Some contend that "baptism" in 1 Pt. 3:21 is "suffering" and not "water"

[BrianInChrist]

According to Matthew 3:11, Christ baptizes with the Holy Spirit.

[OkiMar]

You are ignoring context and timeline. 

Pauls says 1 baptism; Brian says more.  Who should we believe?

[James Rondon]

You are ignoring context

Context should never be ignored.

[James Rondon]

Pauls says 1 baptism; Brian says more.  Who should we believe?

Considering your contention, at what point in time did water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ become the one, and only baptism, Okimar?

[BrianInChrist]

You are ignoring context and timeline. 

Pauls says 1 baptism; Brian says more.  Who should we believe?

Matthew 3:11 teaches that Christ baptizes with the Holy Spirit.  So Scripture teaches more than one type of baptism.  Perhaps you don't understand Eph. 4:5.

[OkiMar]

You are ignoring context and timeline. 

Pauls says 1 baptism; Brian says more.  Who should we believe?

Matthew 3:11 teaches that Christ baptizes with the Holy Spirit.  So Scripture teaches more than one type of baptism.  Perhaps you don't understand Eph. 4:5.

Pauls says 1 baptism; Brian says more.  Who should we believe?

Considering your contention, at what point in time did water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ become the one, and only baptism, Okimar?

The exact date and time was not revealed in scripture; however, the command to be immersed for the remission of sins is perpetual. 

[OkiMar]

You are ignoring context and timeline. 

Pauls says 1 baptism; Brian says more.  Who should we believe?

Matthew 3:11 teaches that Christ baptizes with the Holy Spirit.  So Scripture teaches more than one type of baptism.  Perhaps you don't understand Eph. 4:5.

Correction...scripture taught more than one baptism.  For today, it teaches only one baptism. 

[BrianInChrist]

You are ignoring context and timeline. 

Pauls says 1 baptism; Brian says more.  Who should we believe?

Matthew 3:11 teaches that Christ baptizes with the Holy Spirit.  So Scripture teaches more than one type of baptism.  Perhaps you don't understand Eph. 4:5.

Pauls says 1 baptism; Brian says more.  Who should we believe?

Considering your contention, at what point in time did water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ become the one, and only baptism, Okimar?

The exact date and time was not revealed in scripture; however, the command to be immersed for the remission of sins is perpetual. 

Translation:  Scripture doesn't teach that water baptism is the only baptism.  And I can't demonstrate that water baptism is for the remission of sins.  But I'm going to assert that to be the case without proof.

[BrianInChrist]

You are ignoring context and timeline. 

Pauls says 1 baptism; Brian says more.  Who should we believe?

Matthew 3:11 teaches that Christ baptizes with the Holy Spirit.  So Scripture teaches more than one type of baptism.  Perhaps you don't understand Eph. 4:5.

Correction...scripture taught more than one baptism.  For today, it teaches only one baptism. 

Correction:  Scripture teaches that there is more than one baptism... period.  You are adding to the text, and that's definitely a no-no.

[spurly]

You are ignoring context and timeline. 

Pauls says 1 baptism; Brian says more.  Who should we believe?

Matthew 3:11 teaches that Christ baptizes with the Holy Spirit.  So Scripture teaches more than one type of baptism.  Perhaps you don't understand Eph. 4:5.

Pauls says 1 baptism; Brian says more.  Who should we believe?

Considering your contention, at what point in time did water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ become the one, and only baptism, Okimar?

The exact date and time was not revealed in scripture; however, the command to be immersed for the remission of sins is perpetual. 

Translation:  Scripture doesn't teach that water baptism is the only baptism.  And I can't demonstrate that water baptism is for the remission of sins.  But I'm going to assert that to be the case without proof.

Bad translation.  Just thought you would like to know.  Be careful about putting words in the mouths of others.

[BrianInChrist]

Spurly,

That's how I interpreted his words.

[OkiMar]

Spurly,

That's how I interpreted his words.

which is indicative of your general interpretation of scripture...erroneous.

[Jimbob]

That's quite the broad brush, Okimar. 

[BrianInChrist]

More empty assertions, OkiMar.

[janine]

Yeah, OkiMar, don't you know that the infallible BrianInChrist always interprets Scripture correctly?

[BrianInChrist]

Janine,

I don't claim infallibility and everyone knows that.  It's ironic that that charge would be leveled at me, when I'm actually providing Scriptural evidence to support what I believe -- as opposed to OkiMar, who seems to believe that his edicts are sufficient.

[James Rondon]

You are ignoring context and timeline. 

Pauls says 1 baptism; Brian says more.  Who should we believe?

Matthew 3:11 teaches that Christ baptizes with the Holy Spirit.  So Scripture teaches more than one type of baptism.  Perhaps you don't understand Eph. 4:5.

Pauls says 1 baptism; Brian says more.  Who should we believe?

Considering your contention, at what point in time did water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ become the one, and only baptism, Okimar?

The exact date and time was not revealed in scripture; however, the command to be immersed for the remission of sins is perpetual. 

