"In Christ" What does it mean and How?

[JonC]

You cannot define "in Christ" by NT institutions and then read them back prior to the NT.

Sure I can. In fact, we do this all the time. The OT foreshadowed the New Covenant yet the new was not completely revealed by the old. This is how Jesus could say that Abraham longed to see His day. And this is how God can call His Son the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. This is how some, erroneously, use the Law.

One cannot understand the New Testament divorced from the Old. It is not "reading back" but realizing the Truth foreshadowed by the in the Old Testament. This is how we can say that saving faith has always been in Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sure I can. In fact, we do this all the time. The OT foreshadowed the New Covenant yet the new was not completely revealed by the old. This is how Jesus could say that Abraham longed to see His day. And this is how God can call His Son the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. This is how some, erroneously, use the Law.

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

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

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

 

[JonC]

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

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

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

Not at all, brother.

The difference is not predicting a type of regeneration connected with immersion at all. That's what I mean when I say you are missing the forest for the trees. The point is the other way around.

It is not that the true thing refers to the symbol, but the symbol refers to the true thing. Water baptism by immersion refers to exactly the same salvation (being made dead to sin and alive to God in Jesus Christ) to which the Old Testament alluded. The New Testament introduced a New Covenant, not a New Salvation. It all points to the same thing, redemption in Jesus Christ. This, brother, is what you are missing and why your heremeneutical approach can only be regarded as eisegesis.

 

[The Biblicist]

It is not that the true thing refers to the symbol, but the symbol refers to the true thing. Water baptism by immersion refers to exactly the same salvation (being made dead to sin and alive to God in Jesus Christ) to which the Old Testament alluded. The New Testament introduced a New Covenant, not a New Salvation. It all points to the same thing, redemption in Jesus Christ. This, brother, is what you are missing and why your heremeneutical approach can only be regarded as eisegesis.

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

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

 

[The Biblicist]

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

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

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

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

 

[JonC]

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

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

Well, no. The idea that Paul was using "baptism" to mean what it symbolizes is not a new idea in theology at all.

Moo published his conclusion that Paul used "baptism" to mean all that conversion includes 15 years ago. 23 years ago John Stott noted “baptism does not by itself secure what it signifies. To be sure, the New Testament speaks of baptism in terms of our washing away of our sins, our clothing ourselves with Christ, and even of our being saved by it, but these are examples of dynamic language which attributes to visible signs the blessings of the reality signified.”

And, of course, we have Paul who specifically uses baptism to speak of the believer as dying to sin, alive to God in Christ Jesus.

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, no. The idea that Paul was using "baptism" to mean what it symbolizes is not a new idea in theology at all.

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

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

 

[The Biblicist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[The Biblicist]

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

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

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

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

 

[JonC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I hold a picture of my son and speak to you of my love for the boy, would you think my love was for the child or the photograph?

That is my disagreement here. There are examples throughout Scripture of using one thing for what it represents. Paul does it with the cross (which he takes as inclusive of a more complete work than a physical death). And he does it with baptism as well. In fact, as Romans continues we are more and more being assumed as it has already been explained (Paul doesn't keep emphasizing faith after it has already been established, but moves on to obedience with faith implied).

I agree Paul is using baptism to show people that they cannot continue in sin. But the reason he gives is not water baptism itself but the entire conversion it represents. We are dead to sin, alive to God in Christ Jesus.

 

[The Biblicist]

If I hold a picture of my son and speak to you of my love for the boy, would you think my love was for the child or the photograph?

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

I agree Paul is using baptism to show people that they cannot continue in sin. But the reason he gives is not water baptism itself but the entire conversion it represents. We are dead to sin, alive to God in Christ Jesus.

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

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

 

[JonC]

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





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

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

Thank you also for the dialogue. I know that it can get aggravating when someone simply sees things differently, but I think that there is value in such discussions.

I, of course, disagree that water baptism fails to convey the gospel truth of regeneration. From my understanding, this is one of the primary points it communicates as the believer dies to sin and is alive in God through Christ. I just believe that Paul, when he uses the term "baptism" in Romans 6, is referring specifically to this baptism into Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (death and burial to our former selves, and alive to God in Christ). This is the reason that Paul urges believers not to sin.

