In Christ

[MennoSota]

Reading the Forum entitled "Justification" it occurs to me that we may interpret the phrase "in Christ" differently and thus we use the same term, but different definition.
For me, it means that God views us within the accomplished work of Jesus. Apart from Christ, I am a filthy rag, condemned by my sin. In Christ, I am viewed as righteous even as Christ is righteous.
As RC Sproul said: "We are now as Paul speaks of again and again - in Christ (en Christo). We are in Christ and Christ is in us. And so this is part of the grand consequence of our justification. For everyone who is justified is now brought from outside to inside and we are in Christ. I am in Christ, and if you're a Christian, you are in Christ."
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/if-youre-christian-you-are-in-christ/

 

[psalms 91]

To me what you describe is righteousbness, my belief is that when we come to Jesus that Christ is in us but many do not travel on to us in Christ, to me that is an intimate relationship with Christ and is far more than mere salvation, I guess it is on the road to sanctification for me. Not sure as I dont put labels on all this Ionly know what I believe

 

[Lamb]

Reading the Forum entitled "Justification" it occurs to me that we may interpret the phrase "in Christ" differently and thus we use the same term, but different definition.
For me, it means that God views us within the accomplished work of Jesus. Apart from Christ, I am a filthy rag, condemned by my sin. In Christ, I am viewed as righteous even as Christ is righteous.
As RC Sproul said: "We are now as Paul speaks of again and again - in Christ (en Christo). We are in Christ and Christ is in us. And so this is part of the grand consequence of our justification. For everyone who is justified is now brought from outside to inside and we are in Christ. I am in Christ, and if you're a Christian, you are in Christ."
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/if-youre-christian-you-are-in-christ/

I'm with you that our Justification is entirely the work of God and I can't contribute because if I could contribute, what use would I need for a Savior in the first place? Remove Christ and what do you have?

 

[pinacled]

To me what you describe is righteousbness, my belief is that when we come to Jesus that Christ is in us but many do not travel on to us in Christ, to me that is an intimate relationship with Christ and is far more than mere salvation, I guess it is on the road to sanctification for me. Not sure as I dont put labels on all this Ionly know what I believe

Amen, Amen

 

[Josiah]

I'm with you that our Justification is entirely the work of God and I can't contribute because if I could contribute, what use would I need for a Savior in the first place? Remove Christ and what do you have?

Amen

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

I'm with you that our Justification is entirely the work of God and I can't contribute because if I could contribute, what use would I need for a Savior in the first place? Remove Christ and what do you have?

Remove Christ and all you have is eternal damnation, which is perfectly just on the part of God. Justification is entirely Christ's work on our behalf. To suggest anything less would be an echo of Pelagianism.

 

[Josiah]

Remove Christ and all you have is eternal damnation, which is perfectly just on the part of God. Justification is entirely Christ's work on our behalf. To suggest anything less would be an echo of Pelagianism.

"Jesus + Me" makes a mockery of Christ and Christianity. A soteriology of "Jesus does HIS part (the part that actually saves no one) and I do MY part (the part that actually gets me to heaven) is the greatest slam to Christ and perversion of the Gospel possible. But it raises it's ugly head ...

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I'd agree with the OP. A progressive justification (which, I think gets confused with sanctification, but I didn't receive an answer in another thread) misses the point of a "finished work"

 

[hedrick]

Looking through uses of the phrase "in Christ." First, it's often used with something else, so depending upon that context there can be varying meanings. But when Paul speaks of someone simply as "in Christ" it seems from context that he simply means they're followers of Christ. Just what all the implications of that are depends upon the rest of your theology. I do think being being followers of Christ is the same thing as justification, so we could reasonably use the theology of justification to understand it.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Looking through uses of the phrase "in Christ." First, it's often used with something else, so depending upon that context there can be varying meanings. But when Paul speaks of someone simply as "in Christ" it seems from context that he simply means they're followers of Christ. Just what all the implications of that are depends upon the rest of your theology. I do think being being followers of Christ is the same thing as justification, so we could reasonably use the theology of justification to understand it.

I'm not sure I would agree. An initial Justification suggests the righteousness of Christ that comes at Christian conversion - a work of Christ in grace. In another thread, it was suggested that the RCC makes room for a progressive justification (which fits more with one being a follower of Christ), but this strikes me as being confused with Sanctification as understood by most mainline Protestants.
In short, one is 'justified' when saved by grace through faith with sanctification being a process/outgrowth of the Christian life.

