"In Christ" What does it mean and How?

[The Biblicist]

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

Again, with all due respect, anyone who takes a view that the baptism in the Spirit is placing the elect "in Christ" thus in the position for all spiritual blessings and yet that very concept is missing 4000 years between Genesis and Pentecost, is a concept that is really missing the forest for a single tree. Your view cannot be correct unless you deny all between Genesis and Pentecost were "in Christ." It is just that simple. You talk about missing the forest for a single tree (your view of the baptism in the Spirit) that has to take the cake!

Again, you are avoiding the issues of 1 Peter 3:21 that completely repudiate your whole theory that baptism is not a public figure of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

Where we may differ is that I believe this is one act, not several acts.

Again, with all due respect that is simply false. We do not differ with regard to "one act" versus "several acts." We differ between cause and effect. We contribute NO ACTION with regard to the act of re-creation or new birth. Neither our willl (Jn. 1:13) or our actions (Eph. 2:8-10) contribute NOTHING at all to the act of CAUSATION. However, with regard to consequences or EFFECTS (repentance and faith) we are involved. With regard to your view of the baptism in the Spirit, which is placement "in Christ" we contribute NO ACTION with regard to the ACT OF CAUSATION by God as that is an action conducted soley in the realm of the Spirit altogether from start to finish. However, with respect to consequences of being already "in Christ" we participate in all consequences.The middle voice in Galatians 3:27 demands it is water baptism as we contribute no action in the act baptism in the Spirit - none, zilch, nada.

Water baptism symbolizes this redemption, not entrance into the community of the church.

Again, with all due respect, water baptism symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and 1 Peter 3:20-21 proves that beyond dispute. Thus Romans 6:4-6 is perfectly consistent with water baptism as water baptism is a genuine figure or "likeness" of Christ's death, burial and resurrection. Thus Galatians 3:27 is consistent with water baptism putting on Christ as an heir would put on a white togal.

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.

Again, with all due respect, you know very well I don't place water baptism where they put confirmation, as they receive the infant into membership at baptism and then confirmation occurs far after membership with regard to personal faith in Christ. To say that I place baptism where they put confirmation is absurd and no reader of this forum would swallow such a comparison. We place baptism BEFORE church membership not YEARS LATER after church membership. We do not make baptism the act of confirming true faith in Christ, but the figure of what they already PROFESSED to have placed their faith in - the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

Again, with all due respect, the vast majority require baptism prior to church membership, even paedobpatists. The local assembly is a metaphorical body of Christ (1 Cor. 6:15; 12:25-27) and baptism in water precedes placement "in Christ" metaphorical body (Acts 2;40-41) and that is even why you refer to yourself and to others in your own local assembly as metaphorical "members"of that local metaphorical "body" of Christ, thus "in Christ" metaphorically.

I do not have a theory of Spirit baptism.

I am not going to quibble with you over the word "theory." With all due respect you do have a theological positon with regard to the baptism in the Spirit and you have clearly been defending it in throughout our discussion and to deny it, is to deny what is obvious to anyone reading our discussions.

So, tell us, clearly and plainly what do you believe the baptism in the Spirit is if it is not the normal ordinary universal invisible church text book teaching that is the act of placing the believer "in Christ"??? Do you deny that? If so, then tell us, what kind of baptism "into Christ" is in Galatians 3:27 if it is not water baptism???? If so, then tell us, what kind of baptism "in Christ" is the baptism in Romans 6:4-6 if it is not water baptism???? If water baptism is acknowledged in all of these passages then tell us what water baptism is a figure of if not the gospel of Christ if not the baptism in the Spirit or the mechanism of placing the elect "in Christ." I await a clear answer.

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).

With all due respect your words are self-contradicting and your position is oxymoronic. You are claiming that what it is, it really isn't. Is it a "testimony" with regard to its effects or is it not? The testimony is its effects and what is that testimony? It is the public identification with what it is a FIGURE of is it not? That is its effect. Sure, it does not aquire salvaiton as that is a past complete singular action, but its EFFECT is to publicly PUT ON Christ SYMBOLICALLY or else it is no testimony at all that can identify with past tense completed salvation.

You claim that baptism is a "testimony" of another kind of baptism that has already occurred "redemptive/salvation/baptized into Christ's death, burial and resurrection" and yet you deny it is a testimony IN PICTURE of that previous baptism with regard to EFFECT. The testimony is its effect and that testimony is revealed in what it is a FIGURE of - the death burial and resurrection of Christ as 1 Peter 3:21 demands. With all due respect, your words are simply philosophical double talk.

Water Baptism is a testimony of what has already occurred (redemption/salvation/baptized into Christ's death, burial and resurrection....one act, not many).

First, water baptism is not a joint act or "one act" with what has already occurred but a separate action by itself and is a CONSEQUENCE of what has occurred just as 1 Peter 3:21 clearly and expressly teaches. It is your theory of the baptism in the Spirit that is the "one act, not many" that you make inseparable with "redemptive/salvation/baptized into...." Water baptism therefore is consequential to salvation and therefore water baptism is "a symbolic act effecting something" and that is a VISIBLE TESTIMONY whereby FIGURATIVELY we "put on Christ" as the FIGURE is of the believer "in Christ" in his death, burial and resurrection as the mode of baptism vividly depicts as a figure. That is its "testimony" as a "figure." That is its "symbolic act affecting" the audiance who witness it.

 

[The Biblicist]

Water Baptism is a testimony of what has already occurred (redemption/salvation/baptized into Christ's death, burial and resurrection....one act, not many).- JonC

You have said you have no theory about the baptism in the Spirit. However, here are your own words that demand a previous baptism to water baptism occurred as singular act.

You know very well this is the classic position of all universal invisible church advocates. They make the baptism in the Spirit inseparable from "redemption/salvationbaptized into Christ's".

You clearly make this previous baptism distinct and separate as a completed action, a singular action PRIOR to water baptism. So please no more debate that you do not have a theory, a position, a conviction concerning the baptism in the Spirit, unless this previous baptism is some other kind of baptism besides the three revealed in scripture (water, suffering, Spirit)????

You still have the HUGE problem that your concept of the baptism in the Spirit did not occur until Pentecost but you have 4000 years between Genesis and Pentecost where according to your theory no one could have personal "redemption/salvation/baptized into Christ..." as you make this baptism inseparable from that salvation, when in fact no such baptism existed prior to Pentecost, and therefore according to your theory no such salvation could exist either. That is a HUGE problem for your inseparable redemption/baptism theory as a "single action."

Since "ALL SPIRITUAL BLESSINGS" of redemption are found ONLY "in Christ" that means according to your "single action" theory that Abel, Enoch, Abraham, David, Daniel, etc.were OUTSIDE of Christ and could not participate in any "SPIRITUAL BLESSINGS" such as redemption, justification, remission of sins, fruit of the Spirit, walking with God, pleasing God by any thoughts, words or actions BECAUSE no baptism in the Spirit existed until Pentecost. Talk about missing the forrest because of a singular purely imaginative tree!!

So, which is it? Is "baptized" in your equation of "redemption/salvation...into Christ" a singular action that obtains all spiritual blessings for all the elect or just Post-Pentecost elect as no such baptism occurred until Pentecost??

 

[The Biblicist]

Bro. JonC,

Got to take care of church preparations so I will not be responding until late this afternoon pacific coast time.

 

[JonC]

With all respect and love, brother, I do not concern myself with what may or may not be another’s “classic position”.