But as I stated earlier (I think I stated it anyway....if not, it was my intention), I am not here to change your mind but to explain my understanding and learn of yours. And I am grateful for the opportunity we have had to discuss this topic as brothers in Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

Bro.Jon,

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

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

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

 

[JonC]

Bro.Jon,

Some final questions that have been unanswered. Douglas Moo and those whom you draw your "shorthand" theory on baptism from freely admit that such passages as Romans 6:4-6 do refer to water baptism (found in the very quote you sent me) and yet you have stated that this passage does not refer to either of three baptisms I had listed (water, Spirit, suffering) and so you are at odds with the very ones you draw your very arguments from. They admit that water baptism is the very basis for their "shorthand" view while you adopt their view and language but reject the very basis upon which their theory and language is based. Can you explain why you adopt their theory and their language but repudiate the very basis upon which their language and theory is based?

I can try.

Quite simply, I do not disagree with those whom I have agreed. When I said that Paul is not talking about water baptism I meant it in the context that you were talking about water baptism. I agree that the word Paul uses refers to baptism (water baptism). In fact, that was my point.

When we see the word “baptism” we should automatically think “water baptism” unless it is stated otherwise. But my point was not that this was a different kind of baptism, but that Paul was using the word here to refer to what water baptism stood for and not the act itself. Perhaps my error was saying that Paul was not speaking “of” water baptism. He was speaking of baptism to speak about what it represented.

This is what you object to as a new invention in theology. Yet we have others, such as Douglas Moo, John Stott, and F.F. Bruce saying the same thing.

F.F. Bruce, noting that in “apostolic times baptism appears to have followed immediately on confession of faith in Christ”, wrote that “faith in Christ and baptism were, indeed, not so much two distinct experiences as parts of one whole.” Water baptism is done “in token that they had received a new life, which was nothing less than participation in Christ’s own resurrection life”. F.F. Bruce also defines Paul’s use of being baptized into Christ as meaning that “you have been incorporated in him, have become members of his body, and so have shared by faith-union with him those experiences which were his historically: his crucifixion and burial, his resurrection and exaltation.” (F.F. Bruce, Romans, 140-143).

Like these men, I am saying the same thing. Yes, Paul is using the term that identifies with “water baptism”. But he is using that term to mean conversion – that is, being incorporated with Christ, in Christ, in His death, burial and resurrection.

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

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

We read different text books. If we are relying on textbook theology, then I’ve offered three that disagree with your definition – Douglas Moo, John Stott, and F.F. Bruce. I doubt it would be difficult to find more, but that really isn’t the point.

As I said in post# 29, I believe that baptism in the Spirit is a part of conversion that all believers experience. I apologize if that, and subsequent definitions I’ve offered, were not clear (they were in with other texts, so I can certainly understand why my lack of clarity would have appeared as a failure to answer).

Jesus told Nicodemus that one must be born of water and Spirit. I believe that Jesus was point to Ezekiel 36, and in that passage were are given several “components” which are a part of one act of God. God will cleanse us, forgive us, take out our old hearts and give us new ones, give us a new spirit (regeneration). God will also put his Spirit in us and cause us to walk in his statutes (this is what I would call “baptism of the Spirit”). And we will be careful to obey God’s ordinances (this is our part, the part of submission in faithful obedience to God, which is through the Spirit). All of this is conversion, and all of this is based on God’s redemptive work through His Son Jesus Christ. All of this can be vied as a death, burial and resurrection. We die with Christ to sin and are alive to God in Christ Jesus (Rm. 6:11). Water baptism is not only that act of submission, but it is a symbol of what has occurred.

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

Yes. I have not “adopted” their theory. As I studied Paul it became very obvious that he was using baptism (water baptism) to mean that which it symbolizes. It was very clear that Paul was speaking of being baptized into and with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. What made it even more clear was his conclusion that this resulted in us having “died to sin” and that we are now “alive to God in Christ Jesus”.

I believe that as we study we also consider what others have said on the topic. If we hold a unique position, it is most likely wrong (you, brother, seem to hold a unique position within Baptist theology). So I referenced a few scholars that I respect insofar as discernment. I read Douglas Moo, John Stott, F.F. Bruce and Leon Morris (who also identifies Paul as using baptism here to represent dying to sin and our old live to live to God in Christ).

Like these scholars, but not because of these men, I believe that Paul is speaking “of” water baptism to speak “about” what is represents – a death, burial, and resurrection in and with Christ (just as we had sinned “in and with” Adam).

