What does "in Christ" mean?

[The Biblicist]

I don't believe that is necessarily so but I did ponder that myself.

Aorist can even point to the future after the completed verb action.

That is not correct. The Aorist can be ingressive, constant and culminative and yet all three are inseparably connected to the action itself. The culiminative refers to the conclusion of the action not some future point after the completion of the action.

 

[TCassidy]

No problem Tom with what you say here.
Biblicist and I have a differing view of Galatians 3:27.

HankD

Yes. That is what I'm talking about. Those who have been water baptized as a testimony of their salvation have "put on" that testimony of "Christ in me the hope of glory" for all to see.

 

[TCassidy]

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

"For by one Spirit" - due to the convicting/leading of the Holy Spirit - "are we all baptized" - all the members of the local church, in this case at Corinth - "into one body" - the local body of believers belonging to Christ - "whether we be Jews of Gentiles" - all one body we - "whether we be bond or free" - all one social status - "and have been all made to drink of the one Spirit" - the teaching/leading of the Holy Spirit regarding the unity of the local body.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The preceding context and following context for 1 Cor. 12;13 demands it is water baptism into the congregational body (1 Cor. 12:27) not baptism into the Spirit. I can provide the overall context to demonstrate this if you wish to know why I say that. Your view of Galatians 3:27 has no room for the middle voice at all, as believers have no participating action in the act of immersion into the Spirit.

The problem with either verse relating to water baptism is that I can hear my former foes on the Puritan Board saying to me. "And how do you know that water baptism infallibly conveys the Spirit?" We know that Simon Magus was baptized in water, but he was not baptized into the congregational body (Acts 8:21), and presumably the same applied to Ananias and Sapphira and Alexander the Coppersmith.

My own view is that water baptism signifies the believer's union with Christ and is not automatically entry into church membership, though that will normally follow. We must beware of seeming to give magical sacramental powers to water baptism.

 

[HankD]

The preceding context and following context for 1 Cor. 12;13 demands it is water baptism into the congregational body (1 Cor. 12:27) not baptism into the Spirit. I can provide the overall context to demonstrate this if you wish to know why I say that. Your view of Galatians 3:27 has no room for the middle voice at all, as believers have no participating action in the act of immersion into the Spirit.

Again "participation" is allowable for the middle voice or so my Dana and Mantey Grammar teaches "The middle voice is that use of the verb which describes the subject as participating in the results of the action." But it does NOT function as active voice to include ACTION on my part.

I believe it is entirely possible in this passage.

HankD

 

[HankD]

"For by one Spirit" - due to the convicting/leading of the Holy Spirit - "are we all baptized" - all the members of the local church, in this case at Corinth - "into one body" - the local body of believers belonging to Christ - "whether we be Jews of Gentiles" - all one body we - "whether we be bond or free" - all one social status - "and have been all made to drink of the one Spirit" - the teaching/leading of the Holy Spirit regarding the unity of the local body.

"due to the convicting/leading of the Holy Spirit - 'are we all baptized'"

If you mean conviction of the Spirit to be immersed in molecular - A stretch IMO learned Dr. But within the parameters of biblical possibility if I may say so

HankD

 

[HankD]

That is not correct. The Aorist can be ingressive, constant and culminative and yet all three are inseparably connected to the action itself. The culiminative refers to the conclusion of the action not some future point after the completion of the action.

There are two aorist verbs the second one for enduo denotes further action AFTER the baptizing by the the Spirit.

HankD

 

[HankD]

A further reason for my reticence of Biblicist view is that IMO it implies that water baptism is sacramental or that it conveys grace to the participant.

That I resist.

HankD

 

[The Biblicist]

Again "participation" is allowable for the middle voice or so my Dana and Mantey Grammar teaches "The middle voice is that use of the verb which describes the subject as participating in the results of the action." But it does NOT function as active voice to include ACTION on my part.

I believe it is entirely possible in this passage.

