Baptism being necessary for salvation...

[cleanfreak]

OK. your turn. How do you interpret 1 Pt. 3:21? Waiting with baited breath for your reply.

I am glad you brought up the fact about taking scripture out of context. Let's go back just to 1 Peter 3:20......there is more going back even further, but this will suffice.....

[1 Pet 3:20-21]:
(v. 20) "apeithesasin .........pote ..........ote ...apax
............[*who] "disobeyed sometime when once
exedecheto .e ......tou Theou makrothumia
was waiting the ...of ..God ...longsuffering
en ........emeraia .Noe .......kataskeuazomenes
in [the] days .......of Noah..[while was] being prepared
kibotou.....eis ..en ......oligai, touteistin okto ..psuchai
[the] ark, .into which few, ....that is .....eight. souls
diesothesan di ..........udatos
were saved .through water
(v. 21) o .......kai ...emas antitupon .......nun .sozie
..........which also ,us......[a] prefigure...now saves
baptisma, .........ou ..sarkos .apothesis .........rupoua
[even] baptism, not of flesh a putting away of [the] filth
alla suneideseos .....agathes ....eperotema eis .......Theon
but of a conscience good [the] response ...towards God,
di ..........anastaseos ...Iesou Christou
by [the] resurrection of Jesus Christ

"o" = "ho" = nominative singular neuter relative pronoun = "which" = refers back to "water" (v. 20) = flood water = nom. sing. neuter noun.
"[a] prefigure" = "antitupon" = nominative, singular, neuter adjective which is used as a noun = a corresponding type, a prefiguring. This word comes from "anti" = over against, in correspondance to + "tupos" = mark = a corresponding mark.
The Greek wording in verse 21 puts the word "baptism" which "saves" at a distance from the word "prefigure" with a number of key words in between:
"ho...........................antitupon........... . "which [Noah being] prefigure....
[physically saves]

• ... .baptisma........

[which is].baptism.........
and adding a few more words from verse 21 to build the complete meaning:
"ho kai.................antitupon nun
which also [is a].....prefigure now
[Noah being physically saved]
baptisma "
[of the]baptism"
and a few more:
"ho kai.. emas antitupon nun
"which also [is a] prefigure now
[Noah being]
[Physically saved] (us)
sozei* baptisma "
[of the]baptism[which *saves us
*(saves)

Is it just me, or did Noah get saved and nowhere mentioned is baptism in water? Maybe it is ironic that those who were submerged in water died.....

Let's take all the scriptures in context as you stated. I hope I did not keep you waiting too long.

 

[stovebolts]

This is an UNSCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE, TAUGHT BY MEN. Scripture specifically says "baptism, which now saves you" and you refuse to believe it. This is the ordinary way that the merits of the resurrection are applied to a person, that's what "It [baptism] saves you by the resurrection of Christ..." means.

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:

How is an infant supposed to go into the baptismal waters with a good conscience toward God... Ya can't have it both ways.

I would argue that "baptism, which now saves you" would co-inside with the ideal that baptism is a response to the gospel which is faith expressing itself through love. Or do you think Noah just obeyed God's word out of fear, and fear alone from a wrathful and ridged god.

 

[dadof10]

Simply put, we are not baptized into a denomination but rather, we are baptized into the Church of Christ. Think about this, why do so many churches not validate a baptism from another denomination? It's simple... it's because they don't view baptism as faith expresing itself through love as a response to the gospel, but rather, they look at it as a legalistic rite that is performed for entrance into 'their' church.

Good point!

 

[dadof10]

I am glad you brought up the fact about taking scripture out of context.

I didn't. I actually said we should take everything written about a certain subject into consideration before formulating doctrine, although I also think context is important.

Let's go back just to 1 Peter 3:20......there is more going back even further, but this will suffice.....