I believe that you are exceeding biblical grounds by referring to conversion as “baptism in the Spirit” and by defining Paul’s baptism into Christ in Roman 6 as a baptism into church membership. You have said your view is the “classic textbook definition”. I have provided four scholars that disagree. When you have the time, will you please point me to some who advocate your interpretation that I may reference?

 

[The Biblicist]

I can try.

Quite simply, I do not disagree with those whom I have agreed. When I said that Paul is not talking about water baptism I meant it in the context that you were talking about water baptism. I agree that the word Paul uses refers to baptism (water baptism). In fact, that was my point.

When we see the word “baptism” we should automatically think “water baptism” unless it is stated otherwise. But my point was not that this was a different kind of baptism, but that Paul was using the word here to refer to what water baptism stood for and not the act itself. Perhaps my error was saying that Paul was not speaking “of” water baptism. He was speaking of baptism to speak about what it represented.

This is what you object to as a new invention in theology. Yet we have others, such as Douglas Moo, John Stott, and F.F. Bruce saying the same thing.

F.F. Bruce, noting that in “apostolic times baptism appears to have followed immediately on confession of faith in Christ”, wrote that “faith in Christ and baptism were, indeed, not so much two distinct experiences as parts of one whole.” Water baptism is done “in token that they had received a new life, which was nothing less than participation in Christ’s own resurrection life”. F.F. Bruce also defines Paul’s use of being baptized into Christ as meaning that “you have been incorporated in him, have become members of his body, and so have shared by faith-union with him those experiences which were his historically: his crucifixion and burial, his resurrection and exaltation.” (F.F. Bruce, Romans, 140-143).

Like these men, I am saying the same thing. Yes, Paul is using the term that identifies with “water baptism”. But he is using that term to mean conversion – that is, being incorporated with Christ, in Christ, in His death, burial and resurrection.



We read different text books. If we are relying on textbook theology, then I’ve offered three that disagree with your definition – Douglas Moo, John Stott, and F.F. Bruce. I doubt it would be difficult to find more, but that really isn’t the point.

As I said in post# 29, I believe that baptism in the Spirit is a part of conversion that all believers experience. I apologize if that, and subsequent definitions I’ve offered, were not clear (they were in with other texts, so I can certainly understand why my lack of clarity would have appeared as a failure to answer).

Jesus told Nicodemus that one must be born of water and Spirit. I believe that Jesus was point to Ezekiel 36, and in that passage were are given several “components” which are a part of one act of God. God will cleanse us, forgive us, take out our old hearts and give us new ones, give us a new spirit (regeneration). God will also put his Spirit in us and cause us to walk in his statutes (this is what I would call “baptism of the Spirit”). And we will be careful to obey God’s ordinances (this is our part, the part of submission in faithful obedience to God, which is through the Spirit). All of this is conversion, and all of this is based on God’s redemptive work through His Son Jesus Christ. All of this can be vied as a death, burial and resurrection. We die with Christ to sin and are alive to God in Christ Jesus (Rm. 6:11). Water baptism is not only that act of submission, but it is a symbol of what has occurred.



Yes. I have not “adopted” their theory. As I studied Paul it became very obvious that he was using baptism (water baptism) to mean that which it symbolizes. It was very clear that Paul was speaking of being baptized into and with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. What made it even more clear was his conclusion that this resulted in us having “died to sin” and that we are now “alive to God in Christ Jesus”.

I believe that as we study we also consider what others have said on the topic. If we hold a unique position, it is most likely wrong (you, brother, seem to hold a unique position within Baptist theology). So I referenced a few scholars that I respect insofar as discernment. I read Douglas Moo, John Stott, F.F. Bruce and Leon Morris (who also identifies Paul as using baptism here to represent dying to sin and our old live to live to God in Christ).

Like these scholars, but not because of these men, I believe that Paul is speaking “of” water baptism to speak “about” what is represents – a death, burial, and resurrection in and with Christ (just as we had sinned “in and with” Adam).

I believe that you are exceeding biblical grounds by referring to conversion as “baptism in the Spirit” and by defining Paul’s baptism into Christ in Roman 6 as a baptism into church membership. You have said your view is the “classic textbook definition”. I have provided four scholars that disagree. When you have the time, will you please point me to some who advocate your interpretation that I may reference?

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

 

[The Biblicist]

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

 

[The Biblicist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JonC]

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

I am sorry that you believed me to be attacking your position as that was far from my intent. I hope that my reply has clarified those questions that you asked of me. If not, then I would gladly respond to any more that you may have.

