1Peter 3:21 is baptism a symbol?

[filosofer]

If he is speaking of one birth...why does he use the term "born agin" implying 2 births.

He doesn't. He uses the word ANWQEN (anwthen) - which can be translated in two ways: "Again" or "afrom above".

Also, "unless a person is born of water and spirit" in the Greek the grammar supports the view that "water" and "spirit" are considered one item, not two.

 

[Unnamed Servant]

Water baptism does not and cannot exist apart from Christ nor antithetical to him.

Hmmmm So what was the point of Jesus' baptism?

 

[filosofer]

Hmmmm So what was the point of Jesus' baptism?

According to Matt 3:15 it was to fulfill all righteousness. Thus, he stepped into our place through his baptism. Through our baptism we step into his place of righteousness; and of course, baptism is intimately connected with faith.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

filosofer is right, Jesus' baptism was to fulfill all righteousness. John the Baptist's message was to "make straight the way for the Lord" and to reveal the Messiah (John 1:31). Jesus, though he did not need to be baptized for sin, did so to identify with John's message and ministry and to identify with those who would take John's message to heart. The gospels point out that both the Father and the Holy Spirit publically approved of Jesus, marking Him as the Messiah. Jesus' baptism also marked the beginning of Jesus' public ministry.


Lamorak Des Galis

 

[JohnJones]

JohnJones, yes, there are obvious parallels between Titus 3:5 and John 3:5 and that is indeed why I quoted the verse. You stated,

Note that the phrase "our BODIES washed with pure water" indicates literal water - Paul says that having our BODIES washed with pure water gives us boldness to enter the holy of holies! What else can he mean other than water baptism, and what else can Titus 3:5 be talking about? Nothing else.

This is nothing less than blasphemy. To suggest that to wash our bodies with “pure water” is to wash with the water down at the local river is to literally deny the living water given to us by Christ.

The water Jesus speaks of to the woman at the well is drunk, then becomes a well of water in the belly - it is INTERNAL. Th water Paul speaks of in Hebrews 10:22 is not drunk nor in the belly, but washes the body - it is EXTERNAL, like the water of Noah's flood which "water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also." (1 Peter 3:21)

 

[JohnJones]

If he is speaking of one birth...why does he use the term "born agin" implying 2 births.

He does speak of two births in the overall context, but in verse 5 he speaks only of one birth. In verse 5 he explains what the re-birth consists of, two elements, water and Spirit. If he meant to speak of two births in verse 5, that is, if he meant to contrast a birth of water with a birth of Spirit, he would have been forced by the Greek language to say the word "born" twice. If he said "A man must be born of water and born of the Spirit" then you would be right, but in that he says "A man must be born of water and of the Spirit" he makes it one birth consisting of two elements rather than two separate births. So, the re-birth consists of water and of Spirit, and (of course) there was a first birth of flesh prior to this two-element-re-birth.

 

[Rafael]

It's a symbol with great literal meaning, profound and pertaining to life - death to the old and birth to the new.

Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Mr 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Mr 10:38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Ac 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

 

[thereselittleflower]

AnnieSue, you are correct in your belief regarding water baptism, and I agree that if water baptism is required for salvation then your salvation is based upon works, and no longer upon the grace of God. For the Scriptures repeatedly testify that our salvation is,

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" - Titus 3:5.

Actually, the verse you quoted disputes what you are trying to claim . . the phrase "washing of regeneration" was a phrase used by the early Christians to refer to water baptism . . this verse actually says the opposite of what you are claiming . . it says 'But according to his mercy he saved us, bu the washng of regeneration (Baptism), and renewing of the Holy Ghost . ..

Baptism is a sacrament a sign . (a sign is a sacrament) a Sacrament is the use by God of material, physical matter to effect a spiritual reality . .

God interacts with us on both a physical and spiritual leve. . . . we are saved body, soul and spirit, not just sou/spirit . .. and so Baptism is given us to effect the Sacrament which according to Paul in Titus above He uses to save us . .

Works of righteousness are speaking not of Sacraments . . Those are works of Grace . .