[1 Pet 3:20-21]:
(v. 20) "apeithesasin .........pote ..........ote ...apax
............[*who] "disobeyed sometime when once
exedecheto .e ......tou Theou makrothumia
was waiting the ...of ..God ...longsuffering
en ........emeraia .Noe .......kataskeuazomenes
in [the] days .......of Noah..[while was] being prepared
kibotou.....eis ..en ......oligai, touteistin okto ..psuchai
[the] ark, .into which few, ....that is .....eight. souls
diesothesan di ..........udatos
were saved .through water
(v. 21) o .......kai ...emas antitupon .......nun .sozie
..........which also ,us......[a] prefigure...now saves
baptisma, .........ou ..sarkos .apothesis .........rupoua
[even] baptism, not of flesh a putting away of [the] filth
alla suneideseos .....agathes ....eperotema eis .......Theon
but of a conscience good [the] response ...towards God,
di ..........anastaseos ...Iesou Christou
by [the] resurrection of Jesus Christ

"o" = "ho" = nominative singular neuter relative pronoun = "which" = refers back to "water" (v. 20) = flood water = nom. sing. neuter noun.
"[a] prefigure" = "antitupon" = nominative, singular, neuter adjective which is used as a noun = a corresponding type, a prefiguring. This word comes from "anti" = over against, in correspondance to + "tupos" = mark = a corresponding mark.
The Greek wording in verse 21 puts the word "baptism" which "saves" at a distance from the word "prefigure" with a number of key words in between:
"ho...........................antitupon........... . "which [Noah being] prefigure....
[physically saves]

• ... .baptisma........

[which is].baptism.........
and adding a few more words from verse 21 to build the complete meaning:
"ho kai.................antitupon nun
which also [is a].....prefigure now
[Noah being physically saved]
baptisma "
[of the]baptism"
and a few more:
"ho kai.. emas antitupon nun
"which also [is a] prefigure now
[Noah being]
[Physically saved] (us)
sozei* baptisma "
[of the]baptism[which *saves us
*(saves)

Is it just me, or did Noah get saved and nowhere mentioned is baptism in water?

The flood water PREFIGURES water baptism (some versions have "symbolizes"). C'mon, Cleanfreak, you must see that Peter is using the episode of the flood as an allegory for baptism?

Is this what you're getting at with all the Greek? That Noah wasn't baptized, yet saved, so we don't need baptism to be saved? Do you really think that's what Peter was getting at here?

Maybe it is ironic that those who were submerged in water died.....

Your argument is with Peter. He's the one that says "...eight in all were saved through water..." referring to Noah and his family, not me.

I asked how you interpret the verses, still waiting for a cogent answer...

 

[dadof10]

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:

How is an infant supposed to go into the baptismal waters with a good conscience toward God... Ya can't have it both ways.

Peter is not writing the "baptism" chapter in the catechism here, he's simply using the story of Noah to reaffirm that baptism saves. It's almost like it was a "while I'm here, I might as well mention that the flood corresponds to water baptism and that Christ is in Heaven with powers subject to Him". The point of this section of Peter's letter is doing right and possibly suffering for it.

"For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God's will, than for doing wrong." (1Peter (RSV) 3:17)

He then moves on:

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;" (1Peter (RSV) 3:18)

Then goes off on a tangent of sorts:

"...in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him." (1Peter (RSV) 3:19-22)

Then comes back to the point of suffering:

"Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same thought, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer by human passions but by the will of God. (1Peter (RSV) 4:1-2)

Note verse 4:1 says "Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh...". This isn't referring to what was just said (spirits in prison, Noah, baptism, angels, authorities, etc.), it's referring to the main point of suffering, back to verse 3:18.

Under the inspiration of the Spirit, he seems to mention in passing what the Church taught. It isn't even being argued, just stated as fact. Context is king!!!

These verses don't rule out infant baptism, either. The words are written to adults, so he mentions an "appeal for a clear conscience".

I would argue that "baptism, which now saves you" would co-inside with the ideal that baptism is a response to the gospel which is faith expressing itself through love. Or do you think Noah just obeyed God's word out of fear, and fear alone from a wrathful and ridged god.

