"In Christ" What does it mean and How?

[JonShaff]

Let me also put this into perspective

Now, don't get me wrong, certain teachings and ideologies need to be hashed out, debated, articulated, figured out, etc. I'm cool with that, The LORD has put it into my brain and heart to cipher these things out as well.

But there comes a point where you have to ask yourself, "Am i wasting too much energy when i could be sharing the Gospel or making disciples?"

Don't get me wrong, that's not to say, "These boards are a waste of time." Because they are not. I'm just saying i've kept up with Most of the thread and for me, as a student trying to look at two Christians who are more mature and knowledgeable of the Word than i, i cannnot find much fruit to be picked out and enjoyed. I'm just sayin'

Maybe i'm wrong.

 

[Yeshua1]

The reader should see easily that Jon has had no substantive response for my interpretations of Galatians 3:26-27 or 1 Peter. 3:21. Instead Jon has reduced himself to condescending rhetoric, name calling as the primary substance of his responses.

Paul seemed to use water Baptism though as the sign that pointed to the saved beingspiritual baptized now into Christ!

 

[JonC]

Are you so utterly and completely blinded by your contempt of me that you can't even understand what you have read from my posts many different times? I have repeated over and over again that the symbolism in baptism is of real salvation and those truths are being applied in the text.

I have no contempt for you at all. Up to a point, I thought that we were having a good (but lively and sometimes over the top) discussion.

That changed when you declared, after me clarifying my position, that I rejected water baptism as an ordinance in Romans 6. I just wanted to see how you would react if I did the same to you. Chalk it up to exploration.

Now, you are being wholly deceptive and misleading. You know very well when I asked you point blank if the word, the term "baptized" is used in the New Testament for more than (1) in water; (2) in Spirit; (3) in suffering that you answed YES, and then said the term is used as "shorthand" in Romans 6, Gal. 3; 1 Peter 3 for the truths symbolized in water baptism but the ACT or water baptism is not the subject or is not being referred to in those texts.

My answer is the same. Water baptism is symbolic of the believer’s death, burial and resurrection in Christ. It symbolizes conversion under the New Covenant to include that act of submission in obedience to God as a result of His work of redemption – that is, water baptism itself.

You asked me if the word “baptized” was used for more than in water, Spirit, and suffering. And I answered “Yes” because it is also used for what it symbolizes (the reality baptism points to). I thought that this was obvious because this is the purpose of symbols. When you say something represents something else, then it is implied that it can be used to represent that something.

I believe that when Paul uses the word “baptized” he is using the term “water baptism” (an ordinance). But I believe that he is using that term for what it represents (the believers death, burial and resurrection in Christ,.i.e., the justification for saying we are dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus). As an ordinance baptism points to this reality.

Have you now changed your mind and come to my position which is that water baptism is what he is referring to ALONG WITH its symbolism and APPLICATION of true salvation??

No, I haven’t changed my mind. Paul is referring to water baptism here, but he does not intend it to be seen in isolation but as a part of a larger set of events to include especially faith ,repentance, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. We come to Christ in faith, God gives us His Spirit and we submit to water baptism. And this – not water baptism by itself – brings us into union with Christ.

The reader should see easily that Jon has had no substantive response for my interpretations of Galatians 3:26-27 or 1 Peter. 3:21. Instead Jon has reduced himself to condescending rhetoric, name calling as the primary substance of his responses.

This is the dumbest thing you’ve said so far. I have not reduced myself to condescending rhetoric and name calling. It comes natural – no reduction needed. And welcome to the club.

 

[JonShaff]

Like, I said, it sad that you have so little spiritual discernment. It is one thing to call a position heretical, it is another thing to call the other person a "fool" and "childish" and speak condescending toward the very person. I don't think you will find that I have ever used such langauge with regard to his person. However, forgive me for condescending to even defend myself as that is immature as well.