 

[pinacled]

Reading the Forum entitled "Justification" it occurs to me that we may interpret the phrase "in Christ" differently and thus we use the same term, but different definition.
For me, it means that God views us within the accomplished work of Jesus. Apart from Christ, I am a filthy rag, condemned by my sin. In Christ, I am viewed as righteous even as Christ is righteous.
As RC Sproul said: "We are now as Paul speaks of again and again - in Christ (en Christo). We are in Christ and Christ is in us. And so this is part of the grand consequence of our justification. For everyone who is justified is now brought from outside to inside and we are in Christ. I am in Christ, and if you're a Christian, you are in Christ."
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/if-youre-christian-you-are-in-christ/

Is christ in every new born child a cross the globe.?

The Lord does say bring the children to him.
Christ in us and Christ in them?



Teach your children right from wrong, and when they are grown they will still do right.

 

[Andrew]

Is christ in every new born child a cross the globe.?

The Lord does say bring the children to him.
Christ in us and Christ in them?



Teach your children right from wrong, and when they are grown they will still do right.

I believed in God and Christ his Son as a child, but during my teens I rebelled and became atheist in my 20s until my late 20s the spiritual laid heavy on my and I isolated myself for 5 years to read and study the bible all day everyday but I got a little pompous about it, then one day I was saved through devine intervention and my world changed. Needless to say I have reunited with my childhood beliefs on Christianity and am totally changed, reborn into the spirit once again, knowing right from wrong... God blesses us when we are at our lowest point and pulls us out and frees us as he holds the keys to Heaven and Hell to unlock our cells and free us. Thank you Jesus! Amen!

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[NewCreation435]

Reading the Forum entitled "Justification" it occurs to me that we may interpret the phrase "in Christ" differently and thus we use the same term, but different definition.
For me, it means that God views us within the accomplished work of Jesus. Apart from Christ, I am a filthy rag, condemned by my sin. In Christ, I am viewed as righteous even as Christ is righteous.
As RC Sproul said: "We are now as Paul speaks of again and again - in Christ (en Christo). We are in Christ and Christ is in us. And so this is part of the grand consequence of our justification. For everyone who is justified is now brought from outside to inside and we are in Christ. I am in Christ, and if you're a Christian, you are in Christ."
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/if-youre-christian-you-are-in-christ/

I would agree with you about this. It is how we are seen in God's eyes, "in Christ". It's the only way I am justified

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Looking through uses of the phrase "in Christ." First, it's often used with something else, so depending upon that context there can be varying meanings. But when Paul speaks of someone simply as "in Christ" it seems from context that he simply means they're followers of Christ. Just what all the implications of that are depends upon the rest of your theology. I do think being being followers of Christ is the same thing as justification, so we could reasonably use the theology of justification to understand it.

So, gleaning a bit from another thread, your understanding might be a bit closer to the Catholic understanding of a progressive justification, and a dual understanding of being "in Christ"?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Context to consider as to the use of "In Christ" by Paul:

"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied" (1 Cor. 15: 17-19).

The first may allude to status or progression in the life of the deceased, the second where the person's trust has been placed - not necessarily status/progression (although they may be in Christ in either sense)

 

[hedrick]

So, gleaning a bit from another thread, your understanding might be a bit closer to the Catholic understanding of a progressive justification, and a dual understanding of being "in Christ"?

Of course Paul and James seem to use justification differently, and Catholics use it differently from Protestants. But in the NT justification seems like a big deal primarily for Paul, so I tend to use his definition. It's primarily Romans and Galatians. Both are about what defines people as God's people. At times, it seems to be how we recognize someone as God's. E.g. Abraham is justified by his faith. At times it's how God puts people right with himself, e.g. Rom 3:24 and 26.

I don't think I'd call it progressive, as there's no sign that one can be more or less justified. Indeed that's the whole point. God is faithful even when we aren't. I don't see it as just one-time, because of course God's faithfulness is something that we can always count on. So I'd say continuing rather than progressive. Though Rom 3:26 could be understood as referring to the act of accepting someone. The same kind of ambiguity would occur in English with "accepted." If you say someone is accepted by God you could be referring to his ongoing state of being accepted or the event in which he was accepted. But as far as I can tell, for Paul it is ongoing even if somewhere he might be referring to when it started. (I don't see any passage that clearly refers to a one-time event, though Rom 3:26 could probably be read that way.)

