirit" of Christ. Enoch "walked" with God and so did all the OT saints. "In Christ" in This did not occur at Pentecost


CONCLUSION: What did occur with the first coming of Christ is the introduction and institution of the NT congregational metaphorical body of Christ and its ordinances. The congregation or assembly is a metaphorical body of Christ and as such those who are metaphorical "members" of a congregation are "in Christ" metaphorically as metaphorical "members" (1 Cor. 14:25-27). Water baptism was introduced with the coming of Christ as a SYMBOL of public identification with Christ (John the Baptist) and as a SYMBOL of public identification of our salvation "in Christ" and so in baptism we outwardly "put on" Christ and thus are "in Christ" by SYMBOLICALL putting him "ON" in baptism.

 

[JonC]

What of those who are "redemptively in Christ" but view baptism as induction into the Christian community rather than symbolic of redemption (as akin to circumcision rather than a declration of faith/redemption)? They meet the requirements of the verses you have provided, but not the symbolic meaning you offer in your conclusion. Are they "in Christ" as well?

 

[The Biblicist]

What of those who are "redemptively in Christ" but view baptism as induction into the Christian community rather than symbolic of redemption (as akin to circumcision rather than a declration of faith/redemption)? They meet the requirements of the verses you have provided, but not the symbolic meaning you offer in your conclusion. Are they "in Christ" as well?

As I am sure you know, true believers can be misled into error even on the gospel as such was at least the temporary case of the Galatians. I believe there are true believers "in Christ" in the Roman Catholic Church but I don't think anyone on this forum (except the "Christian" part of this forum) recongizes the Roman Catholic church as a "true" church of Christ.

Significantly, even "brethren" who are redemptively "in Christ" among Paedbaptists recognize and practice what they call baptism PRIOR to church constitution and church membership. They practice it because they recognize that the scriptures both by precept (Mt. 28:19-20) and by example teach it (Acts 2:41). However, some Baptists on this forum want me to recognize as a "true" church of Christ what even Paedobaptists deny is a true church of Christ in principle and in practice. The point is, what they demand and call baptism is no baptism at all, and therefore according to the WORD OF TRUTH by their own requirements they are not a true church of Christ, and so why should Baptists who know the truth recognize as a true church what is not in keeping wth both Biblical precept or example a true church??? I don't!

 

[JonC]

As I am sure you know, true believers can be misled into error even on the gospel as such was at least the temporary case of the Galatians. I believe there are true believers "in Christ" in the Roman Catholic Church but I don't think anyone on this forum (except the "Christian" part of this forum) recongizes the Roman Catholic church as a "true" church of Christ.

Significantly, even "brethren" who are redemptively "in Christ" among Paedbaptists recognize and practice what they call baptism PRIOR to church constitution and church membership. They practice it because they recognize that the scriptures both by precept (Mt. 28:19-20) and by example teach it (Acts 2:41). However, some Baptists on this forum want me to recognize as a "true" church of Christ what even Paedobaptists deny is a true church of Christ in principle and in practice. The point is, what they demand and call baptism is no baptism at all, and therefore according to the WORD OF TRUTH by their own requirements they are not a true church of Christ, and so why should Baptists who know the truth recognize as a true church what is not in keeping wth both Biblical precept or example a true church??? I don't!

I think that we completely agree both in what baptism is and is not baptism. I am just not sure about your four points and your conclusion (I had a question).

My question is about those who meet your four requirements as outlined here. They have been born again, born of the Spirit. Their faith is in Christ and they are those who have victory in Christ. And they walk in Christ in terms of conduct and conversation and manifest our Lord and Savior. But they have, as you point out, been misled into error and rather than seeing water baptism as “a symbol of public identification of our salvation ‘in Christ’” they view baptism in accordance with the practice of circumcision (inclusion into a covenant community) and confirmation as that public identification of salvation.

My question is – are these people are “in Christ”?

 

[The Biblicist]

My question is – are these people are “in Christ”?

