The Baptism debate

[Michael Wrenn]

Sorry, brother, but you are talking way over my head. My side of this debate needs to be undertaken by someone who has the theological training to match yours. I'm not a theologian, nor even a pastor, as I'm sure is well evident to everyone who reads my comments.

My last point to you: What I see as our commonality is that we both believe that it is God who saves, not good works. (To us, baptism is not a work of man, but a work of God)

Our difference is that we Lutherans believe God chooses to save some people in different circumstances: sometimes God saves an adult who hears the Gospel and believes and sometimes God saves an infant of Christian parents when the Word of God is pronounced at his Baptism. The baptismal water, nor the act of baptism saves, it is just an event during and in which God chooses to save.

It is the power of the Word of God that ALWAYS saves.

On the other hand, you Baptists believe that God only chooses to save older children/adults who have the capability to reason and make a decision to believe. We see that as works-based salvation. Baptists believe that God needs your assistance to save you. We don't believe that God needs your help. We believe God predestines you, elects you, quickens you, gives you faith, belief, repentance and eternal life. It's all yours. That is why it is a FREE GIFT. Something for which you are required to do something to get it, such as make a free will decision first, is not a free gift. To us, the sinner is not required to do his share of the salvation transaction. God does it all.

So, I'm done. Raise your victory flag if you wish.

I didn't want to interject too much, but the baptismal regeneration position is not only unscriptural, but illogical, as well. So, every baptized infant is automatically regenerated, but it is quite evident that every such infant does not come to faith. Why? Does God then regenerate baptized infants knowing that He will not draw all of them to faith? So He gives all of them spiritual rebirth by the incantation of a formula and a physical ritual, but withholds faith from some of them? What you have here then is many baptized infants who are spiritually reborn but not saved -- an impossibility. So, both scripture and reason destroy baptismal regeneration.

 

[Amy.G]

....sometimes God saves an infant of Christian parents when the Word of God is pronounced at his Baptism.

How does this person know he has been saved if he was "saved" as an infant without exercising faith? And how can you say he was saved??

 

[Yeshua1]

I didn't want to interject too much, but the baptismal regeneration position is not only unscriptural, but illogical, as well. So, every baptized infant is automatically regenerated, but it is quite evident that every such infant does not come to faith. Why? Does God then regenerate baptized infants knowing that He will not draw all of them to faith? So He gives all of them spiritual rebirth by the incantation of a formula and a physical ritual, but withholds faith from some of them? What you have here then is many baptized infants who are spiritually reborn but not saved -- an impossibility. So, both scripture and reason destroy baptismal regeneration.

Perhaps they see it as say the Church of Christ, that water baptism completes the salvation process?

 

[Yeshua1]

How does this person know he has been saved if he was "saved" as an infant without exercising faith? And how can you say he was saved??

IF , as per his church, God produces saving faith to infants in water baptism, does that mean ALL will be saved once sprinkled?

Does it work on adults same way, so that ALL might getsaved, as God would doa faith producing work in the water for them?

 

[The Biblicist]

Our difference is that we Lutherans believe God chooses to save some people in different circumstances: sometimes God saves an adult who hears the Gospel and believes and sometimes God saves an infant of Christian parents when the Word of God is pronounced at his Baptism. .

Romans 4:11 sets forth the justification of Abraham not for SOME but for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH." Your position denies this.

Jeremiah 31:34 denies infants are brought into the New Covenant. ALL who are brought into the new covenant "from the least" do not need to be taught to know God but your position denies this as you have "confirmation" don't you?

In both texts the writers say "ALL" not "some" as your position demands. Shall we believe the inspired Word that "ALL" and not "some" are saved this same way or shall we believe uninspired Lutherans???

If you are over your head than why do keep on debating the issue since you cannot defend it?????