Now clearly our Christian lives are subject to change. You could reasonably maintain that there are times when we are less and more "in Christ." But the term seems to be a Pauline one, except for 1 Pet 5:14. There are places that might or might not count as "in Christ", because it's part of a larger phrase, e.g. "free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom 6:23). But I'm using it only when the phrase is used absolutely, e.g. Rom 8:1 "those who are in Christ Jesus." These all are descriptions of Christians. I.e. being "in Christ" is the same as being a Christian. It doesn't seem to be used to characterize the current state of someone's walk with Christ, nor any specific aspect of being a Christian. Of course whether being a Christian is continuing or transitory depends upon your theology. But I think for Paul it's a continuing characteristic. Hence I'd consider it as from a practical point of view equivalent to being justified, which is also continuing.

I'm using "continuing" rather than "permanent" because I'm not taking any position on whether Paul thinks one can fall away from real justification. But if so, it's like apostasy, not something that comes and goes when we sin or when we're not feeling inspired.

 

[Arsenios]

So how are we entered INTO Christ such that we may say we are IN Christ?
The Gospel of John who was baptizing is: "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!"
Upon his beheading, Christ Himself took up the same proclamation...
And after Christ's Resurrection and Ascension, Peter did the same:
"Repent and be baptized every one of you..."

So what does the Bible say about ENTRY INTO Christ?
Gal 3:27
"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ
have put on Christ."

And further:
Rom 6:3
"Know ye not, that
as many of us as have been baptized into Jesus Christ
have been baptized into His Death?"

So that it is Biblically pretty unavoidable to deny that Christians are baptized into Christ...

Then, we ask: "WHO is to Baptize us?" The end of the Gospel of St. Matthew provides the answer:

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying:
"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and disciple all the nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."


And clearly here we see that Christ commanded His eleven Disciples to go and baptize all the Nations...
That the Nations should be baptized into Christ, into His very Body, as members and servants of that Body...
That this Baptism INTO Christ is one of the essential features of discipling the Nations...
Only the eleven were Biblically given this Apostolic commission...
Peter in Acts passed it on to the Gentiles via Cornelius...

That is the Biblical teaching...

Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

So how are we entered INTO Christ such that we may say we are IN Christ?
The Gospel of John who was baptizing is: "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!"
Upon his beheading, Christ Himself took up the same proclamation...
And after Christ's Resurrection and Ascension, Peter did the same:
"Repent and be baptized every one of you..."

So what does the Bible say about ENTRY INTO Christ?
Gal 3:27
"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ
have put on Christ."

And further:
Rom 6:3
"Know ye not, that
as many of us as have been baptized into Jesus Christ
have been baptized into His Death?"

So that it is Biblically pretty unavoidable to deny that Christians are baptized into Christ...

Then, we ask: "WHO is to Baptize us?" The end of the Gospel of St. Matthew provides the answer:

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying:
"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and disciple all the nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."


And clearly here we see that Christ commanded His eleven Disciples to go and baptize all the Nations...
That the Nations should be baptized into Christ, into His very Body, as members and servants of that Body...
That this Baptism INTO Christ is one of the essential features of discipling the Nations...
Only the eleven were Biblically given this Apostolic commission...
Peter in Acts passed it on to the Gentiles via Cornelius...

That is the Biblical teaching...

Arsenios

1. A non-believe cannot FIRST repent. The word for repent is not the same as remorse (your dog can feel remorse). While repentance and conversion are linked and associated, I disagree with your insistence on some dogmatic chronology - it simply demands that one be a believer before he can be a believer.

2. I believe that Jesus is the Savior. That means that Jesus does the saving. When Pelagianism is inserted, so that it becomes "Jesus does His part - the part that actually saves no one, we do our part - the part that actually results in our going to heaven. Together, we eventually get the job done" then Jesus isn't the Savior at all (and a bit of honesty is required to stop calling Him the Savior). He might be the possibility-maker or helper but not the Savior.

3. I think a major issue here as Protestants discuss with Catholics (and to a lesser extent with EO's) is that Protestants see a lot of MYSTERY here (not trying to explain everything.... we simply don't know all he HOW and in what sequence JESUS does it, we just affirm that JESUS does it and in no way whatsoever do we ourselves). Protestants are passionate in proclaiming Jesus as the Savior and uber-sensitive to anything that suggests Pelagianism and synergism.