I will also clarify that I have never "misrepresented your view". I did not see the need to keep on repeating that when I state your position it is always open for correction. I said this at the start and I will say it again. When I state my understanding of your position it is always with the intent that you will correct any misunderstandings - not with the intent to prescribe or assign a belief to you.

Simply put (I hope), I believe that Paul in Romans 6 is speaking of water baptism to speak about the believer's death, burial and resurrection in and with Christ, with the Cross in view, and the effect of dying to sin and being made alive to God in Christ.

This is what Paul states and this is what I believe. It is not something foreign to Christian theology as others (at least, Moo, Morris, Bruce, and Stott) has said the same. I do not feel the need to go beyond Paul by inserting the doctrine of the local church. I told you before, I believe that you are reading another position into the text.

That said, I will ask again - you have stated that your position is the classic textbook definition and mine is new to the scene. I offered others, going back 47 years, who also believe that in Romans 6 Paul is speaking of the believer's "death, burial and resurrection" in conversion. Who are those textbook scholars who deny that baptism in Romans 6 refers to the believer's experience of salvation, the believer dying to sin and made alive to God in Christ, to explain why we turn from sin? You keep on stating it, you keep on saying that the "classic textbook" explanation, that our view is new, etc. but as of yet have declined to offer a source. So I ask yet again, who are these who support your view?

 

[The Biblicist]

. Who are those textbook scholars who deny that baptism in Romans 6 refers to the believer's experience of salvation, the believer dying to sin and made alive to God in Christ, to explain why we turn from sin? You keep on stating it, you keep on saying that the "classic textbook" explanation, that our view is new, etc. but as of yet have declined to offer a source. So I ask yet again, who are these who support your view?

You have crafted your question very deftly. What you are challenging me to show is something quite different than what I claimed. You want me to show repudiation of YOUR position rather than historical affirmation of MY position. I claimed that Romans 6:4-6 has been interpreted far longer back in history than your view in the past 60 or so years. I don't know why you ask me to prove this as you know very well I can cite historical evidence from Landmark Baptist scholars well over a 100 years that support my position. I can cite the minutes of the associational minutes of English Baptist between 1600 and 1660 that support water baptism and its gospel symbolism is expressed in Romans 6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JonC]

I must restate my interpretation of Romans 6:4-6 again[snip]

There is much, brother, that we can agree upon. Where we differ is not in water baptism itself, but how Paul is using water baptism in Romans 6.

For one (and as Leon Morris points out in his commentary), Paul NEVER says that baptism symbolizes us “taking the place of Christ”. We are baptized in Christ, into his death, burial and resurrection. We identify “in and with” Christ as we had once identified “in and with” Adam in sin. But baptism does not symbolize man “standing in the place” of Christ. This is error. Baptism symbolizes man, NOT dying to bear sin or as a punishment for sin, but dying TO sin in Christ. You may want to rethink that comment.

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

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

It has been said that heresy is “almost truth”. That is why it takes root. There is no passage of scripture, no baptism, no Christian doctrine, no teaching of the true church, that would claim that baptism even approaches symbolizing a point where “the believer TAKES THE PLACE OF CHRIST”. This is not what “in Christ” means.

We are baptized in Christ – in His death, burial and resurrection. THIS IS WHAT BAPTISM SYMBOLIZES – The death, burial, and resurrection IN Christ whereby Paul can say that you have died to sin and are alive to God in Christ so how can you continue sinning. This is not figurative. This is not metaphoric. This is literal conversion, literal salvation, literal life.

.... in reality your "new" view ...

And here we are again. My “new view”. I have offered 50 years of scholarship and Paul’s own words as references. We’ve looked at F.F. Bruce, Douglas Moo, Leon Morris, and John Stott. When you asked, I even took the time to go to my home, to look up and type out the content for you. You have claimed that your position is the “textbook” position, but have failed to even show one person who supports your theories. All I am asking for is a couple of references of scholars who interpret Romans 6 in accordance with your position.

.... in reality your "new" view is nothing more than what Sacramentalists do with the Lord's Supper, They MERGE the symbolism with the REALITY

Again, this is the difference between us. I believe that our baptism into Christ is reality, not something to be interpreted into a local church. I believe that God really does re-create us and that we are literally people that we once were not. I do not see conversion as a metaphysical event to be literally expressed in the local church. I see conversion as a supernatural and literal work of God that results with believers dying to sin and being made alive to God in Christ, and this expressed in the life of the local church.