Certainly it incorporates a response to the Gospel. For adults to accept baptism they are required by the Church to take catechism classes (there are exceptions, of course) and promise to maintain a "good conscience".

The words are "baptism, which now saves you". I guarantee if this verse said "faith, which now saves you", it would be interpreted exactly as written instead of explained away in light of sola-fide. I'm not accusing you, personally of explaining it away, SB. I don't know if you will or not. Just speaking in general terms.

 

[Sam21]

The baptism that saves is when Jesus baptizes us in the Holy Spirit, there is water baptism(done by man)and Spirit baptism(done by God). One can be water baptized by man and still be lost,however one who is baptized by Christ in the Holy Spirit is saved. John said that "I baptize you in water(less)while Christ will baptize you in the Holy Spirit(much greater). Water is only water and the best it can do is wash off the dirt from the flesh(as Peter said), on the other hand, when God baptizes us into His Spirit we become born again and become children of God. So the baptism that saves is the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

 

[stovebolts]

You make a very valid point Sam and I agree with what you've said.

What I would like to add, or rather expand upon is this notion that our salvation is holistic and not just a spiritual experience. Furthermore, within scripture, it is normative, though not exclusive, that when one enters the baptismal waters the two (Spiritual and physical) come together. Thus, there is only one Baptism.

 

[stovebolts]

Hi Dad of 10 (Do you really have 10 children?)

It's funny, because when I read what Peter writes about Noah, I'm taken back to the story of Noah. Essentially, I view the story as Noah, who was living in a world surrounded by sin where corruption was rampant. God tells Noah to build an Ark (which by the way the Hebrew word for Ark is only used twice in the whole bible. It is used in Exodus 1 and generally translated as "basket", but I may come back to this.)

Anyway, Noah builds this ark and entered into it with his family. The rains come down and by the water, they are swept away from their old life surrounded by sin, and brought to a new world that is fresh and vibrant with new life. You see, it was the water which cleansed the old world... a world filled with evil desires and everything ungodly and it became new.

Juxtapose this with Romans 6. I won't quote it because I know you know this passage well, but it speaks of being buried with christ, and being brought up with Christ. Thus, Peters own words in 3:21 state, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Tell me, do you think Baptism mirrors, or parallels Circumcision in any way?

 

[Vic C.]

OK. your turn. How do you interpret 1 Pt. 3:21? Waiting with baited breath for your reply.

I am glad you brought up the fact about taking scripture out of context. Let's go back just to 1 Peter 3:20......there is more going back even further, but this will suffice........

I see cleanfreak decided to use the unabridged version but CF is correct; taking a verse out of context and using it as prooftext isn't the way to go.

Here's my explanation:

If we only read v. 21, we will no doubt be inclined to associate salvation with water. But look at the bigger picture, the whole passage. What really saved Noah and family? Was it the water or the ark?

Yes, of course it was the ark and from a Christocentric POV, the ark represents Christ.

So, what, or who, is really responsible for our salvation is Christ. No water, no works, no anything outside of what Christ did for us. It's Christ + nothing.

From the beginning of time 'til He returns, man will always be looking for a way to take at least partial credit for his/her adoption by God, as if we could actually choose the parents who adopt us.

 

[stovebolts]

Hi Vic,

So, what, or who, is really responsible for our salvation is Christ. No water, no works, no anything outside of what Christ did for us. It's Christ + nothing.

From one plane of thought I would whole heartidly agree. It is only Christ who is able to save us.

But a problem I also have with this line of thinking is that it's usually only taken from the point of view of the afterlife... and that's where I think we fall short in our thinking.

Take for example what David said in Psalms 6:2-5 Have mercy upon me, O LORD; for I am weak: O LORD, heal me; fo rmy bones are vexed. M soul is also sore vexed: but though, O LORD, how long? Return, O LORD, deliver my soul: oh save me for they mercies sake. For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

Or Psalms 7:1 O LORD my God, in thee do I put my trust: save me from all them that persecute me, and deliver me.