4. Additionally to point 3, Protestants view soteriology as TWO inseparable but not identical aspects: Justification (narrow) which is similar to what SOME Catholics call "initial grace" - the change in our relationship with God (what Protestants think of as coming to spiritual life, spiritual generation, being "born again"), and Sanctification (narrow) which is our growing to be more Christ like, our discipleship. BOTH are critical aspects of soteriology but we view them separately. Justification is Jesus' doing (we can't cause ourselves to be born again any more than we caused ourselves to be born the first time, as Billy Graham put it), but Sanctification IS a synergistic process. NEITHER is denied or diminished, BOTH are critical - but they aren't the same thing. We see Pelagianism and the destruction of the Christian Gospel created when these are mixed up.... meaning that Jesus simply becomes a helper or door opener. Catholics popularly entangle the two creating a confusing mess.... and in my experience, Orthodox largely pass over the issue of justification ( they tend to just assume it ) and focus on Sanctification. Thus much talking past each other....


My half cent.


- Josiah

 

[Arsenios]

1. A non-believer cannot FIRST repent. The word for repent is not the same as remorse (your dog can feel remorse). While repentance and conversion are linked and associated, I disagree with your insistence on some dogmatic chronology - it simply demands that one be a believer before he can be a believer.

Most in the west do disagree... Yet the first word of the Gospel is the Commandment to Repent! John the Babtizer of Christ came baptizing, saying: "Be ye repenting!..." Christ Himself affirmed his words! And Peter affirmed Christ's words...

So for my poor old addled brain, that pretty much settles it...
Granted, they were talking to Jewish believers...
Well, Peter did talk to Cornelius and his party...
Same message though...
The Holy Command!
"Repent and be Baptized, every one of you!"

2. I believe that Jesus is the Savior.

Preaching to the choir!

ONLY God CAN give Salvation...
Because...
Only God HAS Salvation to give...
So...
What IS this Salvation that ONLY God has and gives?

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

3. I think a major issue here as Protestants discuss with Catholics (and to a lesser extent with EO's) is that Protestants see a lot of MYSTERY here (not trying to explain everything.... we simply don't know all he HOW and in what sequence JESUS does it, we just affirm that JESUS does it and in no way whatsoever do we ourselves). Protestants are passionate in proclaiming Jesus as the Savior and uber-sensitive to anything that suggests Pelagianism and synergism.

Well, we do know that it is God Who Gives Salvation,
and
that it is man who repents from his sins...

4. Additionally to point 3, Protestants view soteriology as TWO inseparable but not identical aspects: Justification (narrow) which is similar to what SOME Catholics call "initial grace" - the change in our relationship with God (what Protestants think of as coming to spiritual life, spiritual generation, being "born again"), and Sanctification (narrow) which is our growing to be more Christ like, our discipleship. BOTH are critical aspects of soteriology but we view them separately. Justification is Jesus' doing (we can't cause ourselves to be born again any more than we caused ourselves to be born the first time, as Billy Graham put it), but Sanctification IS a synergistic process. NEITHER is denied or diminished, BOTH are critical - but they aren't the same thing. We see Pelagianism and the destruction of the Christian Gospel created when these are mixed up.... meaning that Jesus simply becomes a helper or door opener. Catholics popularly entangle the two creating a confusing mess.... and in my experience, Orthodox largely pass over the issue of justification ( they tend to just assume it ) and focus on Sanctification. Thus much talking past each other....

Scripture does not exactly say that Salvation is some combination of Justification and Sanctification...

It states:
"From the time of John the Baptist until now,
the Kingdom of Heaven is suffering violence..."
And...
"The violent are siezing it by force..."
Matt. 11:12

And we know the Good News is that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand - eg Is here now...
And...
That there is something we can DO about this Good News
Which is:
Repent and be baptized (into Christ, Who IS the Kingdom of Heaven)...
So IF we are willing...
We must first deny our self... (a violent act indeed)
Then take up our cross... (another violent act)
And follow Christ... (no small matter either)

Entry into the Kingdom is plainly shown - It is:
Repentance unto Baptism into Christ Who IS the Kingdom of Heaven...
The Orthodox Faith of Christ has been discipling this for 2000 years...

My half cent.


- Josiah

I will throw my tuppence in with your ha'pence!

What does God give that IS Salvation?
A vital question!

Arsenios