Any born again person is "in Christ" with regard to redemption. With regard to experiential walking that is a moment by moment day by day thing. When they are in disobedience they are not walking in the Spirit and are not "in Christ" experientially. Those outside NT churches are NEVER "in Christ" with regard to anything about a NT assembly (metaphorically or symbolically).

 

[JonC]

If I understand correctly, then, all Christians are “in Christ” because they identify with him in salvation. We are also encouraged to be “in Christ” daily, evaluating our walk (whether we are walking in the Spirit or the flesh….in darkness or in Light). Those who reject Baptist doctrine (and from our previous discussion, those who reject eternal security) are not “in Christ” in terms of their assemblies because they do not believe things such as believers baptism.

I do disagree that “in Christ” has these various meanings (or applications). This is partly because I view “in Christ” as opposite (consistently opposite) of being, as you put it, “in Adam”. But I really just wanted to clarify and make sure that I was following your reasoning. I didn’t realize by the OP that you were dealing again with Landmarkism and speaking of “true churches”, but thought that the topic was individuals being “in Christ” based on those four points.

Obviously I have not been keeping up with the other threads, so if I’ve wasted your time here you have my apologies.

 

[The Biblicist]

If I understand correctly, then, all Christians are “in Christ” because they identify with him in salvation. We are also encouraged to be “in Christ” daily, evaluating our walk (whether we are walking in the Spirit or the flesh….in darkness or in Light). Those who reject Baptist doctrine (and from our previous discussion, those who reject eternal security) are not “in Christ” in terms of their assemblies because they do not believe things such as believers baptism.

I do disagree that “in Christ” has these various meanings (or applications). This is partly because I view “in Christ” as opposite (consistently opposite) of being, as you put it, “in Adam”. But I really just wanted to clarify and make sure that I was following your reasoning. I didn’t realize by the OP that you were dealing again with Landmarkism and speaking of “true churches”, but thought that the topic was individuals being “in Christ” based on those four points.

Obviously I have not been keeping up with the other threads, so if I’ve wasted your time here you have my apologies.

If you will look at my "conclusion" you will see that the metaphorical and symbolic "in Christ" are what was added by the church and its ordinances. I don't think you believe that water baptism literally places anyone "in Christ" redemptively except symbolically - 1 Pet. 3:21 ("like figure.......by the resurrection of Jesus Christ")? The only baptism we can "put on" Christ like an outward garment is water baptism. I don't think you believe that metaphorical membership in a visible metaphorical body of Christ (1 6:15; Cor. 12:27) places anyone by metaphorical membership "in Christ" redemptively.

 

[The Biblicist]

If I understand correctly, then, all Christians are “in Christ” because they identify with him in salvation. We are also encouraged to be “in Christ” daily, evaluating our walk (whether we are walking in the Spirit or the flesh….in darkness or in Light). Those who reject Baptist doctrine (and from our previous discussion, those who reject eternal security) are not “in Christ” in terms of their assemblies because they do not believe things such as believers baptism.

I do disagree that “in Christ” has these various meanings (or applications). This is partly because I view “in Christ” as opposite (consistently opposite) of being, as you put it, “in Adam”. But I really just wanted to clarify and make sure that I was following your reasoning. I didn’t realize by the OP that you were dealing again with Landmarkism and speaking of “true churches”, but thought that the topic was individuals being “in Christ” based on those four points.

Obviously I have not been keeping up with the other threads, so if I’ve wasted your time here you have my apologies.

The purpose behind my presentation of those particular four points was to demonstrate that any kind of church or baptism 4000 years after the fall cannot possibly have anything to do with being "in Christ" redemptively. In my conclusion I provided for other applications of "in Christ" that do occur 4000 years after the fall and thus can have something to do with being "in Christ" other than redemptively.

 

[JonC]

If you will look at my "conclusion" you will see that the metaphorical and symbolic "in Christ" are what was added by the church and its ordinances. I don't think you believe that water baptism literally places anyone "in Christ" redemptively except symbolically - 1 Pet. 3:21 ("like figure.......by the resurrection of Jesus Christ")? The only baptism we can "put on" Christ like an outward garment is water baptism. I don't think you believe that metaphorical membership in a visible metaphorical body of Christ (1 6:15; Cor. 12:27) places anyone by metaphorical membership "in Christ" redemptively.