I do believe that those who were saved prior to Pentecost were saved in Christ. In fact, I go so far as to believe that Christ is the lamb slain before the foundations of the earth were laid. This is the Jesus could say that Abraham rejoiced that he would see His day, and he saw it and was glad. Grace was always through faith and the Object of saving faith was always Christ. This is what Paul means when he says that by faith Abraham was considered righteous. It was not a matter of considering Abraham as if he had broken no law, but a matter of seeing Abraham in Christ.

Insofar as your claim that Romans 6 refers to water baptism, I completely reject that notion as foreign both to Paul and Scripture. It is "another gospel" than what was delivered by the Apostles, and by Paul in that passage.

Romans 6:3-11 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.


1. All who have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into His death.

2. We have been buried with Him through baptism into death so that we can walk in newness of life (regeneration).

3. This baptism means that we have died with Christ and will also live with Him.

Paul is not speaking of water baptism. We were not symbolically placed “in Christ”. We were not symbolically regenerated. We were not symbolically made new creatures. And we do not look to a symbolic resurrection. Paul was not talking about the symbol (he was not talking about water baptism).

In other words, water baptism does not effect regeneration (which is what we get if we point to this text as speaking of water baptism). The same with your passages of Peter. The Apostles are not engaging in double-talk for us to figure out. They are talking about "baptism into Christ" which is "baptism into His death" which results in "newness of life". You cannot replace this baptism with "water baptism" without holding the heresy of the Churches of Christ denomination - that is, baptismal regeneration.

If I have misread you (and I pray I have) then you have both my apology and my ear towards correction.

 

[The Biblicist]

With all respect and love, brother, I do not concern myself with what may or may not be another’s “classic position”.

That may be true, but nevertheless it does not change the fact that you are repeating it verbatim.

I do believe that those who were saved prior to Pentecost were saved in Christ. In fact, I go so far as to believe that Christ is the lamb slain before the foundations of the earth were laid. This is the Jesus could say that Abraham rejoiced that he would see His day, and he saw it and was glad. Grace was always through faith and the Object of saving faith was always Christ. This is what Paul means when he says that by faith Abraham was considered righteous. It was not a matter of considering Abraham as if he had broken no law, but a matter of seeing Abraham in Christ.

I rejoice in the TRUTH PART of your inconsistent view.

Insofar as your claim that Romans 6 refers to water baptism, I completely reject that notion as foreign both to Paul and Scripture. It is "another gospel" than what was delivered by the Apostles, and by Paul in that passage.

With all due respect your charge is absurd as it is really what you teach that demands a completely different salvation than prior to Pentecost IF you were consistent with yourself.

So, let me ask you a very simple question and I hope you take the time to respond clearly and concisely. Do you believe there is some other kind of baptism in addition to (1) baptism in water; (2) baptism in sufferings and (3) baptism in the Spirit? Yes or no?

Do you believe regeneration and baptism in the Spirit are one and the same? It seems that is what you are inferring below. If so, then are you not forced to deny regeneration/baptism in the Spirit prior to Pentecost?

Romans 6:3-11

Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.


1. All who have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into His death.

2. We have been buried with Him through baptism into death so that we can walk in newness of life (regeneration).

3. This baptism means that we have died with Christ and will also live with Him.

First, what is the purpose of a symbol? It is to provide a VISIBLE FORM or LIKENESS of something else. The visible form is designed by God to identify with and convey an intended truth. Pervert the visible form and you pervert the truth the VISIBLE FORM was designed to convey. For example, there can be no doubt that water baptism is being referenced by Christ in Mark 16:16. The design of baptism is to convey the truth of the gospel, so "he that believeth (in the gospel) and is baptized shall be saved" (literally by faith in the gospel, and figuratively in water baptism. Hence, the visible form of baptism in water is designed to convey the "LIKENESS" to the actual truth of salvation.

If Paul had been actually speaking of literal salvation in Romans 4:4-6 he would have eliminated the term "likeness" as there is no "likeness" in literal salvation because it is REALITY not "likeness."

All three points which you listed above are true of water baptism as a LIKENESS of the LITERAL truth of salvation.

1. All who have been baptized into water have been baptized into the LIKENESS of his death, burial and resurrection.

2. All who have been buried with Christ in water baptism have died with him in the very same sense they have been buried with him - IN LIKENESS.

3. All who hae been baptized in water have in FIGURE been raised with him - 1 Pet. 3:21.

Therefore, water baptism does not convey an LITERAL effect, but rather conveys only a "LIKENESS" of an already completed literal state of justification and regenration.

Paul is not speaking of water baptism.

Yes he most certainly is.

We were not symbolically placed “in Christ”.

Yes, we were as that is the very inferrence of the term "LIKENESS" as that term is a complete repudiation of any ACTUAL placement "in Christ" by baptism.

We were not symbolically regenerated.

The text does not say we are regenerated by baptism. What it says is that we were raised in the "LIKENESS" of his resurrection in water baptism which has its reality in a regeneative life manifested by rightoeusness not by sin.

When anyone views water baptism they are seeing a visible "likeness" of Christ's death, burial and resurrection that the candidate is publicly identifying with, because it is the REALITY of that death, burial and resurrection that provides the basis of our POSITION of justification and our CONDITION of new birth. The symbol is visibly designed by its form to convey in "LIKENESS" the REALITY of our salvation.

 

[JonC]

That may be true, but nevertheless it does not change the fact that you are repeating it verbatim.

That is of no consequence, just as it is of no consequence that you are repeating verbatim the defenses of baptismal regeneration offered by the CoC.

I rejoice in the TRUTH PART of your inconsistent view.

And I you. It is good that we can unite in those parts you got right

With all due respect your charge is absurd as it is really what you teach that demands a completely different salvation than prior to Pentecost IF you were consistent with yourself.

So, let me ask you a very simple question and I hope you take the time to respond clearly and concisely. Do you believe there is some other kind of baptism in addition to (1) baptism in water; (2) baptism in sufferings and (3) baptism in the Spirit? Yes or no?

Clearly and concisely…Paul uses “baptism” for the thing it symbolizes.

Your error is that you keep looking at these passages to justify water baptism as the event that puts people “in Christ” in order to deny that those who do not have a “proper baptism” are not “in Christ”. But Paul is not talking about that at all (Paul is talking about salvation).

So you are inconsistent. Either one is in Christ and saved or one is not in Christ and are lost. There are not two categories of saved peoples.

I suggest that you either adopt baptismal regeneration, adopt a symbolic view of baptism, or adopt a view where water baptism is the capstone of salvation (it symbolizes what has occurred but is also a part of that salvation as it is an act of submission).

Do you believe regeneration and baptism in the Spirit are one and the same? It seems that is what you are inferring below. If so, then are you not forced to deny regeneration/baptism in the Spirit prior to Pentecost?

I do believe that people were saved the same way prior to the Cross, based on the Cross. But I do not believe they were indwelt by the Spirit. I am not sure if I’d say they were regenerated. Probably not….but I’m open to discussion and correction.

First, what is the purpose of a symbol?

It symbolizes something else. This is how Paul uses baptism – as a kind of shorthand for the entire process of conversion.

If Paul had been actually speaking of literal salvation in Romans 4:4-6 he would have eliminated the term "likeness" as there is no "likeness" in literal salvation because it is REALITY not "likeness."

We were discussing Romans 6:4-6. You miss Paul’s point because you are caught up in twisting this passage into a focus on water baptism. It is not about baptism but about what baptism represents. We were “united with Him in the likeness of His death”. If this just points to “water baptism” then our being also united with Him in “likeness of His resurrection” also ends symbolically. You are inconsistent.