So, there was a time when there was more than one baptism? And, during this time, it could be said that there "is one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one God, and multiple baptisms"? Since you have contended that there was a time when the more than one baptism became just one, and only one, do you have any idea when this might have happened, and why it happened? Also, why should one believe that "the command to be immersed for the remission of sins" is perpetual, while these other immersions are not?

[janine]

I imagine the time when "multiple baptisms" became "one baptism" was before the Scripture was written stating "one".

I'm ribbing y'all, BrianInChrist.  Keep citing Scripture, good for you.

[James Rondon]

By the way, while I await your response, Okimar, I am also curious as to how you would harmonize Ephesians 4:4 ("one Spirit") with Revelation 1:4; 3:1; 4:5; and 5:6 ("seven Spirits of God")...

[OkiMar]

Not so empty when they are just a quote from Paul:

One Lord, one faith, one baptism,"

[OkiMar]

I imagine the time when "multiple baptisms" became "one baptism" was before the Scripture was written stating "one".

Amen Janine.

[OkiMar]

Janine,

I don't claim infallibility and everyone knows that.  It's ironic that that charge would be leveled at me, when I'm actually providing Scriptural evidence to support what I believe -- as opposed to OkiMar, who seems to believe that his edicts are sufficient.

That pesky Apostle Paul provides all the proof I need. 

[James Rondon]

Not so empty when they are just a quote from Paul:

One Lord, one faith, one baptism,"

  How did that answer my questions?

[James Rondon]

Janine,

I don't claim infallibility and everyone knows that.  It's ironic that that charge would be leveled at me, when I'm actually providing Scriptural evidence to support what I believe -- as opposed to OkiMar, who seems to believe that his edicts are sufficient.

That pesky Apostle Paul provides all the proof I need.

So, how does that pesky Apostle Paul, and his statement that there is "one Spirit", harmonize with that pesky Apostle John who said "the seven Spirits of God"?

[OkiMar]

You are ignoring context and timeline. 

Pauls says 1 baptism; Brian says more.  Who should we believe?

Matthew 3:11 teaches that Christ baptizes with the Holy Spirit.  So Scripture teaches more than one type of baptism.  Perhaps you don't understand Eph. 4:5.

Pauls says 1 baptism; Brian says more.  Who should we believe?

Considering your contention, at what point in time did water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ become the one, and only baptism, Okimar?

The exact date and time was not revealed in scripture; however, the command to be immersed for the remission of sins is perpetual. 

So, there was a time when there was more than one baptism? And, during this time, it could be said that there "is one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one God, and multiple baptisms"? Since you have contended that there was a time when the more than one baptism became just one, and only one, do you have any idea when this might have happened, and why it happened? Also, why should one believe that "the command to be immersed for the remission of sins" is perpetual, while these other immersions are not?

Yes, there was a time in which there was more than one baptism.  The Apostles were immersed AND they received the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  That would be two separate baptisms.  However, there are only 2 recorded instances of HS baptism...Acts 2 and 10.  I do not know the actual date and time.  
As of the time Paul wrote Eph 4, there has been one, and only one, baptism.  I suspect that there has been only one baptism subsequent to the events of Acts 10, but I can say with 100% certainty that there has been only one baptism since the writing of Eph 4:5.  

The command to be baptized for the remission of sins is perpetual because it is commanded for all Christians.  It was required for Christians in the 1st century; it is required for Christians today; and it is required for Christians tomorrow.  It will be required until Christ returns.

[OkiMar]

Not so empty when they are just a quote from Paul:

One Lord, one faith, one baptism,"

  How did that answer my questions?

For bic, not you.

[James Rondon]

Not so empty when they are just a quote from Paul:

One Lord, one faith, one baptism,"

  How did that answer my questions?

For bic, not you.

Thanks for clarifying.

[OkiMar]

Janine,

I don't claim infallibility and everyone knows that.  It's ironic that that charge would be leveled at me, when I'm actually providing Scriptural evidence to support what I believe -- as opposed to OkiMar, who seems to believe that his edicts are sufficient.

That pesky Apostle Paul provides all the proof I need.

So, how does that pesky Apostle Paul, and his statement that there is "one Spirit", harmonize with that pesky Apostle John who said "the seven Spirits of God"?

May I suggest a study of numerology in The Revelation?  Or, are you suggesting that all of John's references to numbers in The Revelation are to be taken literally?

John's opening remarks makes clear that the message is communicated by signs and symbols (Rev 1:1).  The number 7 represents completeness or perfection.  I believe that "seven Spirits" in v1:4 represents the perfection of the one Holy Spirit (Eph 4:4).  

So, was the Apostle Paul, inspired of the HS, lying or just plain wrong when he clearly stated that there is one baptism and one Spirit in Eph 4:4-5?

[James Rondon]

So, was the Apostle Paul, inspired of the HS, lying or just plain wrong when he clearly stated that there is one baptism and one Spirit in Eph 4:4-5?