Please explain how i have little spiritual discernment? Please detail this out for me.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not to take away from this thread, but something keeps prodding my brain...At what point does, "Avoid foolish questions," come into play?

Please explain to me what you mean by this and who you are referring to that is asking foolish questions?

 

[The Biblicist]

Please explain how i have little spiritual discernment? Please detail this out for me.

I just did. You can't discern between calling a doctrine or position heretical and attacking the person of the debater DIRECTLY as "fool" and "childish" and other personal condescending language or else you would not even made the comment you did as it shows you lacked discernment at least in that area.

 

[JonShaff]

I just did. You can't discern between calling a doctrine or position heretical and attacking the person of the debater DIRECTLY as "fool" and "childish" and other personal condescending language or else you would not even made the comment you did as it shows you lacked discernment at least in that area.

check PM..i don't want to derail....

 

[The Biblicist]

I have no contempt for you at all. Up to a point, I thought that we were having a good (but lively and sometimes over the top) discussion.

That changed when you declared, after me clarifying my position, that I rejected water baptism as an ordinance in Romans 6.

I made no such charge and never have. Go back and read it again and this time read carefully. I charged you with denying the ordinance is being directly addressed in that passage as you have said the term "baptized" in that passage was merely the "shorthand" for salvation that baptism symbolized but the ordinance was not meant by the term "baptized."

You asked me if the word “baptized” was used for more than in water, Spirit, and suffering. And I answered “Yes” because it is also used for what it symbolizes (the reality baptism points to). I thought that this was obvious because this is the purpose of symbols. When you say something represents something else, then it is implied that it can be used to represent that something.

Again, you are stating a half truth. You also claimed the term did not signify the ordinance was the actual subject of the text and the term "baptized" was merely "shorthand" for the salvation behind the ordinance.

I believe that when Paul uses the word “baptized” he is using the term “water baptism” (an ordinance). But I believe that he is using that term for what it represents (the believers death, burial and resurrection in Christ,.i.e., the justification for saying we are dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus). As an ordinance baptism points to this reality.

If that is what you have believed all the time then why are you arguing with me when I say water baptism and its symbolism is what these texts are referring to ALONG WITH application of the truths symbolized???? I have never said anything different. My interpretations of the text demonstrate I have never meant anything different. So, the term "baptized" is not "shorthand" but is a direct reference to either baptism "in water" or "in Spirit" or "in suffering" with contextual based applications?????

This is the dumbest thing you’ve said so far. I have not reduced myself to condescending rhetoric and name calling. It comes natural – no reduction needed. And welcome to the club.

I can can read too! I have never used the term "fool" and by clear inference applied to you. Where is the substance of your response to the contextual based evidences I provided in Galatians 3:26-27 or 1 Pet. 3:20-21? Where are they?, I have not read them? where are they? I have read your ridicule but no substantive responses!

 

[The Biblicist]

check PM..i don't want to derail....

I don't know what you mean by PM. However, I don't want to derail this thread either. Let's just agree to drop the matter, if that is ok with you?

 

[JonShaff]

I don't know what you mean by PM. However, I don't want to derail this thread either. Let's just agree to drop the matter, if that is ok with you?

absolutely. PM..private messages...i sent you a private message

 

[Yeshua1]

I have no contempt for you at all. Up to a point, I thought that we were having a good (but lively and sometimes over the top) discussion.

That changed when you declared, after me clarifying my position, that I rejected water baptism as an ordinance in Romans 6. I just wanted to see how you would react if I did the same to you. Chalk it up to exploration.

My answer is the same. Water baptism is symbolic of the believer’s death, burial and resurrection in Christ. It symbolizes conversion under the New Covenant to include that act of submission in obedience to God as a result of His work of redemption – that is, water baptism itself.

You asked me if the word “baptized” was used for more than in water, Spirit, and suffering. And I answered “Yes” because it is also used for what it symbolizes (the reality baptism points to). I thought that this was obvious because this is the purpose of symbols. When you say something represents something else, then it is implied that it can be used to represent that something.