That “likeness” that Paul speaks of is pointing to that thing of which he speaks – that we have died WITH Christ. He is NOT speaking of baptism, but using baptism to speak of our hope in Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

That is of no consequence, just as it is of no consequence that you are repeating verbatim the defenses of baptismal regeneration offered by the CoC.And I you. It is good that we can unite in those parts you got rightClearly and concisely…Paul uses “baptism” for the thing it symbolizes.

Your error is that you keep looking at these passages to justify water baptism as the event that puts people “in Christ” in order to deny that those who do not have a “proper baptism” are not “in Christ”. But Paul is not talking about that at all (Paul is talking about salvation).

So you are inconsistent. Either one is in Christ and saved or one is not in Christ and are lost. There are not two categories of saved peoples.

I suggest that you either adopt baptismal regeneration, adopt a symbolic view of baptism, or adopt a view where water baptism is the capstone of salvation (it symbolizes what has occurred but is also a part of that salvation as it is an act of submission).
I do believe that people were saved the same way prior to the Cross, based on the Cross. But I do not believe they were indwelt by the Spirit. I am not sure if I’d say they were regenerated. Probably not….but I’m open to discussion and correction.It symbolizes something else. This is how Paul uses baptism – as a kind of shorthand for the entire process of conversion.We were discussing Romans 6:4-6. You miss Paul’s point because you are caught up in twisting this passage into a focus on water baptism. It is not about baptism but about what baptism represents. We were “united with Him in the likeness of His death”. If this just points to “water baptism” then our being also united with Him in “likeness of His resurrection” also ends symbolically. You are inconsistent.

That “likeness” that Paul speaks of is pointing to that thing of which he speaks – that we have died WITH Christ. He is NOT speaking of baptism, but using baptism to speak of our hope in Christ.

I will handle each item above, however, before I do that, there are some issues that must be clarified or this discussion is doomed to failure. I had asked you if there were more than three types of baptism in Scripture and I listed those three (1) baptism in water; (2) baptism in suffering;(3) baptism in the Spirit.

Your response was anything but clear or specfic, you said "Paul uses 'baptism' for the thing it symbolizes" and who knows what you mean by that - I certainly don't, so let me get more specific in my question. What do you believe the baptism in the Spirit is? Do you believe it is inseparable from the completed action of regeneration? Do you believe the word baptism has more NT applications than the three specific ones listed above and if so please explain precisely what application you have in mind and what proof do you have for a fourth or fifth application. Thanks in advance.

 

[The Biblicist]

That is of no consequence, just as it is of no consequence that you are repeating verbatim the defenses of baptismal regeneration offered by the CoC

Now Jon, really lets not stoop to accusations that are patently false. I understand the CoC position very well and have debated them. They believe regeneration is inseparable from water baptism, and thus preach baptismal regeneration which is another gospel completely and you know very well I don't believe or teach that at all. My position has been consistent that NO KIND OF BAPTISM is include in regeneration before or after the cross. So if you want to talk about the "principle" of my belief, "in principle" my view excludes ALL FORMS of baptism from regeneration before and after the cross.

However, the real truth is that you are in fact teaching some kind of "baptismal regeneration" as you have explicitly made some kind of baptism inseparable from regeneration and that by definition is "baptismal regeneration" In direct contrast my position has been consistent that I deny ANY KIND of baptism is included in regeneration but the ONLY contact point between water baptism and salvation is the point of "LIKENESS" period!

Your error is that you keep looking at these passages to justify water baptism as the event that puts people “in Christ” in order to deny that those who do not have a “proper baptism” are not “in Christ”. But Paul is not talking about that at all (Paul is talking about salvation).

The fact is that the term "baptize" is use only for three things in the NT (1) in water; (2) in suffering and "in Spirit." The fact is that ONLY water baptism is specifically prominse age long administration by men to men. The fact is there is NO PROMISE of a repeating baptism in the Spirit with each individual until the end of the age. The baptism in the Spirit prior to Pentecost is not only consistently in the future tense but carefully defined as to its date and place of fulfillment: (1) Place - "in Jerusalem"; (2) Date "not many days hence" - Acts 1:4-5. After Pentecost, the same Pre-Pentecost phrasology is never found again in Scripture except in Acts 11:15-16 with reference to the house of Cornelius and then the ONLY reference point Peter can identify the house of Cornelius with is "AT the beginning" rather than something individually repeating with every beliver "SINCE the beginning" altough thousands had been saved "SINCE" the beginning. After Acts 11;15-16 this consistent phraseology is NEVER used again. The clear indication is that this promise had been completely fulfilled bythese two separate cases which together include Jews and Gentiles and it is not a continuing baptism.

So, when I read of baptism in Post-Cornelius texts, that leaves me with a choice of (1) water baptism and (2) baptism of sufferings.

In these texts (Rom. 6;4-6; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12; 1 Pet. 3:21) the writers uses the term as though his readers clearly understand what they are referring to. In all cases he is writing to water baptized church members who would naturally understand the term "baptism" to mean what they all had in common as members of NT. churches and that is water baptism which had its relationship to baptism at the point of "LIKENESS." So I am not the one forcing something new upon these texts as I am keeping within the three explicit uses of this term as found in Scipture. However, the question is are you? You have yet to answer that question clearly. Is there a fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. use of the term baptism or baptize other than the three explicit uses we find in the NT which no one disputes???

So Jon, here is my point. The burden of proof is on your shoulders to prove there is a FOURTH kind of application of the term baptism in Scripture.

So you are inconsistent. Either one is in Christ and saved or one is not in Christ and are lost. There are not two categories of saved peoples.

Jon, you are being completely irrational here. You are now equating baptism in all of these passages with salvation and thus inseparable from salvation. Again, if you have a fourth kind of baptism you aer speaking about then we need to demonstrate a fouth kind in scripture before we can rationally debate even this accusation you are making. However, if your baptism here is the baptism in the Spirit then it is you and not I that has the problem with the very question you are asking me as you have no salvation prior to Pentecost if your salvation here is inseparable from the baptism in the Spirit, and so it is I that has been asking and should be asking you "Either one is in Christ and saved or one is not in Chirst and are lost. There are not two categores of saved people." This is really your problem and not mine because you know very well this has been my consistent position all along and it is I that do not teach baptismal regeneration but that is precisely what you are teaching because you explicitly state that your view of salvation is inseparable from baptism while my view NEVER confuses ANY of the three types of baptism with salvation EVER!

I suggest that you either adopt baptismal regeneration, adopt a symbolic view of baptism, or adopt a view where water baptism is the capstone of salvation (it symbolizes what has occurred but is also a part of that salvation as it is an act of submission).

You know very well this is pure slander as my consistent position is to NEVER mix ANY KIND OF BAPTISM with salvation at any point in redemptive history. However, what you are accusing me is precisely what you and your position are guilty of. It is you that has made baptism(some kind yet undefined) inseparable from salvation and so you actually do teach some kind of "baptismal regeneration" but you are trying to irrationally accuse me and my position of that when my position flatly and consistently denies that very thing.

I do believe that people were saved the same way prior to the Cross, based on the Cross. But I do not believe they were indwelt by the Spirit. I am not sure if I’d say they were regenerated. Probably not….but I’m open to discussion and correction.

Jon, I just want you to consider your own definition of salvation with what you have just stated in the paragraph just quoted above. You believe that "regeneration/salvation/baptism" is inseparable with "in Christ" and that all the elect from Genesis to Revelation are "in Christ" but now you are saying that the "regeneration" part of your equation of salvation does not precede the cross nor any indwelling of the Spirit. So may I ask if the "baptism" part of your equation precedes Pentecost?????