Works are not a bad thing you know . . . James tells us that faith without works is dead just like a body without breath is dead . . . if you do not have good works, your faith is nothing more than a corpse . . . a "corpse" faith, a dead faith, can't save you now can it??

Sacraments are not the type of "works" Paul is talking about here.

If then you ask, why does it not just say the Spirit, and leave water out if they are the same? I then ask you this, and I ask that you sincerely think about the question. Why did Jesus tell His disciples that He spoke in parables?

Who ever said that what Jesus said to Nicodemus was a parable???

Therefore, I testify again, that all who say we are saved by baptism of water have fallen from grace, and Christ has profited you nothing. By works shall none be justified.

Since that is no where in scripture . . it cannot be defended . . and you have just condemend the entire first century Church . ..


We are born again by the sacrament of baptism in water through the Holy Spirit . .

Salvation itself is a process . . .


Peace to all!

 

[Unnamed Servant]

So was Jesus not the son of God until His baptism?

 

[filosofer]

So was Jesus not the son of God until His baptism?

That isn't why he was baptized. Read Matthew 3:15-16 again.

 

[jj_3737]

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" - Titus 3:5 (KJV)

Not by works of righteousness which we have done… - And of course this is the case, because salvation is entirely the work of Christ, from the foundation of the world. Man participates in none of it, for, “Verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity.” – Ps 39:5. Blessed are the poor in spirit, the humble before God, who rely upon Him for imputed righteousness. For man deserves nothing but eternal hell fire and damnation for his stiff necked uncircumcised heart. Your works, and supposed sacraments of grace, in whom you do trust for eternal glory, that intend to make you appear righteous before men, are but filthy rags before the Lord, “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” – Isa 64:6. Praise the Lord for these faithful sayings, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:” – Eph 2:8. It this we see,

but according to his mercy he saved us… - The mercy of God, for He is merciful, to call His elect unto Him, and give them the Kingdom. And this is how we are saved, by His mercy, which nullifies all works, and demotes man on all accounts. Praise God for this! For if it was ever by my works, then hell would have swallowed me up ages ago, but by the mercy of God, hath he pulled me out of the miry clay, and upheld me with his hand. It is His Spirit that cleanses me from within, which is affirmed,

by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost – By the washing of the inward man does this regeneration and renewing take place. And this is done only by the Holy Ghost, which is in this verse (Titus 3:5) confirmed. For, “It is the spirit that quickeneth [regenerates]; the flesh profiteth nothing….” – Jn 6:63. It is the pure, and living water that is given only to us by Christ that purifies a man, and not the ordinance of water baptism, for that is never expressed by washing, nor is it the cause or means of regeneration, which can only be attributed to the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Ghost which does the regenerating and the renewing. And this is proven simply be Titus 3:5, which began by stating that it was by His mercy we are saved, and the basic sentence construction confirms, as given by another example, “by the shade, and the shelter of a tree”, we see it is the tree which provides the shade AND shelter. Likewise, it is the Holy Ghost which does the washing AND the renewing. Water is likened unto the Holy Spirit (Jn 4:13-14, Heb 10:22, Rev 22:1) for reasons that water is necessary for life and is the sustainer of it, which is what the Holy Spirit does for the partakers.

Therefore, there is, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” – Ep 4:5, and this is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which God shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, who is,“…the author and finisher of our faith…” – Heb 12:2. This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in my eyes! I say unto you, if you trust in water baptism for salvation, Christ shall profit you nothing, and has become no effect unto you, and you have fallen from grace.

-jj

 

[notinvain]

it is the Holy Ghost which does the washing AND the renewing

Why can't the washing by the Holy Spirit be done during Baptism? The act of water baptism being the tree that provides the shade. That would be more in line with the rest of the scriptures that refer to baptism. When we seperate the flow of scripture to refute or disprove other scriptures, are we not advocating that the scriptures do not work together? In Acts 2:38 it says to Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of our sin, instead saying that the word "for" means something different here (indicating that God does not have the ability to maintain the validity of his word even in todays translations) we can conclude that baptism is for the forgiveness of sin and the water is a symbol of the saving power of Christ blood. That is what lines up perfectly with Peter 3:21, that the water symobolizes baptism which now saves us. But in order to disprove water baptism by saying that it is a symbol goes againts what this scripture says.