 

[Wittenberger]

I didn't want to interject too much, but the baptismal regeneration position is not only unscriptural, but illogical, as well. So, every baptized infant is automatically regenerated, but it is quite evident that every such infant does not come to faith. Why? Does God then regenerate baptized infants knowing that He will not draw all of them to faith? So He gives all of them spiritual rebirth by the incantation of a formula and a physical ritual, but withholds faith from some of them? What you have here then is many baptized infants who are spiritually reborn but not saved -- an impossibility. So, both scripture and reason destroy baptismal regeneration.

The reason, brother that it doesn't make sense to you is that you believe in the doctrine of "eternal security". So by your thinking, if God gives someone the free gift of salvation, then that person has a free ticket into heaven no matter what. If he lives like the devil, shakes his fist in God's face, and even curses God, he is still saved, he is still going to go to heaven when he dies.

Lutherans don't believe this. We believe that the Christian who's faith is in Christ never has to worry about losing his salvation. We also do not believe, unlike our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, that good works help in your salvation, or a lack of enough good works dooms you to hell.

The Christian who's faith is in Christ can be fully confident of salvation and of his eternal security. He doesn't need to worry about whether or not he has done enough good works to get into heaven, because salvation was a free gift. You don't have to do ANYTHING to receive a truly free gift, and that includes baptism!

God chooses when to save us, not us. With me, He chose to save me when I was nine years old. I placed my faith in Christ. But I did so, not because I made a free will decision as a sinner to believe, I did so, because God had predestined me before the world began to be his child. I was later baptized (in a baptist church). Lutherans believe I was saved when I believed, not later when I was baptized.

However, with other people, we believe God can save them at the time of their infant baptism, as children of Christians, to whom God gave the promise of salvation in Acts 2:38. Again, it is God who saves. It is God who accomplishes all the action in salvation. It is not part you and part God. So if God wants to save someone as an infant, He, as the Almighty ruler of Universe can do as he pleases. We believe that the Bible says that God also saves at the time of baptism by the power of his Word, not by anything the minister says, or anything magical about the water.

If you have been predistined, God already has decided to save you. He doesn't have to wait for you to have enough maturity and intellect so that you can make a decision to believe. He chose you. You WILL be saved. So he can save you when he wants.

Now, a child of Christian parents, who is baptized, needs to be nourished with the Word as he/she grows up, or as a seed cast on poor ground, it will sprout up, but then wither and die. Lutherans believe that a Christian can lose his salvation, not by not doing enough good works, but by rejecting God, turning from God, and living a deliberate life of sin.

Why do we believe this? Because of these verses: Heb. 6:4-6, Gal. 5:1-5, heb. 10:26, Rom. 11:17-22, Rev. 22:19, I Cor. 6:9, Heb. 3:6-14, II Peter 2:20-22

Just because someone was baptized as an infant is not an automatic ticket into heaven. Faith has to be nourished or it will die. Any Lutheran or other orthodox Christian who tells you that he has an automatic ticket into heaven just because he was baptized, he can live like Satan himself, but will still sneak into the pearly gates, is very mistaken. He may well wake up in hell!

Growing up Baptist, I saw several people who went forward during an altar call, prayed the Sinner's Prayer, and were "born again", and years later committed terrible crimes: murder, child molestation, etc.. I know of other "born again" Christians who have completely left the church, do not pray, and are not really sure they believe in God. I know one born-again Baptist who converted to be a Muslim to marry her husband. Are these people really going to get into heaven just because they have their "Born Again, Keep-out-of-Hell Free" card?

I know what some Baptists will say, "Well, obviously those people were not saved to begin with!" How can you know for sure?

By the way, Lutherans agree with Calvinists on Predestination for the Elect. We strongly disagree with the Calvinist idea of "Double Predestination" which says that God chooses who will go to heaven and who will go to hell.

Lutherans believe that God chooses who will go to heaven, and Man sends himself to hell.

Not logical? Who said God has to be logical?

 

[Wittenberger]

IF , as per his church, God produces saving faith to infants in water baptism, does that mean ALL will be saved once sprinkled?

Does it work on adults same way, so that ALL might getsaved, as God would doa faith producing work in the water for them?