The purpose behind my presentation of those particular four points was to demonstrate that any kind of church or baptism 4000 years after the fall cannot possibly have anything to do with being "in Christ" redemptively. In my conclusion I provided for other applications of "in Christ" that do occur 4000 years after the fall and thus can have something to do with being "in Christ" other than redemptively.

Yes, we agree that water baptism is symbolic, not salvific. Like Peter states, baptism now saves us….not water baptism (not the removal of dirt from the flesh) but what that baptism symbolizes (and appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Christ).

Likewise, when we “put on” Christ like an outward garment we are not talking about water baptism. Instead of water baptism, Paul clarifies that this “clothing ourselves with Christ” is a result of redemption (“but now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ”).

Paul is using two symbols. Water baptism as symbolic of what it actually represents (salvation) and the practice of clothing oneself as symbolic of what that in which salvation actually produces (righteousness).

So to answer your question, I do not believe that anyone is ever “in Christ” except it be redemptive in that redemption results or can be defined as putting one "in Christ". I would put all four of your points under the same heading.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, we agree that water baptism is symbolic, not salvific. Like Peter states, baptism now saves us….not water baptism (not the removal of dirt from the flesh) but what that baptism symbolizes (and appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Christ).

I must take strong issue with your interpretation of this verse. You say "baptism now saves us...not water baptism" when in fact, Peter is saying water baptism "doth now save us" figuratively in a precise manner that corresponds to a previous figure of salvation by water, the ark being lifted up by water as a figure of "the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is plainly stating that water baptism is a figure of "the resurrection of Jesus Christ" just as the ark (figure of Christ) being lifted up by the water was a figure of the resurrection of Jesus Christ which (his resurrection) is what literally saves us that is figuratively seen in water baptism. Hence, if baptism is the "figure" of the resurrection and therefore it is also a figure of what precedes (death, burial) - Rom. 6:4-5. Noah and his family were already IN CHRIST by figure (in the ark which typified Christ) before they were saved FIGURATIVELY "by water" as the water lifted up the ark (a corresponding figure to baptism showing forth the resurrection).

I also take strong issue with your interpretation of the parenthetical explanation. Water does in fact remove literal dirt ON the literal flesh, and to interpet Peter to say it does not is ridiculous. Peter is not speaking of either literal dirt or the literal flesh as his contrast with "the answer of a good conscience" makes clear he is referring to the metaphorical filth (sin) of the metaphorical flesh - the fallen nature. Baptism does not literally remove our sins or the source of our sins. Instead, it is the consequence of literal removal of sin from our conscience (Heb. 9:14) and therefore is consequential to literal salvation as an "answer" is consquential to a previous question or a "response" is consequential to a previous action. Just as Noah was "in Christ" or in the ark that prefugured Christ, before being figuratively saved by water, so the believer is literally "in Christ" before baptism as a corresponding "figure" whereunto baptism doth also now save us by declaring "the resurrection of Christ" whereby we were literally saved and "in Christ" prior to baptism.

Likewise, when we “put on” Christ like an outward garment we are not talking about water baptism.

I also take strong issue with your interpretation of this text. You nor I can "put on" Christ bybaptism in the Spirit as that is an act of God and yet the verb here ascribes this act to the believer to himself (middle voice). Moreover, in the following context Paul has in view the Roman custom of the heir. An heir under Roman law had to wait until a certain age before he came into legal possession of his lawful estate. At the appointed time he would put on a white toga declaring he had come to age. He did not put it on in order to become the heir but to declare he was the heir. Likewise, those who have been water baptized into Christ (death, burial and resurrection picutre) have "put on" Christ as a declaration of their salvation in Christ precisely delaring that salvation in the figure of Christ' death burial and resurrection.

I believe your interpretations are simply wrong. However, I understand why you are forced to those conclusions.

 

[The Biblicist]

The purpose behind my presentation of those particular four points was to demonstrate that any kind of church or baptism 4000 years after the fall cannot possibly have anything to do with being "in Christ" redemptively. In my conclusion I provided for other applications of "in Christ" that do occur 4000 years after the fall and thus can have something to do with being "in Christ" other than redemptively.