HankD

I think if you read on he says, "Just how the action is thus related is not indicated by the middle voice, but must be detected from the context or the character of the verbal idea" (p. 157). You are attempting to apply it to the action that God alone can do behind the verbal idea of "baptized" as the believer would necessarily be completely passive in that action. However, Paul is not applying the middle voice to the baptismal action but to the action by the believer with regard to the verbal idea of enedusathe. The believer is the actor as well as the object of the action with regard to this verbal idea. So God is not the actor in this verbal idea which would be necessary to support your application that this refers to the baptism in the Spirit.The middle voice is not a resultant action of the verbal idea of baptism and the one administering the action but is the resultant action of the verbal idea of enedusathe which is attributed to the second plural pronoun "YOU".

 

[The Biblicist]

A further reason for my reticence of Biblicist view is that IMO it implies that water baptism is sacramental or that it conveys grace to the participant.

That I resist.

HankD

No, my position does not imply or demand that in the least way unless the one interpreting the passage forces a sacramental straight jacket on his concept of baptism. As I said, Paul explicitly states that the PHYSICAL BODY is made a "member" of Christ (1 Cor. 6:15-17) and the only kind of church body previously described to that point is the local representative body of Christ at Corinth (1 Cor. 3:5-16) which those at Corinth were metaphorical "members" received by profession of faith AND water baptism. Moreover, the only possible way the PHYSICAL BODY can be made a "member of Christ" is in a physical congregation by profession faith in water baptism. BTW that is how professions were made in New Testament times in connection with water baptism.

 

[The Biblicist]

The problem with either verse relating to water baptism is that I can hear my former foes on the Puritan Board saying to me. "And how do you know that water baptism infallibly conveys the Spirit?" We know that Simon Magus was baptized in water, but he was not baptized into the congregational body (Acts 8:21), and presumably the same applied to Ananias and Sapphira and Alexander the Coppersmith.

My own view is that water baptism signifies the believer's union with Christ and is not automatically entry into church membership, though that will normally follow. We must beware of seeming to give magical sacramental powers to water baptism.

You have too many assumptions in your argument that no scripture explicitly supports. For example, your argument to be consistent would have to deny that Judas was a physical member of the physical congregation at Jerusalem (Acts 1:21-22) and if that were the case then he could not have filled or vacated the office of Apostle as that office is explicit stated to have been first "set in the church" (1 Cor. 12:28).

Moreover, water baptism does not convey the Spirit and the term "spirit" is not even found in Gal. 3:27. What is found in Gal. 3:27 is something the believer can "put on" and he cannot administer the baptism in the Spirit to himself or to anyone else, but he can "put on" Christ symbolically in the act of water baptism.

 

[HankD]

I think if you read on he says, "Just how the action is thus related is not indicated by the middle voice, but must be detected from the context or the character of the verbal idea" (p. 157). You are attempting to apply it to the action that God alone can do behind the verbal idea of "baptized" as the believer would necessarily be completely passive in that action. However, Paul is not applying the middle voice to the baptismal action but to the action by the believer with regard to the verbal idea of enedusathe. The believer is the actor as well as the object of the action with regard to this verbal idea. So God is not the actor in this verbal idea which would be necessary to support your application that this refers to the baptism in the Spirit.The middle voice is not a resultant action of the verbal idea of baptism and the one administering the action but is the resultant action of the verbal idea of enedusathe which is attributed to the second plural pronoun "YOU".

So, even if your understanding of the grammar text is true that does not remove the possibility of the Baptizer being the Spirit and my participation with Him in clothing me in Christ.

e.g. My wife dresses the children (puts them in their clothes) and they participate in dressing.
Daddy says - You have put on you clothes. But not exactly because there is no corresponding English
equivalent of Koine Middle voice - or so says Dana and Mantey.
It would be clumsy in English to say "You have participated in putting on your clothes".

HankD

 

[The Biblicist]

There are two aorist verbs the second one for enduo denotes further action AFTER the baptizing by the the Spirit.

HankD

Yes, but it does not refer to the verbal action of baptism, It applies to the action by the believer which does not put him "into" Christ but rather an action that Christ is "put on" the believer. Your intepretation of eis with baptism demands this is an internal spiritual action whereas "put on" is an external action as the same verb is used for putting on clothing over the body.

