Christian Forums

James R. has suggested that the "Like figure

Regardless, it is still the grace of God that saves us, and not being immersed in a pool of water. As Peter says, baptism saves us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (vs. 21). To take the focus off of Christ and transfer it to baptism is the problem.

Pax.

No one has done that. But many here have said "baptism doesn't save us in any form or fashion."

I always thought the occupants of the Ark were saved from the water by their inclusion in the Ark.

Those who actually went through the water died in their sin.

I was mulling this over last night and here's what I came up with:

Quote1Pe 3:20  Which sometime were disobedient, 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.
1Pe 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...

Okay, if we use the water as the thrust of the analogy, I question that the flood water really did (literally) save anyone.  The flood water was a source of destruction and by it all but Noah and his family was completely obliterated.

So how did the flood water "save" Noah and his family?  The only thing I can come up with is that, by the water, Noah (a good man) was given a new earth to work with, placed out of harm's way by no longer being forced to live among Godless people.  Eight people were "saved" by water by a new world being given to them (by way of that destructive water).  The ARK literally did the saving -- or even more literal, GOD did the saving, but it came to pass through the water.

So, the water of baptism also "saves" us, not literally of course (God through Christ through the atoning blood) is what saves, but the baptismal water serves as an allegory to the DBR, serves as "the answer of a good conscience toward God" so that we too can, with a good conscience, join our new "safe" family of Godly people (much as Noah did via the ark).

The "filth of the flesh" has a dual meaning as well.  It can literally mean the germs and dirt that lie on the skin, on the body AND it can mean the sin of our fleshly natures.  So the verse states, that baptismal water, like the flood water, serves, "not [as] the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God."

Baptism does not literally save us.  Jesus does.

Do you think the Jews would have understood this better than we do?  I think so.  I don't believe they (nor should we) believe the water literally saves us -- it serves as an allegory to the water of the flood which didn't save either.  The ark (as Jesus does for us) saved Noah.  God (as God does for us) saved Noah.

That's my take on it.

Good take kalen...

"baptism that now saves you also—not the removal (remission?) of dirt (sin?) from the body but the pledge of a good conscience (an act of odedient submission in recognition of being saved by grace through faith) toward God."

Quote from: OldDad on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 09:22:42
I always thought the occupants of the Ark were saved from the water by their inclusion in the Ark.

Those who actually went through the water died in their sin.

Which goes to the point that they were saved "through" the water (or even "from" the water), not necessarily "by" the water...

The water is representative of the dying.  Baptism pictures a rebirth, which includes a "death/burial by water."

The rising up pictures the resurrection.

But, the question is... is this symbolic only, or is there a very "real" metaphysical communion with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ in baptism (see Romans 6)?  

I see Scripture and the Apostles teaching the latter.

QuoteGOD did the saving, but it came to pass through the water.

Now you get it. Or you should, because you wrote it. That alone ought to cause you to cease even thinking that water immersion in the name of Christ is NOT for the remission of sins. Your observation above is exactly what I have been teaching all along. God does save us, but it comes to pass through the waters of baptism. Just like He has said.

QuoteBaptism does not literally save us.  Jesus does.

So you believe this?

Old Dad,
That is a false dichotemy. Jesus saves, yes. But He saves through baptism (one who obeys the Gospel by being immersed in His name). So you cannot say 'baptism doesn't save' and 'Jesus does save.' That contradicts the Bible.

You must say, "Jesus saves" and "baptism saves" to be in agreement with the Bible, all the while knowing that 'God did the saving, but it comes to pass through the water."

Just wondering because it was the central point of kalen's post that you were giving her the "atta girl" for...

Old Dad,
Kalen was thinking out loud, I believe. And what she stated, that I quoted, was accurate. If she will accept it is up to her. But it contradicts her view on this matter.

Quote from: OldDad on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 09:32:07

QuoteBaptism does not literally save us.  Jesus does.

So you believe this?