Yes, it is Christ who saves us, that's for sure. But lets not loose site that salvation starts today, and like David, we can put our trust in that and when we do, we won't only be delivered from the depths of hell, but we can be delivered from that annoying bully that doesn't seem to want to leave us alone, ... or them lies others tell about us...

So yeah Vic, it is Christ who delivers us, but we have to respond... we have to live it out and we have to act on that trust and faith, just like the lady who bled for many years and was healed when she touched the corner of Jesus garment.. because what did Jesus say?... "Your faith has healed you."

Was it Christ who healed her, or was it her faith?.. Maybe it was both

 

[cleanfreak]

Was it Christ who healed her, or was it her faith?.. Maybe it was both

Faith can be put into many things.....

It was her faith in Christ that healed her. ;)

dado---
I believe the others have answered sufficiently here, so no need for me to expound.

 

[stovebolts]

Faith can be put into many things.....

It was her faith in Christ that healed her. ;)

Exactly, and we all know that everyone, everywhere has faith. The question then becomes, "What have you put your faith in?".

And this brings us full circle on the OP. Baptism is simply faith, expressed through love as a response to the gospel by the power of the resurrection of Christ which can transform ones life.

 

[Sam21]

There is a strange reality though, God will forgive sins and give the indwelling Holy Spirit to a person apart from water baptism, actually most people who are really saved and have the Holy Spirit were saved apart from water...the question is WHY?
Peter seemed to set the procedure,come for water baptism, call upon Christ as you are being water baptized, and you are forgiven and receive the Holy Spirit,yet God broke Peters procedure with Cornilus household and has been breaking it ever since. If God would not respond except through water then it would all be simple, however God responds to faith in Christ apart from water.
Actually Peter had to present conversion(water baptism)after the conversion and gift of the Spirit had already been given. Peter was much more into water baptism then was Paul who said that God had not sent him to baptize. I know this sounds strange, but the problem is GOD because God insists on saving people apart from water baptism. The ultimate proof of salvation has to be the baptism of the Holy Spirit, something only God can do, and God does do this apart from water, it is even in the bible and it happens all the time, so why?

 

[cleanfreak]

Exactly, and we all know that everyone, everywhere has faith. The question then becomes, "What have you put your faith in?".

And this brings us full circle on the OP. Baptism is simply faith, expressed through love as a response to the gospel by the power of the resurrection of Christ which can transform ones life.

 

[stovebolts]

Hi Sam,

Question... What was Peter's view of the gentile world regarding salvation prior to Cornelius?

In other words, what did it take to get Peter to actually go to see Cornelius? To get him to even go inside his house.... That, my friend is the point of what occurred at the house of Cornelius.

To help others along, look at Acts 10:17 and ask yourself, what was it in his vision was he puzzled over?

Can God grant the Holy Spirit outside of water baptism? Absolutely, no questions asked. Is it normative in scripture?... What's normative, is that those who have been granted the Holy Spirit, have also been Baptized in water.

Even still, why do you believe Peter says what he says in verse 47?

 

[handy]

Yes, it is Christ who saves us, that's for sure. But lets not loose site that salvation starts today, and like David, we can put our trust in that and when we do, we won't only be delivered from the depths of hell, but we can be delivered from that annoying bully that doesn't seem to want to leave us alone, ... or them lies others tell about us...

So yeah Vic, it is Christ who delivers us, but we have to respond... we have to live it out and we have to act on that trust and faith, just like the lady who bled for many years and was healed when she touched the corner of Jesus garment.. because what did Jesus say?... "Your faith has healed you."

I agree Jeff. I remember responding on 7ruth's first thread about this saying:

Unless you want to spend your entire walk with Christ on this earth hanging from a cross, you need to be baptized.

To refuse water baptism just because we believe that "it doesn't save us" is to show a pretty disobedient spirit towards Christ, Who Himself, was baptized by water. What? Are we better than our Master?

Why would one refuse water baptism even if someone can prove beyond any shadow of doubt from the Scriptures that it is not intertwined with one's salvation?