Would you care to comment on this post? I think this post drives the stake in the heart of the universal invisible body of Christ theory.

 

[JonC]

Hebrews 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

I believe that your error is in blending what is symbolic with what those symbols represent (not only here in Hebrews, but also the broader topic concerning of water baptism). Hebrews 9:14 is that baptism of which Peter speaks (not water baptism, but the baptism that water baptism symbolizes, that is redemption).

Insofar as “putting on” Christ, I strongly disagree with you here as well. The text is not speaking of something that is completely dependent on us. In Ezekiel 36 God tells Israel of the great work He will do. He will sprinkle water on them and they will be clean. He will give them a new heart, a new spirit, put His Spirit in them and cause them to walk in His statutes. And they will be careful to obey His ordinances. In that passage, God’s work of redemption culminates in the obedience of His people. It is something they do, but it is at the same time entirely the work of God.

I believe in the consistency of Scripture, and I believe that there is more of a commonality between passages than you are allowing. What I mean by this is that I do not believe God redeems a man and then the man takes it from there and clothes himself “in Christ”. Instead, I see this “putting on” of Christ as saying what God has said through the prophets for thousands of years. God’s work of redemption is both complete and all encompassing. It is a work of re-creation.

And I do believe that often (mostly) when the apostles will speak of baptism they are referring to the thing that water baptism symbolizes and not water baptism itself. I view only one definition of “in Christ”, and that is baptized (not water baptism) into His death, burial and resurrection.

And I understand that we disagree. I asked you those questions and answered yours not to try to change your mind, but to understand your position and try to explain what I believe and why so that we can better understand each other. I believe that you are making the topic more complicated than it is by shifting means of terms and words (e.g., “in Christ” having three meanings, baptism fluctuating between what it symbolizes and the symbol itself).

 

[The Biblicist]

Hebrews 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

You are avoiding the contextual problems I presented in my post to your interpretations of 1 Peter 3:21 and Gal. 3:27.

Second, there is no mention of the word "baptism" in hebrews 9:14. Your argument is circular in reasoning. You are reading into this text your position in order to defend your position. Of course, that is what you are forced to do since your position has 4000 years that repudiate it.

Please deal with the evidence that your first intepretations are erroneous before playing Biblical hop scotch.

Insofar as “putting on” Christ, I strongly disagree with you here as well. The text is not speaking of something that is completely dependent on us.

We are talking about the baptism in the Spirit which is ENTIRELY the work of God without any kind of input on our part as that work occurs in the realm of the Spirit. The middle voice repudiates your view altogether. We can participate in the area of consequences but not in the area of causation and the baptism in the Spirit as you define it is entirely in the realm of the Spirit performed by the Spirit as causation.

In Ezekiel 36 God tells Israel of the great work He will do. He will sprinkle water on them and they will be clean. He will give them a new heart, a new spirit, put His Spirit in them and cause them to walk in His statutes. And they will be careful to obey His ordinances. In that passage, God’s work of redemption culminates in the obedience of His people. It is something they do, but it is at the same time entirely the work of God.

You are confusing consequences with cause. We have no part in what he does INSIDE us as described in Ezek. 36:26-27.

I believe in the consistency of Scripture,

So do I, and your interpretations are simply not consistent with Scripture, with grammar or with context. You have 4000 years that repudiate your interpretation of scripture.

and I believe that there is more of a commonality between passages than you are allowing. What I mean by this is that I do not believe God redeems a man and then the man takes it from there and clothes himself “in Christ”. Instead, I see this “putting on” of Christ as saying what God has said through the prophets for thousands of years. God’s work of redemption is both complete and all encompassing. It is a work of re-creation.

With all due respect what you say here is ridiculous. We have absolutely no part in "re-creation" as that is entirely an INTERNAL and SPIRITUAL work by God. Our only participation is RESPONSE to but no part of causation and regeneration and the way you interpet baptism in the Spirit have to do entirely with causation. We cannot participate in creating anything but we can respond to it. The baptism in Gal.3:27 is a middle voice action that we do to ourselves in water baptism which is declarative just as the context continues to describe a declarative act of a Roman heir in putting on a white toga.

