1 Peter 3 and Baptismgreenspun.com : LUSENET : The Christian Church : One Thread |
I received this post from a denominational preacher . Thought it might draw some reaction.Jim
QUESTION: Does not 1 Peter 3:21, " The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us....., " teach clearly that we are saved by baptism?
ANSWER: If you are a strong believer in baptism saving you, you could misuse this verse to support your preconceived view that baptism saves.. Your problem would be that the verse does not say that baptism saves.
You will notice that is says, "The like FIGURE whereunto even baptism doth now save us." The word "figure" means "the corresponding type, a thing resembling another, its counterpart." To find that figure we have to go back to the previous verse. "....when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." "Saved by water" is just a simile used to show that the water floated the ark to safety. Peter says the "like figure" to a believer is baptism. That is when you go down into the waters of baptism and come up again, this is a figure, or picture, of the death burial and resurrection of Christ and your identification with Him. But there is no salvation in a type or figure.
If you were to show me a photograph of yourself and ask me who it was I would say that is you. But is it? Not really, it is only a picture of you on a piece of paper.
The water that flooded the earth and brought judgment on every living creature was the very water that floated the ark and those in it to safety. Now the question is: Was it the water or the ark that saved Noah and his family? I think the answer is plain. I am afraid that if Noah had not been in the ark he too would have perished in the flood.
This would also be true of all those who trust in baptism to wash away their sins. "...without the shedding of blood, there is no remission [forgiveness]" Heb 9:22
"Are you trusting in the blood or water to save you?"
-- Anonymous, October 02, 1999
Hey Jim...He is obviously a K.J.V. Baptist!!
The language of the N.A.S.B. is certainly more understandable....."And CORRESPONDING to that, baptism now saves you."
Maybe that's why the Baptist love the K.J.V. so much......easier to twist those "thees" and "thous" around.
God bless ya bro!!!
-- Anonymous, October 03, 1999
If the mysterious "Barry Hanson" will give a real email address he/she may post freely in this forum...
-- Anonymous, October 07, 1999
1Pet.3:20-21 Saved by water -- figure---baptism doth also now saves us---.The ark didn't save them,the water did. The water destroyed the wicked people. The figure fulfilled when one is Baptized into Jesus our sins are sins are washed away! Wonder how the fathers were saved [ 1COR.10:1-2 ]by water? [ what kept them in bontage was washed away. Y&H c.o.g.
-- Anonymous, October 08, 1999
N.I.V. is also clearer thatn K.J.V. in this verse..."...In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also - not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,..." I Pet 3:20b-21
(you will note the Bible translators for N.A.S.B. and N.I.V. were not Restorationists... but your run-of-the-mill Christian Evangelicals. Any Greek Majors out there with word study for us from the original text?
-- Anonymous, October 16, 1999
If we understand that Noah and his family were saved from an evil and wicked world rather than saved from "physical death", verse 20 makes a lot more sense. Corresponding to that, we are not saved from physical death in baptism, but we are saved from our sin (no longer slaves to sin), Romans 6:4, and are set apart from this sinful world to God.
-- Anonymous, October 19, 1999
To All:It was very refreshing to finally read something that made sense. The original post is so plain and clear I feel almost silly having to even expound on such plain speech, but reading the following posts amazed me the lengths to which one can twist the Holy Scriptures.
Did the flood "save" Noah and his family or did the ARK "save" Noah and his family?
Please lay aside your denominational teaching and answer the question honestly.
The ark saved Noah!
If Noah was NOT a child of God BEFORE the flood (baptism) he would not have gone through the baptism or flood! IT IS BECAUSE NOAH AND HIS FAMILY WERE CHILDREN OF GOD THAT THEY HEARD THE VOICE OF GOD TO BUILD A BOAT AND GO THROUGH THE WATER! How much more obvious could this be? Would God have spoken to Noah if he were not already righteous? Of course not because He didn't speak to anyone else living at the time, Why? Because they were not righteous/child of God or "born again".
