"In Christ" What does it mean and How?

[The Biblicist]

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?

That is a good question. I think a fair answer is that God's revealed will covers a great spectrum of things. Probably no child of God is walking with God in every spectrum. For example, there are children of God within the Great Whore (Rev. 18:4) and yet that does not mean they are outside of God's will in all other areas of life. There are no doubt paedobaptists who are genuinely saved and with regard to personal sanctification may be walking closer to God than you or I. In the area of church truth they are obviously not walking with God with regard to the ordinances or the nature of a NT church.

Again, personal worship is quite different than public worship as public worship requires a completely additional spectrum.

 

[JonC]

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?

We profit in discussions regardless of whether we ever see eye to eye. I’ve profited here because I understand what another brother believes, but I also had another opportunity to examine my own position. I’ve had this opportunity to get back into Romans 6 and look at other interpretations. We can (even if we don’t) also fellowship through these disagreements. I’ve had many debates where we never agreed, but we enjoyed each other’s company and fellowship.

In my opinion (he may disagree) TheBiblicist and I do not disagree “on so many levels” insofar as what is eternally significant.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

I need you to be more specific, because if that is all you meant then we have no differences as my position has been water baptism is being explicitly addressed in these passages along with its symbolism of salvation which is being applied to the context. The interpretations I have provided of Romans 6 clearly reveal that.

What I need to know from your perspective is do you believe the term "baptized" and "baptism" are NOT merely "shorthand" for salvation truths, but the use of that term in a text is directly addressing the ordinance of water baptism itself ALONG WITH its implications and applications? That is my view!

I would still like you or someone to address the post above that I have asked to be addressed as it was in response to your post.

 

[JonC]

I need you to be more specific, because if that is all you meant then we have no differences as my position has been water baptism is being explicitly addressed in these passages along with its symbolism of salvation which is being applied to the context. The interpretations I have provided of Romans 6 clearly reveal that.

What I need to know from your perspective is do you believe the term "baptized" and "baptism" are NOT merely "shorthand" for salvation truths, but the use of that term in a text is directly addressing the ordinance of water baptism itself ALONG WITH its implications and applications? That is my view!

I would still like you or someone to address the post above that I have asked to be addressed as it was in response to your post.

I regret offering Moo’s term “something like shorthand” because I think it may have given the wrong impression. I will try to be very specific here (so I apologize if it seems repetitive).

I believe that water baptism as an ordinance is a part of the conversion “process”, not that it saves but that it is the expect fruit of salvation (someone can be saved yet be in disobedience here). God draws a person to Himself, He regenerates that person and puts His Spirit in them and they submit to God (they are baptized).

I say that water baptism is a part of conversion because I believe it was expected, just as church membership was expected. It is man’s act based on God’s work – the first fruit, if you will, of redemption.

So I believe that water baptism itself symbolizes this “process” as the believer dies, is buried, and resurrected in Christ. But I believe it symbolizes conversion as a whole (dying to the “flesh” and made alive in Christ).

In terms of this “something like shorthand” comment, I was referring to Paul’s use of baptism in Romans 6. I believe that Paul is using “baptism” (water baptism) to direct his audience not only to that ordinance to which they submitted themselves but also that act of God it represented. They had confirmed, professed, and identified with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection because that was what had happened spiritually. Paul points to the symbol (water baptism) to emphasize what it symbolized (death to sin in Christ, alive to God in Christ) in order to urge them not to sin.

 

[JonShaff]

so i guess my followup question would be, "When does arguing over non-eternally significant issues become contentious and "strivings" about the law?"

 

[The Biblicist]

THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF THE FALL

I don't think the position of salvation that Jon embraces is sufficient to deal with the fundamental problem of the fall. It is one thing to say Old Testament saints were "saved" but it quite another thing to define what that means in their own lifetime if you hold to Jon's view that Cross benefits are not applied in their life time. On the other hand, if he admits SOME were applied in their own life time then his whole argument about needing to wait to the cross breaks down completely.