And I understand that we disagree. I asked you those questions and answered yours not to try to change your mind, but to understand your position and try to explain what I believe and why so that we can better understand each other. I believe that you are making the topic more complicated than it is by shifting means of terms and words (e.g., “in Christ” having three meanings, baptism fluctuating between what it symbolizes and the symbol itself).

With all due respect, you are avoidng the issues and contextual evidences placed before you and dismissing gigantic problems to your view, one of which is a 4000 year deficit where saints where "in Christ" redemptively without your baptism as it had no existence until 4000 years later.

 

[JonC]

Would you care to comment on this post? I think this post drives the stake in the heart of the universal invisible body of Christ theory.

Yes, and I’m sorry for not addressing the comment at the onset (I got distracted). I don’t have much time, but I will do my best.

There is a consistency throughout Scripture as it contains the one plan of God to redeem man for His own glory. The Old Covenant existed within God’s overarching covenant expressed to Abraham. The Old Covenant applied only to a people within the greater Promise and as it was through that people that God would bring salvation.

The old foreshadowed the new, not necessarily the new assembly (in Christ) replacing the old assembly (of the Law) but foreshadowing Christ. Those who are “in Christ” are, therefore, those who are “in” the New Covenant (those who are cloaked in His righteousness, covered by His blood).

Water baptism symbolizes the believer’s death, burial and resurrection in Christ. Prior to Christ’s death, water baptism referred to the same thing only it was hidden. For John the Baptist, it alluded to the purity rituals. The sprinkling of water symbolized the same under the Law. Ezekiel 36 brings this together clearly as God cleanses by “sprinkling clean water” on His people in one act of redemption (I believe the act to which Jesus pointed Nicodemus in John 3).

Salvation has always (from Genesis to Revelation, from eternity past to eternity future) been “in Christ”. It has been revealed in different ways (the Old pointing to the New that Abraham rejoiced to see), but it has always been Christ.

Water baptism does not "put us" in Christ, but instead symbolizes what God has done. He has cleansed and recreated us, and as such we are "in Christ" and commanded to "clothe ourselves in Him". To put it another way, in 1 Peter the apostle says that we are a holy people and therefore we are to live holy lives.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, and I’m sorry for not addressing the comment at the onset (I got distracted). I don’t have much time, but I will do my best.

There is a consistency throughout Scripture as it contains the one plan of God to redeem man for His own glory. The Old Covenant existed within God’s overarching covenant expressed to Abraham. The Old Covenant applied only to a people within the greater Promise and as it was through that people that God would bring salvation.

The old foreshadowed the new, not necessarily the new assembly (in Christ) replacing the old assembly (of the Law) but foreshadowing Christ. Those who are “in Christ” are, therefore, those who are “in” the New Covenant (those who are cloaked in His righteousness, covered by His blood).

Water baptism symbolizes the believer’s death, burial and resurrection in Christ. Prior to Christ’s death, water baptism referred to the same thing only it was hidden. For John the Baptist, it alluded to the purity rituals. The sprinkling of water symbolized the same under the Law. Ezekiel 36 brings this together clearly as God cleanses by “sprinkling clean water” on His people in one act of redemption (I believe the act to which Jesus pointed Nicodemus in John 3).

Salvation has always (from Genesis to Revelation, from eternity past to eternity future) been “in Christ”. It has been revealed in different ways (the Old pointing to the New that Abraham rejoiced to see), but it has always been Christ.

Water baptism does not "put us" in Christ, but instead symbolizes what God has done. He has cleansed and recreated us, and as such we are "in Christ" and commanded to "clothe ourselves in Him". To put it another way, in 1 Peter the apostle says that we are a holy people and therefore we are to live holy lives.