You realize that "regeneration" simply means QUICKENING or being made SPIRITUALLY ALIVE don't you? Remember what the universal problem is? Spiritual SEPARATION from God which really means spiritual DEATH. What is the opposite of spiritual SEPARATION Jon? What is the opposite of spiritual DEATH Jon? The opposite is spiritual UNION=LIFE.

Jon, this is a SPIRITUAL separation! Where does your human spirit abide Jon, inside your body or outside your body? Inside! If you are to have spiritual LIFE=UNION where does the Holy Spirit have to reside to be in "spiritual" union with you spirit? Inside? What is it to be spiritually SEPARATED from God the Spirit? Spiritual DEATH. Jon there are not two types of Christians, some who are "in the flesh" while others "in the Spirit" but that is precisely what you are teaching. You are claiming that pre-cross saints are not "in the Spirit" but are "in the flesh" and can serve and please God "in the flesh" because they are without spiritual life (regeneration) but in a state of spiritual separation from the Spirit of God (their spirits separated from God's Spirit).

Your view of salvaiton prior to the cross is extremely oxymoronic, as you believe that spiritually dead people before the cross can serve and please God in and through a fallen nature with God's help. If that is so, then why not now? Why is it that we cannot even serve God with a new nature if we are not in addition to that new nature dependent upon the INDWELLING SPIRIT of God (Rom. 7:18) and yet your doctrine demands they can do what we can't do. Hence, if your doctrine is right they are SUPERIOR to us and we are a lower class Christian.

 

[JonC]

I will handle each item above, however, before I do that, there are some issues that must be clarified or this discussion is doomed to failure.

I’ve thought about this topic overnight and agree that there are a few issues that need to be clarified, and I will answer your concerns. But first I need to apologize to you as I know we have been talking past each other on a few points – one intentionally and by me.

When you took my position to mean a universal church I believe that you were assuming I held the view Paul was associating “in Christ” with placement into church membership via water baptism. I do not believe that this even approaches Paul’s topic. But I responded by pointing out the closeness of your doctrine to CoC doctrine (which is heresy and cultic, at best) by suggesting you approach baptismal regeneration. I believe that you have the same ideas as they insofar as the nature of the “true church”, Landmarkism, and what it means to be “in Christ”. But, although I believe it the logical conclusion, it was wrong of me to suggest that you approach baptismal regeneration and for that you have my sincere apology.

This is what I understand you to be saying (and as always, brother, please correct me if I misunderstand your position…this is not a declaration of my understanding, not of what you believe):

Water baptism points, symbolically, to conversion. It is symbolic – not causing salvation but pointing back to that death, burial and resurrection of Christ (I believe we agree this far). I understand you to be saying also that water baptism is what puts a converted man “in Christ”, and you link this conclusion with “true church” membership. You present being united in the “likeness” of Christ’s death to mean water baptism and a unity of church membership. By this, I understand you to be presenting a situation where one can be converted but not “in Christ”, or saved but outside of a “true church”.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood your position.

This is my position:

Water baptism is both a symbol and a part of what it symbolizes (it is a real part of conversion, not merely a symbol, in the context that it symbolizes the work of God in conversion which results in that submission of baptism). It symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Christ but more importantly it symbolizes our death and burial with Christ and our hope of a future resurrection in Him. Baptism is a part of what it symbolizes because it is that act of submission following God giving us His Spirit (Ezekiel 36 – God cleanses us, gives us a new spirit, puts His Spirit in us, causes us to obey and we obey…..baptism represents the “we obey” part of conversion, submission to the Body of Christ, to its expression as a local church).

Paul deals with conversion itself through the term “baptism” as water baptism is the “capstone” of conversion. It was either D.A. Carson or Douglas Moo who explained Paul’s use of baptism as being a sort of shorthand for everything entailed in conversion. So when Paul speaks of baptism he is not isolating the act of water baptism. Instead he is carrying with that term all it represents. This is the purpose of symbols.

Paul assumes baptism. It is automatic. Someone believes, they confess Christ Jesus, and they are baptized. The Apostolic church was not a time where people were examined for extensive periods. From all accounts, they were baptized immediately if possible. And they were baptized under the authority of the Body of Christ.

So Paul can rightly say that it is baptism that places us “in Christ”. But it is not baptism alone (Paul is not isolating water baptism). It is baptism as the culmination of all that is conversion. Baptism is assumed as the final part of conversion, the act of submission of the new believer. But one’s position “in Christ” (having died, been buried, and been raised in and with Christ) is not dependent on a proper observance of this act of submission.

I had asked you if there were more than three types of baptism in Scripture and I listed those three (1) baptism in water; (2) baptism in suffering;(3) baptism in the Spirit.

Your reponse was anything but specfic, you said "Paul uses 'baptism' for the thing it symbolizes" and who knows what you mean by that - I certainly don't, so let me get more specific in my question. What do you believe the baptism in the Spirit is? Do you believe it is inseparable from the completed action of regeneration? Do you believe the word baptism has more NT applications than the three specific ones listed above and if so please explain precisely what application you have in mind. Thanks in advance.

To be clear and specific – In Romans 6 Paul uses “baptism” to speak of everything that is conversion. In other words, Paul uses baptism as a symbol to speak of what it represents (of having died, been buried, and been raised in and with Christ). I do believe that all Christians are “baptized in the Spirit”. I do not believe it is inseparable from conversion.

Yes, the word baptism is often (more than not) used to mean something other than the ordinance of water baptism, baptism in suffering, and baptism in the Spirit.

Paul uses “baptism” to speak of the believer as having died, been buried, and been raised in and with Christ. This is not a different baptism, but a different use than isolating water baptism from conversion. In other words, yes - it is water baptism. But no, it is not water baptism itself that Paul is saying places us into Christ. It is that conversion that water baptism is both a part of and represents as a whole.

 

[JonC]

Now Jon, really lets not stoop to accusations that are patently false. I understand the CoC position very well and have debated them. [snip]
However, the real truth is that you are in fact teaching some kind of "baptismal regeneration"

I'm going to just stop right here, brother. We "crossed posts" as we seem to have been replying at the same time.

While I was not accusing you of believing baptismal regeneration, I was strongly and wrongly pointing in that direction. And yes, that was false of me and I do apologize. The difference is in what we consider "in Christ" to mean, and I took liberties by forcing your statements into that direction.

That said, I think we both know very well that I also am not "teaching some kind of 'baptismal regeneration'". If we are to move forward we need to do so honestly and for my shortcomings here, you do have my sincere apology.

 

[The Biblicist]

. I believe that you have the same ideas as they insofar as the nature of the “true church”, Landmarkism, and what it means to be “in Christ”. But, although I believe it the logical conclusion, it was wrong of me to suggest that you approach baptismal regeneration and for that you have my sincere apology.

Thanks for the apology but you still have it wrong. The CoC's relationship of baptism to the church is strictly salvational with regard to both baptism and to the church itself. In contrast my view of baptism with the church is strictly symbolic. Baptism "in Christ" meaning as a LIKENESS of the believer being baptized WITH Christ in his death, burial and resurection is purely symbolic and part of NT conversion as a reaction/consequence of INTERNAL gospel conversion. Membership in the church is not salvational and so the metaphor "member" and the metaphor "body of Christ" show the church is strictly REPRESENTATIVE of being metaphorically "in Christ" without any actual literal salvational intent.

.This is what I understand you to be saying

(and as always, brother, please correct me if I misunderstand your position…this is not a declaration of my understanding, not of what you believe):

Water baptism points, symbolically, to conversion. It is symbolic – not causing salvation but pointing back to that death, burial and resurrection of Christ (I believe we agree this far).

Basically you have it correct, but because of what I believe to be the real issue between us I must give further explanation and clarification if we are going to avoid an impasse in the future. So let me restate this in my own words.