However, the greatest problem is the problem of the fall itself. All "in Adam" are "in the flesh" and spiritually SEPARATED from God which IS spiritual DEATH. Is Jon going to define spiritual death one way before the cross and another way after the cross? Are they spiritually "dead" in trespasses and sins differently than post-cross sinners? Can those "in the flesh" before the cross please God, while we are inferior to them after the cross and therefore those "in the flesh" after the cross cannot please God (Rom. 8:8-9)? Isn't the first aspect to pleasing God - faith (Heb. 11:6)?

Does not the first element in being "saved" is being "saved" from being "in the flesh" meaning in spiritual separation, thus spiritual death? How can spiritual separation be resolved apart from being brought into spiritual union with God? How can anyone dead and depraved in sin be "saved" in any sense if they are not also first made spiritually alive or in spiritual union with God who is life, light, holiness and love?

These are the very fundamentals of what "saved" MUST mean with regard to the fall,with regard to spiritual separation, or spiritual death as anyone still in that state cannot be said to be "saved" at all!

Furthermore, how can anyone be called "saved" if they are still SPIRITUALLY OUTSIDE of "Christ" since all spiritual blessings of salvation are found only "in Christ."???

Either the view Jon embraces is wrong or those before the cross remained "in the flesh" in the state of spiritual death and separation from God both in life and in death and therefore were not "saved" in any meaningful sense in their lifetime at all or in their death as their departed spirit remained in a state of spiritual separation from God as in their bodies in life.

However, if Jon moves to my position of salvation, then he must admit that the baptism in the Spirit and the church have no part of being spiritually "in Christ" since they are not only time fixed but doctrinally fixed as 4000 years too late to be included in salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

so i guess my followup question would be, "When does arguing over non-eternally significant issues become contentious and "strivings" about the law?"

Salvation gets you INTO heaven but proper and acceptable service determines present spiritual growth, blessings and eternal rewards, eternal positions and eternal usefulness IN heaven.

So salvation is occurs in a MOMENT but service is about ALL YOUR LIFE TIME and your future IN heaven.

 

[JonShaff]

Salvation gets you INTO heaven but proper and acceptable service determines present spiritual growth, blessings and eternal rewards, eternal positions and eternal usefulness IN heaven.

So salvation is occurs in a MOMENT but service is about ALL YOUR LIFE TIME and your future IN heaven.

I agree, i'll just butt out

 

[The Biblicist]

I regret offering Moo’s term “something like shorthand” because I think it may have given the wrong impression. I will try to be very specific here (so I apologize if it seems repetitive).

I believe that water baptism as an ordinance is a part of the conversion “process”, not that it saves but that it is the expect fruit of salvation (someone can be saved yet be in disobedience here). God draws a person to Himself, He regenerates that person and puts His Spirit in them and they submit to God (they are baptized).

I say that water baptism is a part of conversion because I believe it was expected, just as church membership was expected. It is man’s act based on God’s work – the first fruit, if you will, of redemption.

So I believe that water baptism itself symbolizes this “process” as the believer dies, is buried, and resurrected in Christ. But I believe it symbolizes conversion as a whole (dying to the “flesh” and made alive in Christ).

In terms of this “something like shorthand” comment, I was referring to Paul’s use of baptism in Romans 6. I believe that Paul is using “baptism” (water baptism) to direct his audience not only to that ordinance to which they submitted themselves but also that act of God it represented. They had confirmed, professed, and identified with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection because that was what had happened spiritually. Paul points to the symbol (water baptism) to emphasize what it symbolized (death to sin in Christ, alive to God in Christ) in order to urge them not to sin.

So, when the term "baptized" or "baptism" is used in these passage water baptism is the subject ALONG WITH its symbolic implications?

Therefore, where you and I disagree is what specific applications of salvation are being expressed in these texts and what is the true nature of salvation with regard to the fall of man before and after the cross especially with regard to the baptism in the Spirit and the church (as you conceive it apart from the majority use of the term church). Also, where we disagree is the symbolic implications of baptism with regard to putting on Christ and the metaphorical implications of being a metaphorical "member" in a metaphorical "body of Christ."