With all due respect, again you have completely avoided the real issue. You admit that salvation has always been "in Christ" from Genesis to revelation but your baptism in the Spirit theory, which is the modus operandi for being placed spiritually "in Christ" is 4000 years too late to be of any effect for God's saints between Genesis and Pentecost. May I remind you that ALL OF GOD"S REDEMPTIVE blessings are found only "in Christ" and that includes progressive santification or the ability to walk by faith, produce fruits of the Spirit, please God in thoughts, words and conduct.

 

[JonC]

You are avoiding the contextual problems I presented in my post to your interpretations of 1 Peter 3:21 and Gal. 3:27.

Second, there is no mention of the word "baptism" in hebrews 9:14. Your argument is circular in reasoning. You are reading into this text your position in order to defend your position. Of course, that is what you are forced to do since your position has 4000 years that repudiate it.

Please deal with the evidence that your first intepretations are erroneous before playing Biblical hop scotch.



We are talking about the baptism in the Spirit which is ENTIRELY the work of God without any kind of input on our part as that work occurs in the realm of the Spirit. The middle voice repudiates your view altogether.





You are confusing consequences with cause. We have no part in what he does INSIDE us as described in Ezek. 36:26-27.



So do I, and your interpretations are simply not consistent with Scripture, with grammar or with context. You have 4000 years that repudiate your interpretation of scripture.




With all due respect what you say here is ridiculous. We have absolutely no part in "re-creation" as that is entirely an INTERNAL and SPIRITUAL work by God. Our only participation is RESPONSE to but no part of causation and regeneration and the way you interpet baptism in the Spirit have to do entirely with causation. We cannot participate in creating anything but we can respond to it. The baptism in Gal.3:27 is a middle voice action that we do to ourselves in water baptism which is declarative just as the context continues to describe a declarative act of a Roman heir in putting on a white toga.



With all due respect, you are avoidng the issues and contextual evidences placed before you and dismissing gigantic problems to your view, one of which is a 4000 year deficit where saints where "in Christ" redemptively without your baptism as it had no existence until 4000 years later.

I believe that you are missing the forest for the trees.

Before we continue I think that you may want to acknowledge that there exist no passage that states water baptism (the symbol) is what places men "in Christ". Instead you connect the dots in such a way as to arrive at that conclusion in support of your view of what constitutes a "true church". I believe that you are exceeding biblical warrant and confusing the situation by elevating the assembly over it's Head. But make no mistake, we are not arguing Scripture. We are arguing conclusions and pet doctrines and I believe that you are reading much into the text. And I am confident you believe the same of me.

 

[JonC]

With all due respect, again you have completely avoided the real issue. You admit that salvation has always been "in Christ" from Genesis to revelation but your baptism in the Spirit theory, which is the modus operandi for being placed spiritually "in Christ" is 4000 years too late to be of any effect for God's saints between Genesis and Pentecost. May I remind you that ALL OF GOD"S REDEMPTIVE blessings are found only "in Christ" and that includes progressive santification or the ability to walk by faith, produce fruits of the Spirit, please God in thoughts, words and conduct.

What "baptism in the Spirit theory"? I just provided a passage in Ezekiel and noted that most often the apostles dealt with baptism on the grounds of what it symbolized and not the symbol itself. I never gave you a theory.

 

[The Biblicist]

What "baptism in the Spirit theory"? I just provided a passage in Ezekiel and noted that most often the apostles dealt with baptism on the grounds of what it symbolized and not the symbol itself. I never gave you a theory.

With all due respect, this entire OP has been devoted to being "in Christ" and your persistent view of baptismal passages such as Gal. 3:27 has been to define it as the baptism in the Spirit and deny it as water baptism. Your consistent view of water baptism is to define its symbolism of your view of the baptism in the Spirit. Indeed, Ezekiel 36 was your own spin off from the grammatical problem I placed before you in Gal. 3:27 of the middle voice. So don't tell me you never defended your baptism in the Spirit theory as the modus operandi for how the elect become "in Christ" as you most certainly have as any unbiased readers of our posts can clearly see.