"Water baptism is by immersion because of its symbolic design to convey the truth of the gospel which is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which gospel baptism points to with regard to the candidate's own previous profession in that gospel as the basis of his salvation alone. As such, baptism is part of the NT pattern of gospel conversion as "he that believeth (in the gospel) AND is baptized (in water) shall be saved (literally and figuratively). So we are baptized WITH Christ in the sense of LIKENESS "into" his death burial and resurrection, thus pubically PUTTING on Christ as it were as a garment that all can see what we beleive is our hope of salvation - the gospel of Christ.

. I understand you to be saying also that water baptism is what puts a converted man “in Christ”, and you link this conclusion with “true church” membership. You present being united in the “likeness” of Christ’s death to mean water baptism and a unity of church membership. By this, I understand you to be presenting a situation where one can be converted but not “in Christ”, or saved but outside of a “true church”.

Again, because of the issue that divides us I would rather state it more clearly in my own words:

The mode of baptism is designed to convey the gospel likeness of Christ' death, burial and resurrection. However, the audiance does not see the LITERAL Christ dying, being buried and rising again. What they see is the believer IN THE PLACE OF CHRIST ("thus "in Christ" positionally by baptism) figuratively dying, being buried and rising again. Therefore what the audience has viewed is the believer associated WITH Christ in the LIKENESS of Christ's death, burial and resurrection and therefore as a SYMBOL this is placing the believer "IN" (in the place of) Christ as a visible act.

With regard to the church. The church is not the LITERAL "body of Christ" but the METAPHORICAL body of Christ. Those received into the church are not LITERAL "members" IN his LITERAL "body" but are metaphorical "members" IN his metaphorical body. Therefore church membership is to be placed metaphorically "IN" Christ or "IN" the metaphorical body of Christ.

So water baptism and church membership provide a new dimension of being "in Christ" that never existed before the ministry of Christ. This new dimension is SYMBOLIC and METAPHORICAL but it is not salvational, as salvational "in Christ" has existed since Genesis and remains unchanged till Revelation.

.This is my position:

Water baptism is both a symbol and a part of what it symbolizes (it is a real part of conversion, not merely a symbol, in the context that it symbolizes the work of God in conversion which results in that submission of baptism).

Agreed, as My exposition of Mark 16:16 demonstrates. Salvation literally and symbolically as this was the NT norm in gospel conversion. However, gospel salvation is completed salvation as none prior to Christ were baptized and the thief on the cross was not baptized and so baptism is not a necessary part of literal salvation although it is a necessary part of discipleship under the Great Commission and the norm for NT conversion.

. It symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Christ but more importantly it symbolizes our death and burial with Christ and our hope of a future resurrection in Him.

Here is precisely where I take issue with you as you make baptism something different than being baptized "with" Christ into his death burial and resurrection when that is simply not true. When the audiance view a baptism, they don't see Jesus being baptized, they see the candidate professing Jesus being baptized. The candidate is not LITERALLY dying, being buried and rising again, but what the audiance actually and literally sees is the believer IN THE PLACE of Christ and in the likeness of Christ's death, burial and resurrection. So water baptism is both baptism IN THE PLACE OF ("in" Christ) and WITH Christs burial, death and resurrection.

The point of contact between what Christ literally and actually did and what is being done in water baptism is "LIKENESS"

The context is defendind and referring to the doctrine of justifcation as the word "freed" in verse 7 is the same word consistently translated "justified" in chapters 3-5. Water baptism looks backward to our POSITION "in Christ" by justification but looks forward to regeneration in the likeness of his resurrection. That is why Paul calls on them to "RECKON" it so, as this is the same term used in Romans 4:5-11 translated "counted" "reckoned" "imputed" demonstrating it is their LEGAL POSITION "in Christ' that is in view which must be "reckoned" BY FAITH.

Baptism provides the LIKENESS of our POSITION in Christ by faith (which is in the gopsel of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ IN OUR PLACE and we IN HIS PLACE), thus baptism in likness provides a picture of being "IN Christ." So what baptism is pointing back to is not any literal spiritual union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection but is pointing back to our JUDICIAL union or with the doctrine of justification which has been the theme since Romans 3 and which Paul is now defending that will not promote sin.

However, Paul is using water baptism with regard to its LIKENESS of the resurrection of Christ to point PRESENTLY to the doctrine of regeneration which is the additional proof that those justified cannot continue in sin because justification does not occur in a vacuum but occurs simeltaneous with regeneration. Baptism is a testimony of resurrection life, not that it literally provides life (no baptismal regeneration) but that it identifies the believer with the resurrected life NOW as well as in the future. It is the NOW application that denies the justified can continue living in sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

So to get to your primary objection in Romans 6:5

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

Your argument is based upon the future tense "shall be also" in the likeness which you believe demands the term "likeness" not to mean "likeness" but to be ACTUAL REALITY. However, I view this in its overall context as metaphorical or the direct application of the "likeness" in water baptism to represent the reality in the beleiver's life. In other words, he is taking the "likeness" of the resurrection found in water baptism and making a DIRECT application to the spiritual life of the believer after being baptized in water.

Moreover, I do not believe he is referring MERELY to the future resurrection of our own physical bodies but he is primarily making a direct transition from what is seen in the likeness of water baptism to what will be seen in the likeness of our daily life due to quickening which comes to its fulfillment in the resurrection of our natural bodies. So the "resurrection" application of the "likeness" found in water baptism is not merely some distant day out in the future with regard to the ulitmate glorification of our bodies but has a direct application our own spiritual condition of a quickened life with the state of our bodies FOLLOWING CONVERSION (literal and figurative salvation) up to and including ultimate glorification. Not that water baptism obtains regeneration, but regeneration occurs jointly with justification in the past as completed actions but are carried over into water baptism in LIKENESS. In other words,just as water baptism points backward to the doctrine of justification with regard to our judicial POSITION in Christ it points forward to our regenerative CONDITION in Christ. Jointly, (position plus condition) it denies we can continue in sin and the "LIKENESS" of both are seen in water baptism. Water baptism testifies to both our judicial position and our regenerative condition which denies that the justified can continue in sin.

Baptism is a part of what it symbolizes because it is that act of submission following God giving us His Spirit (Ezekiel 36 – God cleanses us, gives us a new spirit, puts His Spirit in us, causes us to obey and we obey…..baptism represents the “we obey” part of conversion, submission to the Body of Christ, to its expression as a local church).

Here is the crux of your primary error that regeneration is a baptism. Ezekiel 36 describes regeneration in the terms of "sprinkle" not "immersion." All types of Regeneration are associated with "sprinkling" and "washing" but NEVER immersion. So your use of immersion with regeneration as a fourth category of baptism is not supported by Scriptures anywhere.

Paul deals with conversion itself through the term “baptism” as water baptism is the “capstone” of conversion.

Obviously not an ESSENTIAL "capstone" or the theif on the cross and all Pre-NT. saints are lost. So we cannot go to far with baptism or we end up with baptismal regeneration.

It was either D.A. Carson or Douglas Moo who explained Paul’s use of baptism as being a sort of shorthand for everything entailed in conversion. So when Paul speaks of baptism he is not isolating the act of water baptism. Instead he is carrying with that term all it represents. This is the purpose of symbols.

However, this interpretation is not founded upon anything the scripture actually states about water baptism but upon the interpretation that Romans 6 and Galatians 3;27 are not speaking about water baptism but about the baptism in the Spirit which is interpreted to be "redemption/salvation/baptism". For example, take away these passages as proof of your position and what do you have to make that argument? Nothing! So this is circular reasoning. My view of water baptism is correct because my view of Romans 6 and Galatians 3 is correctbut it is your view of Romans 6 and Galatians 3 that is the subject of debate, so you can't use the debated passages as proof of your position.