If a person is not a child of God (born again) they will not hear the voice of God to go through the water! As clearly illustrated in the lesson of the Flood! Now, in context, this verse is saying that baptism saves us just as the flood saved Noah, now we understand it was not the flood that saved, it was Noah's faith in God that allowed him to hear God's call in the first place and caused him to build an Ark to bring them through the water.
Everyone in the flood died, they were IN the water, but they were not in the Ark! What was the difference between those in the ark and those outside the Ark? FAITH. So it was not the flood that saved them and since baptism is a corresponding figure - baptism does not save. What has confused the "saved by water" believers is the statement in the Scriptures, "Baptism doth also now save us", but when we read that statement within the CONTEXT of the entire thought, it is saying that baptism is a FIGURE, just as the flood was a figure of the salvation provided through Jesus!
What does baptism do? It shows to the world you are just like Noah, you have Believed in God's salvation plan - in Noah's day it was the ark in our day it is Jesus' death on the cross. Now because you are born again you hear His voice and walk in obedience and pass through the flood, JUST LIKE NOAH!
I could go on and on, unfortunately I am running out of time once again.
I had one last quick thought for the night. Was Noah and his family believing that the flood would save them or God?
Noah trusted (had faith) in God - not the baptism. Are you trusting in Jesus as your Ark (Being in Christ)? or are you trusting in the Flood, Water Baptism?
Faithfully His,
-- Anonymous, November 10, 1999
As we consider this passage you must take it for what it says. Peter clearly ties baptism and salvation together just as our Lord did in Mark 16:16. This passage has always been a tough passage for those who not wish to accept baptism as playing any role in ones salvation. To get by this they try to focus on the "figure" or "symbolizes" as if Peter is Peter is saying that baptism figuratively saves you or symbolizes the salvation that you have already received. The only problem with that is that the "water" of the flood is the figure while it is the baptism that is the reality. The flood is the anti-type while baptism is the type. The point being is that baptism does indeed save. Now how did the water of the flood save Noah and his family is not really clear from this passage. Seperation from sin and its consequences? Whatever Peter's thinking here is it does not change his reference to the fact that just as Noah and his family were saved through or by water, now we are saved by or through baptism. As Peter makes it clear it is not as if the water cleanses our flesh but an appeal to God for a good conscience. Our salvation is from God but baptism is the point when it happens. The blood of Christ does indeed save but the blood is applied when one is baptized into Christ. That is why Paul connects baptism and remission of sins in Acts 2:38.I am saved by faith like the next person but my faith leads me to do what Christ, Paul, Peter have said I must do in order to be saved. How can I say that I trust Christ to save me when I disagree with what he has told me I must do to be saved.
Faith alone if it does not require a response will save. But this is not the kind of faith that Jesus requires of us. Repentance, confession and baptism all are linked to salvation as well. Even those who do not believe in baptism tell the sinner to pray a certain prayer! At least baptism is biblically tied to remission of sins and salvation.
-- Anonymous, November 16, 1999
To Keith:I had a response all typed and lost it :o( I will have to respond tomorrow, sorry for the delay.
-- Anonymous, November 17, 1999
To Keith:Here goes, admittedly this is a much shorter answer than the one I had ready yesterday, hopefully it will suffice. I quickly wanted to address a couple of points you made in your post:
"This passage has always been a tough passage for those who not wish to accept baptism as playing any role in ones salvation."
If you read my last post, I did not feel as if I had a hard time explaining the meaning of the passage. If there was something you did not understand I will attempt to make it clearer. Sometimes it is difficult to follow along on posts such as these. As far as being a "tough passage" I don't think so.
"To get by this they try to focus on the "figure" or "symbolizes" as if Peter is Peter is saying that baptism figuratively saves you or symbolizes the salvation that you have already received."