 

[JonC]

so i guess my followup question would be, "When does arguing over non-eternally significant issues become contentious and "strivings" about the law?"

When they are unprofitable and useless.

I think Paul is directing this to churches and for their order and conduct. I am not sure that our online activities actually constitute what Paul would have considered contention between believers because of a lack of accountability.

Paul assumes a local church and it is that he addresses. So the local churches make the decision.

 

[JonShaff]

When they are unprofitable and useless.

I think Paul is directing this to churches and for their order and conduct. I am not sure that our online activities actually constitute what Paul would have considered contention between believers because of a lack of accountability.

Paul assumes a local church and it is that he addresses. So the local churches make the decision.

are you 100% sure about that? "Local assemblies only" restricts application for many many passages

I'll just butt out

 

[The Biblicist]

are you 100% sure about that? "Local assemblies only" restricts application for many many passages

I agree with Jon here. The norm of the New Testament is salvation, baptism, church membership and that is not only what we see in precept (Mt. 28:19-20) as illustrated by example (Acts 2:40-41) but in the consistent practice of Paul in every city he witnessed. His letters were written to churches or members of churches. The historical "we...us....ye...you" is not the Post-apostolic divisions of believers in various denominations but to those who are in churches of like faith and order.

However, that does not mean everything addressed to church members have no application outside of church membership, BECAUSE baptism and church membership do not regenerate or justify anyone and therefore, that leaves room for genuine saints to be deceived and led outside the norm (Acts 20:29-30; Rev. 18:4)

 

[JonC]

are you 100% sure about that? "Local assemblies only" restricts application for many many passages

I'll just butt out

I don't mean this to restrict application to the local assemblies at all.

Think of it this way. Church discipline belongs with in the local assembly. If a brother is in sin then he is confronted and if unrepentant he is ultimately removed from the congregation. This is given to the church (the individual local church). The principle, however, extends in application beyond the walls of the local assembly as individual local churches determine what church doctrines go beyond Christian liberty and warrant disfellowship with other churches. One church cannot discipline another, but it can recognize enough of a divide not to associate with another even if it recognizes that church as fundamentally Christian.

On this forum, I believe that this is determined by those who involve themselves in these discussions. And remember, just because something is not "eternally significant" does not make it unimportant. Christians disagree on important doctrines, and I think that there is value in hashing those things out....even if we end up giving each other black eyes every now and then. Much also depends on the spirit of the discussion.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

That would bewhat Petr advocated regarding what Water represented, correct? Points us to Jesus, who is our Ark!

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't mean this to restrict application to the local assemblies at all.

Think of it this way. Church discipline belongs with in the local assembly. If a brother is in sin then he is confronted and if unrepentant he is ultimately removed from the congregation. This is given to the church (the individual local church). The principle, however, extends in application beyond the walls of the local assembly as individual local churches determine what church doctrines go beyond Christian liberty and warrant disfellowship with other churches. One church cannot discipline another, but it can recognize enough of a divide not to associate with another even if it recognizes that church as fundamentally Christian.

On this forum, I believe that this is determined by those who involve themselves in these discussions. And remember, just because something is not "eternally significant" does not make it unimportant. Christians disagree on important doctrines, and I think that there is value in hashing those things out....even if we end up giving each other black eyes every now and then. Much also depends on the spirit of the discussion.

That is what we happenes though among us when some would see the Bible teachingthat only a certain group qualifies s a real church, ad thus wouldcreat an uneccesary division in thebody of Christ...
Could be Baptist only, or presby only, Charasmatic only etc!

 

[Yeshua1]

That is what we happenes though among us when some would see the Bible teachingthat only a certain group qualifies s a real church, ad thus wouldcreat an uneccesary division in thebody of Christ...
Could be Baptist only, or presby only, Charasmatic only etc!

How so? aren't there some who would see an teach that their particular church group is the only "reral" NT Church today?

 

[Yeshua1]

That would bewhat Petr advocated regarding what Water represented, correct? Points us to Jesus, who is our Ark!

Are you saying here then that Peter was NOT advocating to us that the water was just a symbol; for Jesus as being what actually saves us nw?