So Paul can rightly say that it is baptism that places us “in Christ”.

Are you admitting that "water" baptism does this, as you next phrase seems to infer you are speaking here of water baptism. If so, then you have conceded the point.

But it is not baptism alone (Paul is not isolating water baptism). It is baptism as the culmination of all that is conversion. Baptism is assumed as the final part of conversion, the act of submission of the new believer. But one’s position “in Christ” (having died, been buried, and been raised in and with Christ) is not dependent on a proper observance of this act of submission.

If you are saying what I think you are saying then you have no excuse not to admit that it is water baptism that is being used in Romans 6 and Galatians 3.

To be clear and specific – In Romans 6 Paul uses “baptism” to speak of everything that is conversion.

In other words, Paul uses baptism as a symbol to speak of what it represents (of having died, been buried, and been raised in and with Christ).

Therefore,you have no basis whatsoever, to deny water baptism is being referred to in Romans and Galatians. The only points we disagree about then is that the term "baptized" is used for regeneration and that Romans 6 is not still continuing his defense of JUSTIFICATION as our POSITION "in Christ" instead of any kind of spiritual union with Christ which is not found with regard to the word baptism but with regeneration alone.

I do believe that all Christians are “baptized in the Spirit”. I do not believe it is inseparable from conversion.

Then what is it? You still are not defining it.

Yes, the word baptism is often (more than not) used to mean something other than the ordinance of water baptism, baptism in suffering, and baptism in the Spirit.

I have a whole shelf 8 feet long with theological books from all denominational backgrounds and I have never read anyone who states this or tries to defend it. Where do you get this idea from? The term "baptizo" is never once used to explain regeneration in Scripture, never once used with types of regenration as the terms used consistently with regeneration and its types are "sprinkled" and "washed".

Paul uses “baptism” to speak of the believer as having died, been buried, and been raised in and with Christ. This is not a different baptism, but a different use than isolating water baptism from conversion.

You are speaking of SPIRITUAL UNION with Christ as a baptism thus a spiritual baptism and yet denying it is the baptism "in the Spirit." You are confusing regeneration with baptism.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm going to just stop right here, brother. We "crossed posts" as we seem to have been replying at the same time.

While I was not accusing you of believing baptismal regeneration, I was strongly and wrongly pointing in that direction. And yes, that was false of me and I do apologize. The difference is in what we consider "in Christ" to mean, and I took liberties by forcing your statements into that direction.

That said, I think we both know very well that I also am not "teaching some kind of 'baptismal regeneration'". If we are to move forward we need to do so honestly and for my shortcomings here, you do have my sincere apology.

Yes we did cross posts and I accept your apology.

However, I am not accusing you of being like CoC at all when I said you are teaching "some kind" of baptismal regeneration as you clearly are by your own admission. You stuck the term baptism in your explanation of initial salvation

JonC said: ↑
Water Baptism is a testimony of what has already occurred (redemption/salvation/baptized into Christ's death, burial and resurrection....one act, not many).

Unless you did not mean to say what it seems you are saying then you are teaching some kind of baptismal regeneation as it appears you are using the term "baptized" as an explanation of salvation or spiritual union with Christ in regeneration. You say, "water baptism is a testmony of what has already occurred" and then in parenthesis you define what has already occurred and in this alread occurred description is the word "baptized" thus implying to me that some kind of baptism has "already occurred" before baptism in water. Well, the only thing that has already occurred prior to water baptism as far as scripture is concerned is justification or our legal position "IN CHRIST" and regeneration our spiritual union with Christ or "in Christ" spiritually.

Have you mistated yourself? Have I misunderstood something?

 

[JonC]

Thanks for the apology but you still have it wrong. The CoC's relationship of baptism to the church is strictly salvational with regard to both baptism and to the church itself. In contrast my view of baptism with the church is strictly symbolic. Baptism "in Christ" meaning as a LIKENESS of the believer being baptized WITH Christ in his death, burial and resurection is purely symbolic and part of NT conversion as a reaction/consequence of gospel conversion. Membership in the church is not salvational and so the metaphor "member" and the metaphor "body of Christ" show the church is strictly REPRESENTATIVE of being metaphorically "in Christ" without any actual literal salvational intent.



Basically you have it correctly, but because of what I believe to be the real issue between us I must give further explanation and clarification if we are going to avoid an impasse in the future. So let me restate this in my own words.

"Water baptism is by immersion because of its symbolic design to convey the truth of the gospel which is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which gospel baptism points to with regard to the candidate's own previous profession in that gospel as the basis of his salvation alone. As such, baptism is part of the NT pattern of gospel conversion as "he that believeth (in the gospel) AND is baptized (in water) shall be saved (literally and figuratively). So we are baptized WITH Christ in the sense of LIKENESS "into" his death burial and resurrection, thus pubically PUTTING on Christ as it were as a garment that all can see what we beleive is our hope of salvation - the gospel of Christ.



Again, because of the issue that divides us I would rather state it more clearly in my own words:

The mode of baptism is designed to convey the gospel likeness of Christ' death, burial and resurrection. However, the audiance does not see the LITERAL Christ dying, being buried and rising again. What they see is the believer IN THE PLACE OF CHRIST ("thus "in Christ" positionally by baptism) figuratively dying, being buried and rising again. Therefore what the audience has viewed is the believer associated WITH Christ in the LIKENESS of Christ's death, burial and resurrection and therefore as a SYMBOL this is placing the believer "IN" (in the place of) Christ as a visible act.

With regard to the church. The church is not the LITERAL "body of Christ" but the METAPHORICAL body of Christ. Those received into the church are not LITERAL "members" IN his LITERAL "body" but are metaphorical "members" IN his metaphorical body. Therefore church membership is to be placed metaphorically "IN" Christ or "IN" the metaphorical body of Christ.

So water baptism and church membership provide a new dimension of being "in Christ" that never existed before the ministry of Christ. This new dimension is SYMBOLIC and METAPHORICAL but it is not salvational, as salvational "in Christ" has existed since Genesis and remains unchanged till Revelation.





Agreed, as My exposition of Mark 16:16 demonstrates. Salvation literally and symbolically as this was the NT norm in gospel conversion. However, gospel salvation is completed salvation as none prior to Christ were baptized and the thief on the cross was not baptized and so baptism is not a necessary part of literal salvation although it is a necessary part of discipleship under the Great Commission and the norm for NT conversion.




Here is precisely where I take issue with you as you make baptism something different than being baptized "with" Christ into his death burial and resurrection when that is simply not true. When the audiance view a baptism, they don't see Jesus being baptized, they see the candidate professing Jesus being baptized. The candidate is not LITERALLY dying, being buried and rising again, but what the audiance actually and literally sees is the believer IN THE PLACE of Christ and in the likeness of Christ's death, burial and resurrection. So water baptism is both baptism IN THE PLACE OF ("in" Christ) and WITH Christs burial, death and resurrection.

The point of contact between what Christ literally and actually did and what is being done in water baptism is "LIKENESS"

The context is defendind and referring to the doctrine of justifcation as the word "freed" in verse 7 is the same word consistently translated "justified" in chapters 3-5. Water baptism looks backward to our POSITION "in Christ" by justification but looks forward to regeneration in the likeness of his resurrection. That is why Paul calls on them to "RECKON" it so, as this is the same term used in Romans 4:5-11 translated "counted" "reckoned" "imputed" demonstrating it is their LEGAL POSITION "in Christ' that is in view which must be "reckoned" BY FAITH.