 

[The Biblicist]

So, even if your understanding of the grammar text is true that does not remove the possibility of the Baptizer being the Spirit and my participation with Him in clothing me in Christ.

Yes it does because the subject of the verbal action is not God but second plural pronoun "you."

e.g. My wife dresses the children (puts them in their clothes) and they participate in dressing.

Your illustration is faulty because if we apply this verbal idea to dressing your children it is not your wife that is dressing them, but they are dressing themselves as the plural 2nd person pronoun identifies the doer of this action.

 

[HankD]

Yes, but it does not refer to the verbal action of baptism, It applies to the action by the believer which does not put him "into" Christ but rather an action that Christ is "put on" the believer. Your intepretation of eis with baptism demands this is an internal spiritual action whereas "put on" is an external action as the same verb is used for putting on clothing over the body.

I don't accept that analysis as correct the verb is one word - there is no "on" in the text.
I would personally preferred " you having been clothed in Christ" - moving more to the passive interpretation of my participation.

Think of a mother clothing a child most of the activity is from the mother with the child involved in a middle voice activity of participation in that activity.

The Spirit baptizes us into the body of Christ and thereby clothes us in Christ in which we, in a middle voice activity, participate.

HankD

 

[HankD]

No, my position does not imply or demand that in the least way unless the one interpreting the passage forces a sacramental straight jacket on his concept of baptism. As I said, Paul explicitly states that the PHYSICAL BODY is made a "member" of Christ (1 Cor. 6:15-17) and the only kind of church body previously described to that point is the local representative body of Christ at Corinth (1 Cor. 3:5-16) which those at Corinth were metaphorical "members" received by profession of faith AND water baptism. Moreover, the only possible way the PHYSICAL BODY can be made a "member of Christ" is in a physical congregation by profession faith in water baptism. BTW that is how professions were made in New Testament times in connection with water baptism.

Here is a what if -

If Someone baptized me and was not a believer himself (thought he was but not) am I clothed in Christ?

Which leads to the question - to whom is given the authority to do a proper and acceptable-to-God baptism?

HankD

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is a what if -

If Someone baptized me and was not a believer himself (thought he was but not) am I clothed in Christ?

Which leads to the question - to whom is given the authority to do a proper and acceptable-to-God baptism?

HankD

I think you and I both agree that the act of baptism does not save anyone. What makes baptism valid is that the person is a true believer (if not the act is not valid - they just got wet), the act is scriptural - immersion so that the gospel is visualized (if not they just got wet) and that it is administered by a New Testament church. The spiritual condition of the church member that administers it does not determine its validation as he is merely acting in behalf of the church and it is not administered to be saved but it is administered to validate them for membership.

It is the symbolism that clothes you as a matter of public record not the administrators personal status.

 

[TCassidy]

If you mean conviction of the Spirit to be immersed in molecular - A stretch IMO learned Dr. But within the parameters of biblical possibility if I may say so

I am not sure what you mean by "molecular" but the usage of the terminology of "by one Spirit" is similar to:

Luke 2:27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple.

Did the Spirit pick Him up and carry Him or did it lead Him to go into the temple?

Luke 4:1 And Jesus . . . was led by the Spirit into the wilderness.

Taken by the hand and pulled along, or influenced and encouraged?

I know that I followed the Lord in believer's baptism due to the leading/convicting of the Holy Spirit in my life. And doing so made me one with the body, in unity with the local assembly belonging to the Lord.

 

[HankD]

I think you and I both agree that the act of baptism does not save anyone. What makes baptism valid is that the person is a true believer (if not the act is not valid - they just got wet), the act is scriptural - immersion so that the gospel is visualized (if not they just got wet) and that it is administered by a New Testament church. The spiritual condition of the church member that administers it does not determine its validation as he is merely acting in behalf of the church and it is not administered to be saved but it is administered to validate them for membership.

Agreed!


HankD

 

[TCassidy]

If Someone baptized me and was not a believer himself (thought he was but not) am I clothed in Christ?

The person who dunks you is irrelevant. Baptismal authority is vested in the New Testament church.

Which leads to the question - to whom is given the authority to do a proper and acceptable-to-God baptism?

The New Testament church.