No, he was not. Nor was John lying about the seven Spirits of God, and nor were they and other writers lying when they spoke of other spirits, such as the spirit of the world, unclean spirits, the spirit of man, etc. Yet, knowing that, Paul still wrote "one Spirit". This is important, because it will help us understand what Paul meant when it came to the phrase "one baptism", and will also, thus, help us to avoid making Scripture contradict itself...

What you are doing with this passage, Okimar, is forcing it to say something that it is not saying, namely: "there is only one baptism right now, and no others, for they have ceased". If the Lord will allow me to, I will demonstrate tomorrow, from the Scriptures, that there is more than one baptism still in existence, yet, there is only one baptism that Paul considers "the baptism", or more particularly, the "one baptism".

The command to be baptized for the remission of sins is perpetual because it is commanded for all Christians.  It was required for Christians in the 1st century; it is required for Christians today; and it is required for Christians tomorrow.  It will be required until Christ returns.

Well, at least we are finally in agreement that the command to be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ, "for [eis] remission of sins" is for Christians.

[mdd344]

James,
So "suffering saves us now"? Is that what you are saying?

You are completely avoiding the context. Look at the context, and see how, even while being immersed in suffering, and by suffering for Christ even unto death ("the answer of a good conscience toward God"), those who suffer have the hope of rescue because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ (cf. vs. 13-14).

James,
No, really I am not. Notice your view inserted into the verse:

1Pe 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 [SUFFERING] 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:


Is that where you want to insert "SUFFERING"? If not, then where? And how does that relate to "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh..."?

[James Rondon]

Not just suffering, but a baptism of suffering (cf. Matt. 20:22-23). "Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh" is an explanation of what baptism is under consideration, and how this baptism now saves, in correspondence to the story of the ark. Again, read my other posts, as well as the supporting context, both immediate and otherwise. That long list of verses I referenced earlier should help.

[mdd344]

James,
So it is "the baptism of suffering now saves you, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh."

James, what does "putting away filth from the flesh" have to do with a "baptism" that is not water but it is "suffering"?

All the verses in the world won't answer that question. Your going to have to answer it from the verse itself. And how does suffering save?

I am inclined again to ask you to list those whom you have studied who agree with this position. Spurly named one, and one was disputed due to clarity (or lack thereof). I am not seeing any logical connection between a 'baptism of suffering" and the 'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh."

None at all. How do you relate the two phrases?

[BrianInChrist]

Not so empty when they are just a quote from Paul:

One Lord, one faith, one baptism,"

Scripture teaches that Jesus baptizes with the Spirit.  So if there is only one baptism it is in the Spirit.

[James Rondon]

James,
So it is "the baptism of suffering now saves you, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh."

James, what does "putting away filth from the flesh" have to do with a "baptism" that is not water but it is "suffering"?

All the verses in the world won't answer that question. Your going to have to answer it from the verse itself. And how does suffering save?

I am inclined again to ask you to list those whom you have studied who agree with this position. Spurly named one, and one was disputed due to clarity (or lack thereof). I am not seeing any logical connection between a 'baptism of suffering" and the 'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh."

None at all. How do you relate the two phrases?

The paranthetical phrase is there, by Peter, to clarify what he meant by the word "baptism", and especially the phrase, "baptism now also saves you". That is the connection.

[MIZ83]

James,

I have to do more work tonight to get ready for a week of travel and meetings, but I wanted to address briefly your lengthy post on page 5.  And really, a brief answer is all that is called for.  I'm sorry to disappoint all those who enthusiastically embraced your analysis as a grammatical grounds for escape from the obvious import of the passage, but I'm afraid that I must.  You made an obvious mistake that became the basis for your argument.

James R. wrote:

As you can see, the antecedent appears, in this case, to follow the relative pronoun. The word "water", in the Greek, is actually "genitive neuter singular", and thus, does not match up with the relative pronoun, in this case.

But they do match.  Apparently, you were thinking that "water" needed to match the relative pronoun in case, but it does not, as shown by your own citation from Boyer:

Normally, gender and number agree with the antecedent, but the case of the relative is determined by its grammatical function in its own clause.

"Water" and the relative pronoun are both neuter and singular, as your own analysis point out.  So they do agree, according to the very authority you quoted.

If you had been correct, and "water" did not agree with the relative, then no doubt you would have more justification for looking after the relative pronoun in the verse for the antecedent, but as it is, your own authority once again undermines you.  Boyer points out that the antecedent precedes the relative pronoun 82% of the time.  In this instance, "water" is the word directly preceding the relative pronoun in the Greek text. 

So, no, it is not so easy to get the water out of the baptism of verses 20 & 21.

How can those unequipped to judge such technical things know who is right?  How can you tell whether or not James is correct in his assertion that "water" does not agree with the relative pronoun so that it cannot be the antecedent?  Consider the NIV translation.  They clearly connect the water through which Noah was saved with the antitype that saves now, baptism.  "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also."  If water could not be the antecedent, grammatically, then the NIV translators would have to have made a sophomoric blunder of epic proportions.  Not likely.

Blessings,

Bob