Baptism provides the LIKENESS of our POSITION in Christ by faith (which is in the gopsel of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ IN OUR PLACE and we IN HIS PLACE), thus baptism in likness provides a picture of being "IN Christ." So what baptism is pointing back to is not any literal spiritual union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection but is pointing back to our JUDICIAL union or with the doctrine of justification which has been the theme since Romans 3 and which Paul is now defending that will not promote sin.

However, Paul is using water baptism with regard to its LIKENESS of the resurrection of Christ to point PRESENTLY to the doctrine of regeneration which is the additional proof that those justified cannot continue in sin because justification does not occur in a vacuum but occurs simeltaneous with regeneration. Baptism is a testimony of resurrection life, not that it literally provides life (no baptismal regeneration) but that it identifies the believer with the resurrected life NOW as well as in the future. It is the NOW application that denies the justified can continue living in sin.

I don't have very much time this morning, but wanted to thank you for going through my understanding of your position.

I disagree with your position primarily because of the context of the passage in Romans 6. Paul does not conclude that this baptism is merely symbolic and puts a converted person into a true church, but that this baptism results in us being "dead to sin and alive to God in Jesus Christ." I believe Paul is clearly using baptism here to speak of conversion as a whole (just as the Resurrection implies the cross).

 

[JonC]

Yes we did cross posts and I accept your apology.

However, I am not accusing you of being like CoC at all when I said you are teaching "some kind" of baptismal regeneration as you clearly are by your own admission. You stuck the term baptism in your explanation of initial salvation

JonC said: ↑
Water Baptism is a testimony of what has already occurred (redemption/salvation/baptized into Christ's death, burial and resurrection....one act, not many).

Unless you did not mean to say what it seems you are saying then you are teaching some kind of baptismal regeneation as it appears you are using the term "baptized" as an explanation of salvation or spiritual union with Christ in regeneration. You say, "water baptism is a testmony of what has already occurred" and then in parenthesis you define what has already occurred and in this alread occurred description is the word "baptized" thus implying to me that some kind of baptism has "already occurred" before baptism in water. Well, the only thing that has already occurred prior to water baptism as far as scripture is concerned is justification or our legal position "IN CHRIST" and regeneration our spiritual union with Christ or "in Christ" spiritually.

Have you mistated yourself? Have I misunderstood something?

Perhaps I have not articulated my position well. This is what I believe -

When a person is saved, God "sprinkles clean water on them and they are clean" (Forgiveness).
God takes out their old heart and gives them a new one. He gives them a new spirit (Regeneration)
God puts His Spirit in them, and causes them to walk in his statutes (indwelling of the Spirit)
And they obey are to obey His ordinances (repentance and belief, submission, and water baptism as an act of obedience and submission through the work of the Spirit).

I believe that this is conversion. And I would place water baptism as a step in this "process" with the note that conversion itself is not dependent on our obedience. If God has given some a new spirit/ forgiven them/ put His Spirit in them then they are "dead to sin and alive to Christ"...exactly what Paul gives as the result of our baptism in Him.

So, to clarify, we are not regenerated by water baptism (we are not put "in Christ" by water baptism). But we can use, as Paul does, "baptism" to speak of conversion itself as a whole. In that way, yes, one must believe and "be baptized" to be saved (one must have died and been buried "with" Christ, dead to sin and alive to God). I absolutely agree that the conversion encapsulated in baptism is essential to salvation. And there are some who are "in Christ" (they are alive to God in Jesus Christ...i.e., they are saved) but remain disobedient to the command to be baptized (water baptism).

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't have very much time this morning, but wanted to thank you for going through my understanding of your position.

I disagree with your position primarily because of the context of the passage in Romans 6. Paul does not conclude that this baptism is merely symbolic and puts a converted person into a true church, but that this baptism results in us being "dead to sin and alive to God in Jesus Christ." I believe Paul is clearly using baptism here to speak of conversion as a whole (just as the Resurrection implies the cross).

However, the issue in the context is not the church and so we should not expect to read it places the believer in the church in this context. The contextual issue is can a person who is justified by grace without works, where sin abounded the justifying grace of God more abounded, does that doctrine promote contining in sin.

In order to properly understand Romand 6:4-6 you must understand this is a transition text between the doctrine of justification and the doctrine of regeneration. Paul's point is that justification is without works but it does not occur in a vacuum apart from regenration which produces good works. That is his primary aim.

Now, how would the use of water baptism aide Paul in proving this point? Like any good teacher, he starts with an illustration to prove his point. Water baptism is a fantastic pictorial illustration to prove that justification and regeneration occur jointly together but are yet distinct from one another. Why baptism? Beause baptism provides a picture to the audiance and to the candidate of both the basis for our LEGAL POSITION "in Christ" by faith IN THE GOSPEL of Christ.The audiance does not see the literal Christ dying, being buried and rising again in baptism, but they see the beleiver IN THE PLACE OF Christ dying, being buried and rising again thus showing OUR LEGAL POSITION IN CHRIST by justification and so baptism illustrates pictorially "in Christ" by justification.

In addition baptism depicts the believing rising from the grave with Christ as the audience view the believer IN THE PLACE of Christ being raised up. The resurrection of the body is the final and ultimate hope of the believer at the coming of Christ, but that is not the point Paul is trying to make in this context. He is trying to show that the resurrection of the body of Christ identified in "likeness" in water baptism has immediate application to the believer and his "body of sin" that judically was put to death in Christ positionally which now can be put to death IN PRACTICE by simply reckoning so, based on the indwelling quickening power of the Spriit.

So the future tense in verse 6 is future from the aspect of intial salvation with regard to the DAILY LIFE of the believer demonstrating he cannot continue in sin because of the direct application of resurrection to the present "body of sin" and not merely with it judicially or at glorification but right now in this present life between regeneration and glorification.

Baptism as an illustration brings together in one picture both the doctrine of justification or our legal position "in Christ" due to faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ AND the doctrine of regeneration or our "in Christ" by spiritual union as the source of quickening power over 'the body of death" still present with us, which we must "reckon" to be dead BECAUSE IT IS NOT LITERALLY DEAD.

 

[The Biblicist]

Perhaps I have not articulated my position well. This is what I believe -

When a person is saved, God "sprinkles clean water on them and they are clean" (Forgiveness).
God takes out their old heart and gives them a new one. He gives them a new spirit (Regeneration)
God puts His Spirit in them, and causes them to walk in his statutes (indwelling of the Spirit)
And they obey are to obey His ordinances (repentance and belief, submission, and water baptism as an act of obedience and submission through the work of the Spirit).

I believe that this is conversion. And I would place water baptism as a step in this "process" with the note that conversion itself is not dependent on our obedience. If God has given some a new spirit/ forgiven them/ put His Spirit in them then they are "dead to sin and alive to Christ"...exactly what Paul gives as the result of our baptism in Him.

So far so good!

So, to clarify, we are not regenerated by water baptism (we are not put "in Christ" by water baptism). But we can use, as Paul does, "baptism" to speak of conversion itself as a whole. In that way, yes, one must believe and "be baptized" to be saved (one must have died and been buried "with" Christ, dead to sin and alive to God). I absolutely agree that the conversion encapsulated in baptism is essential to salvation. And there are some who are "in Christ" (they are alive to God in Jesus Christ...i.e., they are saved) but remain disobedient to the command to be baptized (water baptism).

Here is where things get muddy from my perspective in undestanding what you are saying. Let me use your words but with my inserts of clarification to see if I understand your meaning.

"So, to clarify, we are not regenerated by water baptism

Of course I never thought you meant that at all. I was referring to your use of baptism in your explanation of initial salvation.