Your problem is that your theory is 4000 years too late and therefore cannot possibly be the means for putting any of the elect "in Christ" spiritually. Therefore, to be consistent with scriptures, your interpretations of water baptism are just as wrong, as they are an attempt to defend a theory or a view that has no existence for 4000 years. Therefore, to be consistent with your own view of "in Christ" you are forced to either deny the first 4000 years of God's elect were "in Christ" and thus come up with another salvation OUTSIDE of Christ to explain their obvious salvaiton or you must repudiate your theory of the baptism in the Spirit. It is just that clear and simple.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe that you are missing the forest for the trees.

Before we continue I think that you may want to acknowledge that there exist no passage that states water baptism (the symbol) is what places men "in Christ".

Again circular reasoning. You are reading your own theory into Romans 6:4-6; Galatians 3:27 and 1 Pet. 3:21 in order to prove your theory. You forget, these are the texts of debate and just as it is your position some of these do not refer to water baptism it is my position they all refer to water baptism and therefore clearly teach that baptism figuratively places us "in Christ." More important, your view is contradicted by 4000 years of Biblical history. It is contradicted by the evidences from the immediate context of these texts. You are still avoiding the evidences placed before you in Galatians 3:27 and 1 Peter. 3:21.

Instead you connect the dots in such a way as to arrive at that conclusion in support of your view of what constitutes a "true church". I believe that you are exceeding biblical warrant and confusing the situation by elevating the assembly over it's Head. But make no mistake, we are not arguing Scripture. We are arguing conclusions and pet doctrines and I believe that you are reading much into the text. And I am confident you believe the same of me.

My view is the ONLY view that is consistent with the doctrine of "in Christ" redemptively from Genesis to Revelation. Your view has 4000 years of complete absence with regard to "in Christ" redemption from Genesis to Pentecost. May I again remind you that ALL SPIRITUAL BLESSINGS are found only "in Christ" and if the baptism in the Spirit is how one is placed spiritually "in Christ" as your theory demands, then all living between Genesis and Pentecost are without any spiritual blessings - meaning they are without progressive sanctification and cannot "walk" with God or say or do anything pleasing to God, cannot produce the fruits of the Spirit, cannot grow in grace, cannot be justified, be regenerated, be saved, be ANYTHING "in Christ" as there is no baptism in the Spirit before Pentecost. My view is the ONLY view consistent with salvation between Genesis and Revelation.

 

[JonC]

With all due respect, this entire OP has been devoted to being "in Christ" and your persistent view of baptismal passages such as Gal. 3:27 has been to define it as the baptism in the Spirit and deny it as water baptism. Your consistent view of water baptism is to define its symbolism of your view of the baptism in the Spirit. Indeed, Ezekiel 36 was your own spin off from the grammatical problem I placed before you in Gal. 3:27 of the middle voice. So don't tell me you never defended your baptism in the Spirit theory as the modus operandi for how the elect become "in Christ" as you most certainly have as any unbiased readers of our posts can clearly see.

Your problem is that your theory is 4000 years too late and therefore cannot possibly be the means for putting any of the elect "in Christ" spiritually. Therefore, to be consistent with scriptures, your interpretations of water baptism are just as wrong, as they are an attempt to defend a theory or a view that has no existence for 4000 years. Therefore, to be consistent with your own view of "in Christ" you are forced to either deny the first 4000 years of God's elect were "in Christ" and thus come up with another salvation OUTSIDE of Christ to explain their obvious salvaiton or you must repudiate your theory of the baptism in the Spirit. It is just that clear and simple.

Again, I believe that you are missing the forest for the trees. Where we may differ is that I believe this is one act, not several acts. When we are saved we are "in Christ". Therefore we are to "put on" and walk "in Christ". Water baptism symbolizes this redemption, not entrance into the community of the church.

I believe that you are taking the stance of the paedobaptists, only changing the terms. You are viewing water baptism as placing one "in Christ" just as they view infant baptism as placing one into the community of Christ - you put water baptism where they put confirmation, but it's the same principle and it misses the point of Scripture.

I do not have a theory of Spirit baptism. I have a biblical understanding that the Apostles dealt with water baptism as a symbol for what it represented and not as a symbolic act effecting something (i.e., putting on Christ). Water Baptism is a testimony of what has already occurred (redemption/salvation/baptized into Christ's death, burial and resurrection....one act, not many).