 

[filosofer]

I agree with your approach and conclusion (connecting baptism and forgiveness of sins in Acts 2). However, regarding this statement, we have to be clear.

That is what lines up perfectly with Peter 3:21, that the water symobolizes baptism which now saves us.

That is not what 1 Peter 3:21 says.

 

[notinvain]

That is not what 1 Peter 3:21 says

Sorry.... "this water". I should clarify here that the water didn't save them, the Arch saved them, which God instructed Noah to build. Just like baptism saves us not the water itself, which is what God chose water for- to be the symbol of our salvation, therefore making baptism of Gods instruction.

Compare the analogy here: God provided Noah with the instruction to build something that would save them, just like he provides us with the instruction to use water as a symbol of our salvation, and our salvation lies in the forgiving power of Christ blood which is what the water symbolizes, literally through our Faith.

 

[notinvain]

Sorry again, ARK not Arch!

 

[filosofer]

St. Louis, or MacDonald's?

 

[filosofer]

Sorry.... "this water". I should clarify here that the water didn't save them, the Arch saved them, which God instructed Noah to build. Just like baptism saves us not the water itself, which is what God chose water for- to be the symbol of our salvation, therefore making baptism of Gods instruction.

Compare the analogy here: God provided Noah with the instruction to build something that would save them, just like he provides us with the instruction to use water as a symbol of our salvation, and our salvation lies in the forgiving power of Christ blood which is what the water symbolizes, literally through our Faith.

You are closer, but still not there. First, the word is not "symbol" as used in most Protestant theology today. The Greek word is ANTITYPOS ("antitype"). A type was a person, event, thing in the Old Testament that pointed ahead to something greater, which is called the antitype. In Peter's use of it here, note that Peter is identifying the type as "were brought through the water, namely saved" and the antitype is "baptism". So, it is not that baptism is a "symbol". Rather, it is the greater thing. Thus, if anything is a "symbol" it is the saving event of the OT, not baptism.

Unfortunatley, the NIV does not help in this regard, reflecting a poor translation choice of words, which reflects one school of theology, namely Reformed/Anabaptist. Consider these (which use: "corresponding to" = antitype) which do a better job of revealing the Greek:

NAS: And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you

NKJV: There is also an antitype which now saves us - baptism

ESV: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you

 

[jj_3737]

...we can conclude that baptism is for the forgiveness of sin...

So, what you are saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that we are justified by water baptism? It is water baptism that takes away our sins? If you would, could you please answer with a simple YES, or NO. For, I suspect, if you have to explain any further, then you are not truly confident in your position, and I am trying to understand your view.

So, it is not that baptism is a "symbol". Rather, it is the greater thing.

I wonder, what is this greater thing? What is water baptism greater than? I imagine, you will say, indeed it is greater than just a symbol. But if this be your answer, what are you implying? If it is more than just a symbol, then it must have something to do with ones salvation; however, if you say that it doesn't have anything to do with ones salvation, then it must be between a symbol and salvation? Sort of a backup plan if Christ should fail you? A fail-safe if salvation must be wrought be some other means? Of course, correct me if I misspoke regarding your position?

-jj

 

[filosofer]

So, what you are saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that we are justified by water baptism? It is water baptism that takes away our sins? If you would, could you please answer with a simple YES, or NO. For, I suspect, if you have to explain any further, then you are not truly confident in your position, and I am trying to understand your view.

No, we are justified by grace through faith. Baptism is a tool that God uses to bring that to people, just as he uses the Word to bring the same blessings to people. That is the whole point of Matthew 28:18-20 "Make disciples by baptizing and by teaching" those are the means or tools by which disciples are made. Notice, too, that baptism is always something done to the person. It is not part of our work (or "works"), rather it is part of God's saving work. That's why you will find the connection between baptism and forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38-39; 16:31-33; 22:16, etc.) and baptism and salvation (1 Peter 3:21), because baptism is something God does, not humans

I wonder, what is this greater thing? What is water baptism greater than? I imagine, you will say, indeed it is greater than just a symbol. But if this be your answer, what are you implying? If it is more than just a symbol, then it must have something to do with ones salvation; however, if you say that it doesn't have anything to do with ones salvation, then it must be between a symbol and salvation? Sort of a backup plan if Christ should fail you? A fail-safe if salvation must be wrought be some other means? Of course, correct me if I misspoke regarding your position?