(we are not put "in Christ" by water baptism]..."

I understand this simply of a repeat of the first sentence above. You simply don't believe in baptismal regeneration as you define "in Christ" to mean spiritual union with Christ. Correct?

But we can use, as Paul does, "baptism" to speak of conversion itself as a whole.

Now here is where things get muddy for me. Are you saying the term "baptism" NOT the ACT or the DOCTRINE or GOSPEL SYMBOLISM of WATER BAPTISM but the TERM "baptism" is used as a synonym for the entire ACT and DOCTRINE of converion distinct and apart from the ACT and DOCTRINE and GOSPEL SYMBOLISM of water baptism???? In other words, Paul has divorced the term 'baptized" from the ACT and DOCTRINE [right mode, right design, right candidate, etc.) of baptism in water and now is using it as simply a synonym for conversion?Therefore, the TERM "baptized" in Romans 6 and Galatians3:27 and 1 Peter 3;21 has NOTHING to do with the ACT or DOCTRINE and GOSPEL SYMBOLISM of water baptism as in right mode, right candidate, right design or right authority but it is entirely divorced from the ACT and DOCTRINE and GOSPEL SYMBOLISM of water baptism as much as the "baptism in the Spirit' is entirely divorced from the ACT and DOCTRINE and GOSPEL SYMBOLISM of water baptism or baptism in suffering is entirely divorced from ACT and DOCTRINE of water baptism?

Or are you saying the ACT and DOCTRINE of water baptism additionally takes on the synonymous meaning of the act and doctrine of gospel conversion including regeneration and justification and thus is now a synonym for the ACTS and DOCTRINES plural of regeneration, justification, water baptism progressive sanctification and glorification????

If it is inclusive of all these acts and doctrines then

 

[The Biblicist]

Perhaps I have not articulated my position well..

BTW Jon, when I place words in all capitals or in bold in all capitals, I am not screaming. That is my way to make sure you don't overlook what I think is important. It is merely my way to emphasize something that I deem important and I don't want it overlooked.

 

[The Biblicist]

So far so good!



Here is where things get muddy from my perspective in undestanding what you are saying. Let me use your words but with my inserts of clarification to see if I understand your meaning.


Of course I never thought you meant that at all. I was referring to your use of baptism in your explanation of initial salvation.






I understand this simply of a repeat of the first sentence above. You simply don't believe in baptismal regeneration as you define "in Christ" to mean spiritual union with Christ. Correct?



Now here is where things get muddy for me. Are you saying the term "baptism" NOT the ACT or the DOCTRINE or GOSPEL SYMBOLISM of WATER BAPTISM but the TERM "baptism" is used as a synonym for the entire ACT and DOCTRINE of converion distinct and apart from the ACT and DOCTRINE and GOSPEL SYMBOLISM of water baptism???? In other words, Paul has divorced the term 'baptized" from the ACT and DOCTRINE [right mode, right design, right candidate, etc.) of baptism in water and now is using it as simply a synonym for conversion?Therefore, the TERM "baptized" in Romans 6 and Galatians3:27 and 1 Peter 3;21 has NOTHING to do with the ACT or DOCTRINE and GOSPEL SYMBOLISM of water baptism as in right mode, right candidate, right design or right authority but it is entirely divorced from the ACT and DOCTRINE and GOSPEL SYMBOLISM of water baptism as much as the "baptism in the Spirit' is entirely divorced from the ACT and DOCTRINE and GOSPEL SYMBOLISM of water baptism or baptism in suffering is entirely divorced from ACT and DOCTRINE of water baptism?

Or are you saying the ACT and DOCTRINE of water baptism additionally takes on the synonymous meaning of the act and doctrine of gospel conversion including regeneration and justification and thus is now a synonym for the ACTS and DOCTRINES plural of regeneration, justification, water baptism progressive sanctification and glorification????

If it is inclusive of all these acts and doctrines then

Let me point out some serious problems to your use of baptism the "shorthand" of salvation. Your entire basis for this definition is based upon the relationship of NT water baptism with salvation. Therefore, this cannot be read back into the OT. There is no OT relationship between salvation and baptism as regeneration is linked with only "sprinkled" and "washed" but never immersion.

Therefore, your problem remains the same. You cannot define "in Christ" by NT institutions and then read them back prior to the NT. Spiritual union with Christ defined as "in Christ" cannot be one way after the cross and another way before the cross as what is sufficient prior to the cross for spiritual union to occur is sufficient after the cross. If not, then there is no "in Christ" spiritual union prior to the cross which means none were saved at all in any sense because all spiritual blessings are found ONLY "in Christ".

 

[JonC]

So far so good!



Here is where things get muddy from my perspective in undestanding what you are saying. Let me use your words but with my inserts of clarification to see if I understand your meaning.


Of course I never thought you meant that at all. I was referring to your use of baptism in your explanation of initial salvation.






I understand this simply of a repeat of the first sentence above. You simply don't believe in baptismal regeneration as you define "in Christ" to mean spiritual union with Christ. Correct?



Now here is where things get muddy for me. Are you saying the term "baptism" NOT the ACT or the DOCTRINE or GOSPEL SYMBOLISM of WATER BAPTISM but the TERM "baptism" is used as a synonym for the entire ACT and DOCTRINE of converion distinct and apart from the ACT and DOCTRINE and GOSPEL SYMBOLISM of water baptism???? In other words, Paul has divorced the term 'baptized" from the ACT and DOCTRINE [right mode, right design, right candidate, etc.) of baptism in water and now is using it as simply a synonym for conversion?Therefore, the TERM "baptized" in Romans 6 and Galatians3:27 and 1 Peter 3;21 has NOTHING to do with the ACT or DOCTRINE and GOSPEL SYMBOLISM of water baptism as in right mode, right candidate, right design or right authority but it is entirely divorced from the ACT and DOCTRINE and GOSPEL SYMBOLISM of water baptism as much as the "baptism in the Spirit' is entirely divorced from the ACT and DOCTRINE and GOSPEL SYMBOLISM of water baptism or baptism in suffering is entirely divorced from ACT and DOCTRINE of water baptism?

Or are you saying the ACT and DOCTRINE of water baptism additionally takes on the synonymous meaning of the act and doctrine of gospel conversion including regeneration and justification and thus is now a synonym for the ACTS and DOCTRINES plural of regeneration, justification, water baptism progressive sanctification and glorification????

If it is inclusive of all these acts and doctrines then

Yes. I am saying that Paul uses “baptism” (the word) as sort of a short hand to speak of conversion and all that it includes. It is not Paul divorcing the meaning of “baptism” from the act because the act of water baptism always assumed conversion as a whole. Conversion includes baptism as that act of submission or obedience symbolizing what has been done (to include water baptism itself).

What I am saying is that Paul assumes water baptism by immersion. It would be just as foreign to the early church for someone to believe, confess Jesus, and not be baptized by immersion as it would for someone to be a Christian but not a member of a local assembly. I am suggesting that you are interpreting Paul via a scenario that was foreign to the early church.

Remember, baptism was foreign to neither the Jews nor the Gentiles. Jews required of Gentile converts three things – sacrifice, circumcision, and baptism. Surrounding pagan religions required of converts a ritualistic death and resurrection into their faith. So the idea of baptism was not a new idea to these people.

I am not saying that the act of baptism takes on anything “additional”. I am saying that the act of water baptism always symbolized conversion as a whole. It always represented the believer’s death, burial and resurrection with Christ (dead to sin, alive to God in Christ). It is not water baptism itself that places one “in Christ”, but the conversion it represents as a whole.