I believe that when Paul uses the word “baptized” he is using the term “water baptism” (an ordinance). But I believe that he is using that term for what it represents (the believers death, burial and resurrection in Christ,.i.e., the justification for saying we are dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus). As an ordinance baptism points to this reality.
No, I haven’t changed my mind. Paul is referring to water baptism here, but he does not intend it to be seen in isolation but as a part of a larger set of events to include especially faith ,repentance, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. We come to Christ in faith, God gives us His Spirit and we submit to water baptism. And this – not water baptism by itself – brings us into union with Christ.
This is the dumbest thing you’ve said so far. I have not reduced myself to condescending rhetoric and name calling. It comes natural – no reduction needed. And welcome to the club.

Well, at least we seem to be on same position, see posting 122!

 

[JonC]

Like, I said, it sad that you have so little spiritual discernment. It is one thing to call a position heretical, it is another thing to call the other person a "fool" and "childish" and speak condescending toward the very person. I don't think you will find that I have ever used such langauge with regard to his person. However, forgive me for condescending to even defend myself as that is immature as well.

Sorry. I responded in kind because I not realize either of us were taking the banter to heart. At first I looked over your insults but when the conversation had exhausted itself I just thought I'd play along. If I have hurt your feelings, I am sorry. I didn't take your language towards me seriously, and just thought you'd be of the same mind.

I did not mean for you to take seriously that I was calling you a “fool” or “foolish”. That is why I used the smiley. Also, I thought your reply to me was childish but I was not referring to you as a child or as childlike. I apologize if it looked as if that was my intent, and I certainly see how it would have come off that way (especially if you have been sincere with your insults). I was partly just poking fun at you because of some of the things you said.

Now I did call you biblically illiterate.

 

[Yeshua1]

I made no such charge and never have. Go back and read it again and this time read carefully. I charged you with denying the ordinance is being directly addressed in that passage as you have said the term "baptized" in that passage was merely the "shorthand" for salvation that baptism symbolized but the ordinance was not meant by the term "baptized."






Again, you are stating a half truth. You also claimed the term did not signify the ordinance was the actual subject of the text and the term "baptized" was merely "shorthand" for the salvation behind the ordinance.




If that is what you have believed all the time then why are you arguing with me when I say water baptism and its symbolism is what these texts are referring to ALONG WITH application of the truths symbolized???? I have never said anything different. My interpretations of the text demonstrate I have never meant anything different. So, the term "baptized" is not "shorthand" but is a direct reference to either baptism "in water" or "in Spirit" or "in suffering" with contextual based applications?????



I can can read too! I have never used the term "fool" and by clear inference applied to you. Where is the substance of your response to the contextual based evidences I provided in Galatians 3:26-27 or 1 Pet. 3:20-21? Where are they?, I have not read them? where are they? I have read your ridicule but no substantive responses!

He i stating that while water baptism is used there, just as Peter did, Paul links that to represent greater truth of new life in Christ!

 

[The Biblicist]

Sorry. I responded in kind because I not realize either of us were taking the banter to heart. At first I looked over your insults but when the conversation had exhausted itself I just thought I'd play along. If I have hurt your feelings, I am sorry. I didn't take your language towards me seriously, and just thought you'd be of the same mind.

I did not mean for you to take seriously that I was calling you a “fool” or “foolish”. That is why I used the smiley. Also, I thought your reply to me was childish but I was not referring to you as a child or as childlike. I apologize if it looked as if that was my intent, and I certainly see how it would have come off that way (especially if you have been sincere with your insults). I was partly just poking fun at you because of some of the things you said.

Now I did call you biblically illiterate.

I accept your apology, but where did I attack your person? I called your position heretical at the start but I don't recall ever making any attacks on your person? Point them out so I can know what I should repent of.