If you re-read the passage you will discover that this is what the passage is saying. To quote 1 Peter 3:21 "the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" You then go on to say:
"The only problem with that is that the "water" of the flood is the figure while it is the baptism that is the reality. The flood is the anti-type while baptism is the type. The point being is that baptism does indeed save."
Can you show me where in this verse that it says that the flood is the figure and baptism is the reality? I honestly don't see this. When I read this verse I see it saying that baptism is "the like figure"! Another version calls it a "corresponding figure". The Greek word here for "like figure" is "Antitupon" - which is derived from two root words; "anti" meaning: "both equivalence and exchange; correspondency" and the second word; "tupos" meaning: "a form or figure". To now allow the Holy Scriptures to speak for themselves: 1 Peter3:21a says:
"And Antitupon to that, baptism now saves you." Water Baptism is an Antitupon. A corresponding figure or type.
A corresponding figure to what? To the flood!
I really do not think I can make this any clearer. A close study of this verse (2Tim2:15) shows the lack of study on your part. In my first message I went into detail concerning the word filth in this verse but do not have the time now. I will however mention quickly that the verse ends by giving us the anti-type of the flood and water baptism, that being the resurrection. Both the flood and water baptism are types, figures or symbols of Christ's resurrection. Or at least that is what 1 Peter 3:21 says.
Sincerely,
-- Anonymous, November 18, 1999
Sorry, I meant to say:I will however mention quickly that the verse ends by giving us the type of the flood and water baptism, that being the resurrection. Both the flood and water baptism are anti-types, figures or symbols of Christ's resurrection. Or at least that is what 1 Peter 3:21 says.
-- Anonymous, November 18, 1999
Barry:Heres what you say:
Can you show me where in this verse that it says that the flood is the figure and baptism is the reality? I honestly don't see this. When I read this verse I see it saying that baptism is "the like figure"! Another version calls it a "corresponding figure". The Greek word here for "like figure" is "Antitupon" - which is derived from two root words; "anti" meaning: "both equivalence and exchange; correspondency" and the second word; "tupos" meaning: "a form or figure". To now allow the Holy Scriptures to speak for themselves: 1 Peter3:21a says:
"And Antitupon to that, baptism now saves you." Water Baptism is an Antitupon. A corresponding figure or type.
A corresponding figure to what? To the flood!"
The problem in your argument is that you have your terms reversed. A quick look at the definitions of type and antitype will show you that the type,/B> is the shadow, the part that resembles the real thing, while the antitype is the thing being foreshadowed or recalled, the reality. The type is the picture or description of the antitype. You have it just backwards. Thus, Joseph was the type, and Jesus the antitype. The tabernacle was the type and the temple was the antitype, and in turn becomes the type for the antitype, Heaven.
And, in Peter, the antitype is specifically stated to be baptism, which was foreshadowed by the type, the flood. You have it just backwards.
Back to your statement: "I will however mention quickly that the verse ends by giving us the anti-type of the flood and water baptism, that being the resurrection. Both the flood and water baptism are types, figures or symbols of Christ's resurrection. Or at least that is what 1 Peter 3:21 says."
Well, no, it doesnt. It says that the salvation effectiveness of baptism comes from the resurrection. Sounds a lot like Paul here -- Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
-- Anonymous, November 18, 1999
Sorry for the "over-boldness" in that last bit. I'm still experimenting with the HTML publishing commands. I guess I missed a "<" up there.Here, I'll try it again, so that it will read like I wanted to.
Barry:
Heres what you say:
Can you show me where in this verse that it says that the flood is the figure and baptism is the reality? I honestly don't see this. When I read this verse I see it saying that baptism is "the like figure"! Another version calls it a "corresponding figure". The Greek word here for "like figure" is "Antitupon" - which is derived from two root words; "anti" meaning: "both equivalence and exchange; correspondency" and the second word; "tupos" meaning: "a form or figure". To now allow the Holy Scriptures to speak for themselves: 1 Peter3:21a says:
"And Antitupon to that, baptism now saves you." Water Baptism is an Antitupon. A corresponding figure or type.
