Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Did you notice that was AFTER John 3:5? Again, John 3:5 was not in the context of baptism.
Then it was immediately after. The proximity of this verse to the act of Baptizing is the context.
Quote:
Read the passage again.
Why? It is clear.
Quote:
JThis was previously refuted
Nope.
Quote:
- again it is wrong to cut a verse in half and take one half out of context.
Quote:
Another one taken out of context. Let's look at the passage in context
Nope.
Quote:
1 Peter 3:18-22
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to
God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went
and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the
Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which
a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good
conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into
heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been
made subject to Him.
NKJV
We see three things discussed here:
1) Noah's Ark and its role in saving people through the flood
2) Water baptism
3) The gospel and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This passage relates these three items by showing how they relate. First Peter speaks the death of Christ on the cross, setting the focus for the passage. As a result of this passage, we know that the focus of the verses that follow are regarding the death of Christ on the cross for our sins. This death for our sins is then compared, to the flood, with the flood discussed as a symbolic “type” or comparison to salvation which come through the cross of Christ. Then we are told that there is an anti-type, baptism. I often hear the argument that an “anti-type” is the opposite of a type, or as one person recently said, an anti-type being the opposite of a type is “reality”. Unfortunately that argument is not “reality” because in Greek and similar languages, “anti-” often does not mean “opposite” as we understand it in English, but rather means a replacement or a contrast. This when we are told about one type, and then we are told that there is an anti-type, what we see here is a contrasting type of the death on the cross.
an·ti·type n.
- One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
- An opposite or contrasting type.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin
Company. All rights reserved.
This understanding also agrees with what Paul said in Romans 6 where he identifies baptism as a “likeness” or symbolic of the death and resurrection on the cross:
Rom 6:3-7
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized
into His death? 4 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. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death,
certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old
man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should
no longer be slaves of sin.
NKJV
In discussions with proponents of baptismal regeneration, they will often just read out Romans 6:3 and then stop before you get to the verse which describes baptism as a “likeness” of the death and resurrection of Christ. So we find that Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3 are telling us the same thing – baptism is symbolic.
Again, you are reading your own presuppositions into Scripture. It is obvious in both cases that Baptism is depicted as efficacious and necessary for salvation. Yes, the Flood is a foreshadowing of Baptism because just as Noah and humankind were saved through the waters of the flood, so are we now saved by the Waters of Baptism.
And yes, Jesus death on the Cross is like our death to sin in the waters of Baptism but that doesn't mean that Baptism is not efficacious. It confirms the efficacy of Baptism.
Quote:
Now with that in mind, let's look at the verse which is most often quoted by proponents of
baptismal regeneration:
1 Peter 3:21
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh,
NKJV
The contrasting types, the ark, which saved Noah and family through the water, and baptism which saves us in the water - as a type. A "type" simply means symbolic, and thus is symbolic of the death and resurrection of Christ through we we are in fact saved.
False. It does not mean symbolic. He doesn't say, it is as though baptism saves us, but says, baptism now saves us.
Quote:
Now, let's look at the wider context:
1 Peter 3:18
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us toGod, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,
NKJV
Salvation came by Christ suffering on the cross for our sins and then we are made alive by the Spirit. Scripture says that there is one baptism, and it is not a baptism that replaces the blood with water, or replaces the spirit with water, but it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Note that by stating that it is water baptism that is essential, what we are in effect being told is that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not essential, and that they choose water to replace the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Consider the implications.
1 Peter 3:21
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
NKJV
Note that it is water that removes the filth of the flesh, but the water is symbolic of the salvation on the cross. Also note that the substances which cleanses, is the answer of a good conscience towards God. We see a similar reference in Hebrews 9
I see your problem. You think I am denying the symbolic aspect of Baptism. No, I'm not. Baptism is an efficacious symbol. It is both/and. Not either/or.
1217 In the liturgy of the Easter Vigil, during the blessing of the baptismal water, the Church solemnly commemorates the great events in salvation history that already prefigured the mystery of Baptism:
Father, you give us grace through sacramental signs,
which tell us of the wonders of your unseen power.
In Baptism we use your gift of water,
which you have made a rich symbol
of the grace you give us in this sacrament.
Quote:
This passage is very clear regarding the symbolic nature of the various rituals. The reference here to ritual washings is the same word used elsewhere in the New Testament where it is translated as “baptism”.
Please reread my messages. The water symbolizes what is actually happening.
And yes, it is Jesus death on the Cross which empowers this Sacrament:
1225 In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized. The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life. From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit" in order to enter the Kingdom of God.
See where you are baptized, see where Baptism comes from, if not from the cross of Christ, from his death. There is the whole mystery: he died for you. In him you are redeemed, in him you are saved.
Quote:
Heb 9:11-15
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more
perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood
of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all,
having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of
a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 1 4 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this
reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
NKJV
We see confirmation here that it is not the water that cleanses, but the blood of Christ sacrificed on the cross.
Which in no way contradicts the efficacy of Baptism.
Quote:
I dealt with this one in the same rebuttal above.
And I explained how you're rebuttal is based on false assumptions.
Quote:
Are you trying to say that unless obedient to baptism, we cannot be saved?
Unless obedient to Jesus Christ who requires Baptism.
Sincerely,