Absolutely!

Kalen,
Do you believe this?

"GOD did the saving, but it came to pass through the water."

Mike, I don't think I can talk to you right now.  I'm so annoyed at you, brother, you don't want to hear from me, trust me.  Forgive me whilst I ignore you for a while.

Eight souls were saved FROM the water, were they not? The water was what destroyed the lives of all the other human beings on the earth. It was not even the ark that saved them, but their faith in God that led them to obedience to follow His instructions which led them to build the ark.

This seems logical to me.

Kalen,
You are the one who said it. And, you are the one who doesn't believe it when it comes to water immersion in the name of Christ. Ignoring me will not make that go away. You were so happy in Christ earlier. What happened?

Phoebe,
And, I know not whether you meant it, but you seem to me to imply something with which I would agree. That is, the separation between the saved and the lost in the days of Noah was "water." I believe that is the same today.

Quote from: mdd344 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 09:51:54
Phoebe,
And, I know not whether you meant it, but you seem to me to imply something with which I would agree. That is, the separation between the saved and the lost in the days of Noah was "water." I believe that is the same today.

Nu-uh. DOn't you even go there. The WATER DROWNED PEOPLE! It was the ark that kept them OUT OF the water, and it was GOD Who instructed them to build the ark, which they did out of faith and obedience. THEREFORE, it was GOD Who saved them! NOT WATER!

Don't manipulate my words,  MIke. You don't want to go there today.

Phoebe,
The water only drowns those who did not respond in faith to God. But no, I didn't think you meant it that way. It just sounded like it to me. The water saves the ones who do respond in faith to God. So you cannot say 'God saves, water doesn't save.' Agian, that is a blatant contradiction. God saves, and He used water to do it through.

Quote from: mdd344 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 09:50:50
Kalen,
You are the one who said it. And, you are the one who doesn't believe it when it comes to water immersion in the name of Christ. Ignoring me will not make that go away. You were so happy in Christ earlier. What happened?

Now you're just goading me, and YOU KNOW IT.

Like you do with scripture, you are picking and choosing from my post to suit your need -- your need to pigeonhole me.  I'm so sorry you refuse to understand, that you'd much rather be obtuse, that you have the innate desire to pigeon hole me.  Your loss, not mine.

And my annoyance with you has nothing to do with my joy in the LORD.  Contrary to the way you behave, you and He are not one in the same.

No, Mike, GOD saved them because of, by way of, their FAITH and BELIEF and OBEDIENCE. It could have been anything. He chose a flood, and an ark.

In this case, it WAS the water that drowned those who did not have faith. To my knowledge, they did not have an option of "responding" to anything. IOW, God took them, just like God saved the others. It was His choice. It could have been anything. It could have been fire. But He chose drowning. (Might it have had something to do with what I have always heard - that drowning is a rather peaceful means of death? Can't speak from experience... God is just - and merciful.) The method is not important. What is important is that most people did not believe, and died. Because one man believed, 8 were saved.

It really had nothing to do with the water. There is something we're missing in the NT message ref: Noah and the water. We'll just have to keep digging until we find it. Or, more likely, we are trying to make more out of the mention than was ever intended.

Quote from: phoebe on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 10:08:21
...Or, more likely, we are trying to make more out of the mention than was ever intended.

Sounds most likely to me.

You know, I don't even enjoy reading and posting on here very much anymore.  Not that it's any big loss to anyone, but I think I need a break from it.  Day after day of the same thing, over and over again just effects me negatively.  Our congregation has a retreat planned this weekend and I'm looking forward to it.  Retreat ... yeah ... that's a good word.

Yes, Cross-titled, forums can have an adverse effect. I used to go to forums that were supposed to be support for an illness I have, but I discovered I felt worse when I went there for support! So, I quit going.

Can we discuss something other than how we are all going to hell for not believing the right things about baptism?