 

[The Biblicist]

I guess I should deal with the most obvious error and that is salvation of any kind could NOT be obtained under the "old covenant" as that covenant was never designed by God to save, to grant eternal life, to justify or sanctify much less glorify.

However, it seems you are confusing the "Old Covenant" with a period of time period between Genesis to the Cross rather than the "old covenant" established at Mount Sinai under which no man could be justified, saved, regenearated etc.

On one hand you restrict salvation to the New Covenant and denies salvation obtained by the New Covenant could be applied in the life of pre-cross saints in their own lives, but on the other hand wants to say they were "saved" and yet does not define what that means and of course cannot define what that means unless he applies the benefits of the cross that he restricts in application between the cross and the second coming.

You simply generalizes "saved" because he has denied that any cross applications occur before the cross. For example, they were "in Adam" and thus "in the flesh" because they were "born of the flesh" as they were created "in Adam." Their problem is the same as our problem - spiritual death = spiritual separation from God. Thus the essence of any true salvation must BEGIN with spiritual union or all remain in spiritual death-separation from God.

If his "new covenant" time frame were actually true with regard to its application only from the cross forward, then how can he explain how Abraham actually obtained IN HIS LIFE TIME remission of sins and justification and manifest fruits of the Spirit as these are all New Covenant characteristics??. How can he explain Ezekiel's demand that those who minister in the temple be circumcised in heart in addition to being circumcised in the flesh (Ezek. 44:7-9).

Your problem is that he fails to understand that God exists OUTSIDE OF TIME and administers salvation based on the "everlasting" covenant of redemption rather than TIME based covenants (Old and New). The cross does not obtain the right for God to administer its benefits, but only justifies his administration of its benefits when and as he pleases based upon His promise of the cross. It is the everlasting covenant that justifies his right to administer salvation when and where he pleases.

Again, it is your view of the church and the baptism in the Spirit that blinds his understanding that salvation is applied prior to the cross in the very same sense as after the cross as there is no salvation possible at any time outside of Christ, so spiritual salvation must begin "in Christ" or there is no salvation at all as all spiritual blessings are found only "in Christ."

So for Jon to say the Old Testament saints were "saved" but the New Covenant benefits were not and could not be applied in their own life time is simply empty meaningless rhetoric because if he begins to define what "saved" actually means he has only two options - (1) law keeping or New Covenant benefits being applied before the cross.

He attempts to avoid his problem by saying they looked forward by faith, but yet saving faith is part of the New Covenant benefits of salvation as it is a gift of God, and even if that is rejected, what benefit is it for them in any PRACTICAL sense of "saved" if they simply looked forward to the cross? Does that change their "in Adam" condition of total depravity? Does that enable them to "walk by faith"? Does that produce progressive sancation in thei lives? Does that obtain actual justification before God then and there in their lifetime at the point of faith? Does that obtain remission of sins? All of these are benefits of the cross which he denies could be applied in their own lifetime. So his use of "saved" is meaningless rhetoric.

I would like anyone to respond to the above post.

 

[Yeshua1]

I would like anyone to respond to the above post.

The OT believers had their sins passed over, remitted by God due to the coming Messaih, but except for special cases, they di not have th Spirt as we do now!
Regenerated with new minds/heart, but not with means to live in the Kingdom as we all can now!

This is not heresy , as held been held held by both Baptists/Reformed over time!

 

[JonC]

Let me also put this into perspective

Now, don't get me wrong, certain teachings and ideologies need to be hashed out, debated, articulated, figured out, etc. I'm cool with that, The LORD has put it into my brain and heart to cipher these things out as well.

But there comes a point where you have to ask yourself, "Am i wasting too much energy when i could be sharing the Gospel or making disciples?"

Don't get me wrong, that's not to say, "These boards are a waste of time." Because they are not. I'm just saying i've kept up with Most of the thread and for me, as a student trying to look at two Christians who are more mature and knowledgeable of the Word than i, i cannnot find much fruit to be picked out and enjoyed. I'm just sayin'

Maybe i'm wrong.