I think some Christians of today could be accused of being pretty spiritually lazy, thinking that only that which saves, and not one whit more, is necessary.

That was the point of my other post on 7ruth's thread...forget about the "for salvation" part...baptism is necessary.

I like the Lutheran church's stand on communion, as to whether or not the water and wine are symbolic or Christ's actual body and blood. The official teaching is that Christ didn't say "The water and wine are 'symbolic'", He said, "This is my body...this is my blood"....and we don't fully understand what He meant by that.

I look at our baptism the same way....that it is fully intertwined with our salvation is clear...this is the one thing we can and should glean from all these Scriptures we are analyzing...there is a connection between water baptism and our salvation. Sure, we can dissect, discuss, and enter into diatribes as to exactly what that connection is...is it symbolic? is it necessary to salvation? is it and the baptism of the Holy Spirit one and the same?...but the truth of the matter is, we probably won't fully understand it this side of heaven, as we still "look through the glass darkly".

So, baptism being "necessary for salvation" is a question that probably cannot be answered. Baptism being necessary though...absolutely.

 

[Sam21]

I agree Jeff. I remember responding on 7ruth's first thread about this saying:

Unless you want to spend your entire walk with Christ on this earth hanging from a cross, you need to be baptized.

To refuse water baptism just because we believe that "it doesn't save us" is to show a pretty disobedient spirit towards Christ, Who Himself, was baptized by water. What? Are we better than our Master?

Why would one refuse water baptism even if someone can prove beyond any shadow of doubt from the Scriptures that it is not intertwined with one's salvation?

I think some Christians of today could be accused of being pretty spiritually lazy, thinking that only that which saves, and not one whit more, is necessary.

That was the point of my other post on 7ruth's thread...forget about the "for salvation" part...baptism is necessary.

I like the Lutheran church's stand on communion, as to whether or not the water and wine are symbolic or Christ's actual body and blood. The official teaching is that Christ didn't say "The water and wine are 'symbolic'", He said, "This is my body...this is my blood"....and we don't fully understand what He meant by that.

I look at our baptism the same way....that it is fully intertwined with our salvation is clear...this is the one thing we can and should glean from all these Scriptures we are analyzing...there is a connection between water baptism and our salvation. Sure, we can dissect, discuss, and enter into diatribes as to exactly what that connection is...is it symbolic? is it necessary to salvation? is it and the baptism of the Holy Spirit one and the same?...but the truth of the matter is, we probably won't fully understand it this side of heaven, as we still "look through the glass darkly".

So, baptism being "necessary for salvation" is a question that probably cannot be answered. Baptism being necessary though...absolutely.

During war time people are sometimes lead to the Lord and never have a chance to be baptized in water. In the New Testament people who accepted Christ as Saviour were water baptized,however what if one of the persons in the house of Cornilus had a heart attack after receiving the Holy Spirit and died before being water baptized? This may sound silly but this is a very important question, was the Holy Spirit baptism enough to actually save or does it take baptism in water before God can completely save a person?

 

[cyberjosh]

If anyone is interested I have written a paper on the purpose of Baptism that you can find on my site here: The Purpose of Baptism. I believe that the only effectual and saving Baptism is the Baptism of the Spirit which all believers receive. Apart from being born of the Spirit of God we can have no eternal life.

 

[jasoncran]

this will stir the pot.

the christian" i love you lord"
GOD,' thou must be baptised as commanded my disciples to baptise men in my name"
the christian" but the theif on the cross"
God" yeah? hes dead and didnt have a chance to obey. i am merciful"
the christian"?"
God " you arent dead yet!"
the christian":o"

 

[Sam21]

If anyone is interested I have written a paper on the purpose of Baptism that you can find on my site here: The Purpose of Baptism. I believe that the only effectual and saving Baptism is the Baptism of the Spirit which all believers receive. Apart from being born of the Spirit of God we can have no eternal life.

Amen to that! I think the baptism that we should be concerned about is the Baptism in the Spirit because that is God saving us.