I mean, you can disagree on how the Holy Spirit works and indwells, and be okely dokely, but one jot and tittle wrong about baptism, and it is the gaping maw for us all.

QuoteIn this case, it WAS the water that drowned those who did not have faith. To my knowledge, they did not have an option of "responding" to anything. IOW, God took them, just like God saved the others.

Phoebe, that is an incorrect statement "to my knowledge they did not have an option..." Why? Because the Bible says:

2Pe 2:1  But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:2  And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
2Pe 2:3  And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
2Pe 2:4  For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
2Pe 2:5  And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Noah was a preacher of righteousness. He had 120 years to preach. The world would not listen. They sinned. They were ungodly. They refused to come to God. Thus, this was not some Calvinistic arbitrary choice by God. It was mankind reaping what they sowed, as God cannot be mocked.

It is statements like this one that you make without any Biblical support, that in turn flatly contradict the Bible, that make me convinced among other things that your beliefs on this are incorrect.

What interesting is the "like figure" represented by the water in the Noah's Ark story. The fountains of the deep opened up raising the water level and floating the Ark and the windows of the heaven opened to pour water down upon the Ark. But at no time was the Ark dipped under water.

So Peter is telling all these Christians that they were baptised in the same manner (the type/antitype) and for salvation. What manner was that? Going into the water and having it poured over their heads.

This appears at least a good a justification based on imagery for pouring as Romans 6 is for immersion ("being buried with Christ").

Ken

Also some people make a connection between the Ark and the Church. Both are instruments of God's salvation, both by a "baptism" and both lead to a "new world" free of sin.

Of course the Ark would only be a shadow of the Church.

Ken

Quote from: mdd344 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 11:24:07

QuoteIn this case, it WAS the water that drowned those who did not have faith. To my knowledge, they did not have an option of "responding" to anything. IOW, God took them, just like God saved the others.

Phoebe, that is an incorrect statement "to my knowledge they did not have an option..." Why? Because the Bible says:

2Pe 2:1  But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:2  And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
2Pe 2:3  And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
2Pe 2:4  For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
2Pe 2:5  And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Noah was a preacher of righteousness. He had 120 years to preach. The world would not listen. They sinned. They were ungodly. They refused to come to God. Thus, this was not some Calvinistic arbitrary choice by God. It was mankind reaping what they sowed, as God cannot be mocked.

It is statements like this one that you make without any Biblical support, that in turn flatly contradict the Bible, that make me convinced among other things that your beliefs on this are incorrect.

Oh, thank you, Mike. It's right there. v. 4-5: "God ... saved Noah." Not the ark. Not the water. God.

Phoebe,
You ignored my point. And consequently you are still in error over what you stated, just so you know, simply because it contradicts the Bible.

Just,
Read the quoted section in her post. She didn't touch it.

Quote"It is statements like this one that you make without any Biblical support, that in turn flatly contradict the Bible, that make me convinced among other things that your beliefs on this are incorrect."

That's sweet, Mike.

Phoebe,
You see that you are wrong. Why can't you just admit it? What you said directly contradicted the Bible. There is nothing 'sweet' about it.

Quote from: mdd344 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 09:57:15
Phoebe,
The water only drowns those who did not respond in faith to God. But no, I didn't think you meant it that way. It just sounded like it to me. The water saves the ones who do respond in faith to God. So you cannot say 'God saves, water doesn't save.' Agian, that is a blatant contradiction. God saves, and He used water to do it through.

This was what I was referring to. You said the "water only drowns those who did not respond in faith to God".

When you take it out of the context of the whole conversation, yes, you could make it appear like I said something I didn't.

The discussion was whether or not the water saved Noah and his family. The water drowned people. It was not the water that saved them. It was not the ark. It was God. And I thanked you for clarifying that w/NT Scripture. God used their belief and faith. And saved them FROM water.

That's it. I think I'm finished with this discussion. I had hoped it was going to be more about what James had to offer on the topic.

Not water. God.