TheBiblicist and I have had many discussions, and we typically end up on fairly good terms. He believes what he believes very strongly, as do I (not what he believes, but what I believe). And I never doubt that he is a brother in Christ. I never hold him in contempt (his doctrine, maybe, but not him as my brother). That does not mean that we cannot learn from each other.

But we disagree on several issues. I don’t really know that we will ever get to the source of our disagreement, but it is not really on the nature of water baptism at all. We disagree about baptism here because we disagree about what it means to be “in Christ”. We disagree about what it means to be “in Christ” because we disagree about the definition of the “Body of Christ”. We disagree about the “Body of Christ” because we disagree about what defines a “church”….and so forth.

So we typically end up arguing…and not arguing in the way of debating the issue, but in the way of insulting each other. And sometimes we do get out of hand and unChristlike.

But I love the guy. It's like having a second wife (who, BTW, knows I am right but won’t admit it).

 

[JonShaff]

TheBiblicist and I have had many discussions, and we typically end up on fairly good terms. He believes what he believes very strongly, as do I (not what he believes, but what I believe). And I never doubt that he is a brother in Christ. I never hold him in contempt (his doctrine, maybe, but not him as my brother). That does not mean that we cannot learn from each other.

But we disagree on several issues. I don’t really know that we will ever get to the source of our disagreement, but it is not really on the nature of water baptism at all. We disagree about baptism here because we disagree about what it means to be “in Christ”. We disagree about what it means to be “in Christ” because we disagree about the definition of the “Body of Christ”. We disagree about the “Body of Christ” because we disagree about what defines a “church”….and so forth.

So we typically end up arguing…and not arguing in the way of debating the issue, but in the way of insulting each other. And sometimes we do get out of hand and unChristlike.

But I love the guy. It's like having a second wife (who, BTW, knows I am right but won’t admit it).

so my question is, how can someone who disagrees with someone on so many levels be in the Will of God (regardless of who the person is), unless the question at hand isn't profitable to begin with?

 

[Yeshua1]

so my question is, how can someone who disagrees with someone on so many levels be in the Will of God (regardless of who the person is), unless the question at hand isn't profitable to begin with?

The issue is vry important, but one of them is very stuck in hi sways, and not welling to budge at all!

 

[JonC]

I charged you with denying the ordinance is being directly addressed in that passage as you have said the term "baptized" in that passage was merely the "shorthand" for salvation that baptism symbolized but the ordinance was not meant by the term "baptized."

Then you have my apology. Your charge is wrong, so perhaps we can simply clarify the issue and continue as brethren.

By something like “shorthand” I do not mean “merely” at all. As I said when I introduced that term, it is not mine but something I had read of Douglas Moo. I would, like Paul, would simply use the word “baptism”. But here is the definition as I have explained it and provided to you:

Some view baptism as merely a symbol. But Scripture seems to place too much emphasis on baptism for that. Some view it as the means through which God saved. But Scripture puts too much emphasis on faith for that. Paul speaks of baptism not only as an ordinance but also as somehow effecting something.

What Moo suggested, and I echoed, is that Paul here is not taking water baptism in isolation. He is not taking water baptism apart from those things that it represents or symbolizes. When we come to Christ in faith, God gives us His Spirit and we submit to water baptism. And this complex of events – not water baptism as an ordinance and by itself – is what places us “in Christ”. By “something like shorthand” I am referring to Paul’s usage as being water baptism as an ordinance but also including all that it represents (Paul is using the symbol as both a symbol and to speak of what it symbolizes…i.e., what the ordinance means in application but also something real beyond the symbol itself – what it symbolizes).

In other words, I am not only emphasizing the water baptism as an act of obedience (an ordinance) but also what it represents. I believe this is what Paul has in mind in Romans 6.