Why do you say "water baptism" when the texts say "baptism"? It appears as if you are trying to separate this into compartments when Scripture does not. The problem here in this text is that "symbol" is not an appropriate translation of the Greek. Thus, to use that English word as a theological starting point for denying baptism's role in God's work is self-defeating. Forget "symbol". The NIV is inaccurate in this text, plain and simple. Peter is writing about something far more significant than a "symbol". Although baptism is that (but not based on this text), it is more than that, and that is exactly Peter's point.

No, it is not a "backup" or a 'substitute" for Christ. Scripture never portrays baptism that way. However, Scripture never relegates baptism to this extreme either: "an ordinance that we must do because Jesus commanded us". Such a view is foreign to Scripture regarding Baptism. That view, although occasional references appear in church history) especially developed in the Reformation era by the Anabaptists and some within the Reformed movement.

In fact, if Scripture taught that position, I would say further than you: "Why bother? Isn't that just more Law for us to do? I thought we were freed from the Law?" BUT, Scripture does not teach that view.

According to Scripture, baptism does not "replace" the Word. But neither does Scripture banish baptism from its God ordained role in accomplishing salvation, as one of God's means. Whether it is the Word, or Baptism, which is made effective by the Word, God's goal is to create faith (which only he can do Ephesians 2:4-5), which faith receives the promises attached to the Word and to Baptism, namely forgiveness of sins, salvation, and all that comes with it.

 

[filosofer]

Essentially, from what you are saying, you must conclude that when you are baptized in literal water, you are baptized by the Spirit. So essentially, baptism would have to be required for salvation in your view. If that combination is the one baptism, it is the only conclusion one could reach.

As long as someone accepts your premise, then it is true that is the only conclusion. However, when baptism is seen as a means of providing grace, as does the Word (they are parallel in Matthew 28), the question "is baptism required for salvation?" is missing the point.

Here are my answers to the questions:

Is baptism in literal water required for salvation? - NO
Is baptism in literal water something a Christian needs to do at all? - NO

If you would, could you please answer those 2 questions with a YES, or NO please. I have heard your arguments, and seen the Scripture; I just want to understand your view.

Here are the Biblical questions:

1. Is baptism a means by which God accomplishes his saving purposes? Yes

2. Is baptism the only means by which God accomplishes his purposes? No

I think I've been very consistent in my stance and in my Scriptural evidence. Anyway, this is a topic that requires spiritual eyes, and I'm not saying you don't have those, b/c you have good things to say, but I suggest a more spiritual look at Baptism is required. A view that looks at the whole of Scripture, and not any one particular verse. If you look at Acts to prove baptism by water, you are not taking into account the whole of Scripture, and the Spiritual learning process the Apostles went through in Acts. Such as, the great spiritual awakening of Peter...Acts 11:15-16.

Why is it "more spiritual" to assume that God does NOT use the physical things of this life? Do you take the Word of God as "only a symbol"? I would say that the Scriptural view is to see that the spiritual is not separated from the physical.

BTW, this "spiritualizing" of baptism, Lord's Supper, etc. was evident in the early church, and it was condemned as heresy, called Docetism. It first showed up in those who claimed that God only "appeared" (DOKEW , hence doce-) to take on human form, because "something spiritual" like God couldn't be tarnished with something so physical as a human body. The history of the Christian church demonstrates that the true understanding of the incarnation, baptism, Lord's Supper, and even the Word of God is to take the spiritual and physical as a unit, and not separate them, as most modern Evangelicals do. (Note: I am neither RC nor EO).

Yeah, I am a little familiar with Scripture, have written many studies on Scripture, continue to study the Scriptures in the original languages, and teach the Scriptures. So I won't take offense when you claim that I need to "take into account the whole of Scripture".

Yes, I believe we have reached an impasse. Thanks for the discussion.