A corresponding figure to what? To the flood!"
The problem in your argument is that you have your terms reversed. A quick look at the definitions of type and antitype will show you that the type is the shadow, the part that resembles the real thing, while the antitype is the thing being foreshadowed or recalled, the reality. The type is the picture or description of the antitype. You have it just backwards. Thus, Joseph was the type, and Jesus the antitype. The tabernacle was the type and the temple was the antitype, and in turn became the type for the antitype, Heaven.
And, in Peter, the antitype is specifically stated to be baptism, which was foreshadowed by the type, the flood. You have it just backwards.
Back to your statement: I will however mention quickly that the verse ends by giving us the anti-type of the flood and water baptism, that being the resurrection. Both the flood and water baptism are types, figures or symbols of Christ's resurrection. Or at least that is what 1 Peter 3:21 says.
Well, no, it doesnt. It says that the salvation effectiveness of baptism comes from the resurrection. Sounds a lot like Paul here -- Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
-- Anonymous, November 18, 1999
Barry,I appreciate your response but what you are saying still doesn't seem clear. It still seems like you are trying to make this verse say something else then what it does. What I was trying to say is that Peter uses the flood as a preceding figure or type and baptism is the reality to which it points.
The fact that "baptism now saves (or delivers) you" seems pretty clear. The unclear part is how Peter views the flood as having saved Noah and his family. Still the point is that baptism has something to do with ones salvation! That there is a spiritual act which is taking place by God and not just a physical act which removes the dirt from the flesh. This all is accomplished through the resurrection, where the claims of Jesus were verified, especially as it pertains to his redeeming sacrifice, which is applied to us by God during our baptism and at which time our sins are forgiven.(Acts 2:38)
Also, you are correct that Noah was a righteous man but if he didn't build the ark like God had told him to he and his family would not have been saved.
Baptism is not a work but a response of faith in Christ just like repentance and confession. Yet no one has a problem with them. Can someone be saved before he repents of his sins or confesses Christ? Why can't baptism be accepted as another part of the conversion process like we find in the Book of Acts and is revealed by Jesus, Paul, and Peter? Baptism is certainly no greater then faith but the two go hand in hand in our conversion to Christ.
-- Anonymous, November 18, 1999
To Keith:Again I feel like I have to respond, you said:
"What I was trying to say is that Peter uses the flood as a preceding figure or type and baptism is the reality to which it points."
I know exactly what you ARE saying, (did you read my post?) the verse does not say that the flood is a figure of a "like figure", it says that water baptism is a "like figure" of the flood. Both the flood and water baptism point to the resurrection as the reality. Then you make the next statement:
"The fact that "baptism now saves (or delivers) you" seems pretty clear.
I agree, when you pull a phrase out of its CONTEXT and present it in the way you have it does "seem" quite clear. The only problem is you have not read the phrase within its CONTEXT. I find this is how a lot of the folks in your denomination make the Holy Scriptures say whatever it is you want them to. I try to give you the benefit of the doubt, but in clear-cut instances such as this one, I cannot just look the other way. By stating that this verse means "baptism now saves you" without including any other part of this sentence/thought you are hermenutically unsound.
"That there is a spiritual act which is taking place by God and not just a physical act which removes the dirt from the flesh."
Here goes, hope you don't overlook the hours of study it took, on my own, to come to an honest answer. By the way, did you study this verse out on your own to come to this conclusion, or did you just take the word of someone else as to the meaning? Just curious.
"Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh". This is a very pivotal statement in this passage and will separate those who dig deep to understand it's meaning and those who simply rely on the word of others. The Greek word for filth in this verse is, "Rupos" meaning, "moral filth and depravity", it is the same word used in James 1:21 and in Revelations 22:11. In no possible way is this verse talking about physical dirt. What this is saying then, is that the "saving" through Water Baptism in no way counteracts the moral filth and depravity of the "flesh", but rather it is "the answer of a good conscience toward God". God knew there would be confusion along the lines of Water Baptism, therefore, He inserts this statement into the verse for clarification. The saving through the water as a result of obeying Gods will and commands does not "put away" our "moral filth and depravity" (only the blood and resurrection of Christ can do that) what it does accomplish, is to give one a good conscience. There are many verses in scripture that talk about "renewing the mind" because the mind is not renewed at salvation or at any one point in time, renewal is a process. A good conscience, or renewed mind, is a result of right behavior and of continued obedience. We can plainly see that Noah's family would have had a good conscience, the fact that they were going through the water meant that they had made the right decision to get on the ark before the first drop of water fell. Even more than that, they had heeded God's message and were walking in obedience to His command. The "like figure" of baptism is exactly the same, we have heeded God's message and are going through the water in obedience to a direct command of God which gives us a feeling of well being and a good conscience knowing we are pleasing God. "By the resurrection of Jesus Christ". The flow of thought in this verse has come to it's only conclusion, since the flood and Baptism are figures of that which saves us, what are they figures of? The answer is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Walking in obedience to Water Baptism we gain a good conscience, all because of the resurrection, or "by the resurrection". This is the whole point, at any moment we make Jesus Lord of our lives we become part of His body or, in other words, we are (baptized) put into Christ, which is a spiritual act (as you pointed out, perhaps without knowing it). This happens not because we are water baptized but because Christ died, was buried and rose again. He is alive to become our Lord when we believe on Him, not when we "do" anything. Can one make Jesus Lord of their life at water baptism? Without a doubt. But salvation is not a result of us getting wet or even being obedient, it is a matter of believing on Jesus as your Lord. We are righteous BEFORE we enter the water. Which is exactly what you yourself admitted to:
"Also, you are correct that Noah was a righteous man
The point is, he was righteous BEFORE the flood, just as WE are righteous BEFORE water baptism. I could go on and on, that is not my point, I think it is tragic that good people like yourself alienate other bible believing Christians because of this apparent difference of OPINION. I concede that one can believe on Jesus while being water baptized (if I understand you to mean that you are saved because of Jesus and not water baptism). Unfortunately you folks are unable to concede that I can believe on Jesus Christ before water baptism as clearly illustrated by 1 Peter 3.
Sincerely,
-- Anonymous, November 19, 1999
To Sam:So sorry, I skipped right past your post and did not see your comments. Thank you for correcting my error in communication - it was getting late and even in my attempt to clear up my statement I muddied it further. You are correct, I am saying that the flood and water baptism are types and the resurrection is the anti-type. Thanks again. You did say something that I have heard a lot of since coming to this discussion that I would like you to explain to me:
Well, no, it doesn't. It says that the "salvation effectiveness" of baptism comes from the resurrection. Sounds a lot like Paul here --"Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
I believe you are quoting Romans 6:4. Again (as I pointed out in my last message) you are pulling a verse completely out of CONTEXT. Within the CONTEXT of this passage/paragraph/thought could you re-read and show me where WATER baptism is mentioned AT ALL? I see the word baptism but would never assume upon the Holy Scriptures and make them say something they are not saying. So, in the spirit of letting the Holy Scriptures speak for themselves, show me where Paul mentions WATER baptism anywhere in the entire chapter, or even the word "water", for that matter.
To help you out, an honest reading of this passage tells me I am baptized "INTO JESUS CHRIST". To help you understand the Baptism into Jesus Christ you can read - Gal.3:26,27, Eph.4:5, Col.2:12 and 1 Cor.12:13. If you want to impose your own denominational view upon the Holy Scriptures that is up to you, I however am content to let them mean what they say. I am "put into" (baptized) into Jesus Christ/Christ's Body by the Spirit the moment I believe on Jesus as my Lord. Water baptism is the "like figure" of this reality.
Sincerely,
-- Anonymous, November 19, 1999