Thanks for your question. My response above will hopefully answer your question.

 

[Wittenberger]

Romans 4:11 sets forth the justification of Abraham not for SOME but for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH." Your position denies this.

Jeremiah 31:34 denies infants are brought into the New Covenant. ALL who are brought into the new covenant "from the least" do not need to be taught to know God but your position denies this as you have "confirmation" don't you?

In both texts the writers say "ALL" not "some" as your position demands. Shall we believe the inspired Word that "ALL" and not "some" are saved this same way or shall we believe uninspired Lutherans???

If you are over your head than why do keep on debating the issue since you cannot defend it?????

I'm not debating anymore, brother...I'm preaching the Good News of the Gospel!

Salvation is a FREE gift. Don't worry about all the theology, just do what Christ said: Believe, repent, be baptized. God does the saving, so just do what he says and leave the saving up to Him. We can argue about when God saves but bottom line it doesn't matter..."Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved!"

If you are reading this forum and you have never believed in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, believe now! You don't have to pray a prayer to be saved. You don't have to go to a church to be saved. You don't have do some good deeds for God to accept you and save you. You don't have to be baptized to be saved. Just believe in Jesus Christ as Lord, as YOUR Lord! That means turn from your life of sin, repent, and follow Christ.

As soon as you can you should then follow Christ's command to be baptized.

Share the Good News of Christ with your wife or your husband. Share it with your children. Hopefully they too will believe and be saved.

If you have small children or infants, bring them to Christ. He wants to save them too. Bring them to the waters of Holy Baptism and by faith in the power of the Word of God, God will save them, as He promised in Acts 2:38. Nourish the seed of faith that God has placed in them at baptism, so that they will grow in faith in Christ.

Belive right now, my friend! Believe right now and be saved immediately! Believe and immediately be a child of God, a Christian. Salvation and eteranl life is a free gift. Just believe and it is yours!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The reason, brother that it doesn't make sense to you is that you believe in the doctrine of "eternal security". So by your thinking, if God gives someone the free gift of salvation, then that person has a free ticket into heaven no matter what. If he lives like the devil, shakes his fist in God's face, and even curses God, he is still saved, he is still going to go to heaven when he dies.

Lutherans don't believe this. We believe that the Christian who's faith is in Christ never has to worry about losing his salvation. We also do not believe, unlike our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, that good works help in your salvation, or a lack of enough good works dooms you to hell.

The Christian who's faith is in Christ can be fully confident of salvation and of his eternal security. He doesn't need to worry about whether or not he has done enough good works to get into heaven, because salvation was a free gift. You don't have to do ANYTHING to receive a truly free gift, and that includes baptism!

God chooses when to save us, not us. With me, He chose to save me when I was nine years old. I placed my faith in Christ. But I did so, not because I made a free will decision as a sinner to believe, I did so, because God had predestined me before the world began to be his child. I was later baptized (in a baptist church). Lutherans believe I was saved when I believed, not later when I was baptized.

However, with other people, we believe God can save them at the time of their infant baptism, as children of Christians, to whom God gave the promise of salvation in Acts 2:38. Again, it is God who saves. It is God who accomplishes all the action in salvation. It is not part you and part God. So if God wants to save someone as an infant, He, as the Almighty ruler of Universe can do as he pleases. We believe that the Bible says that God also saves at the time of baptism by the power of his Word, not by anything the minister says, or anything magical about the water.

If you have been predistined, God already has decided to save you. He doesn't have to wait for you to have enough maturity and intellect so that you can make a decision to believe. He chose you. You WILL be saved. So he can save you when he wants.

Now, a child of Christian parents, who is baptized, needs to be nourished with the Word as he/she grows up, or as a seed cast on poor ground, it will sprout up, but then wither and die. Lutherans believe that a Christian can lose his salvation, not by not doing enough good works, but by rejecting God, turning from God, and living a deliberate life of sin.

Why do we believe this? Because of these verses: Heb. 6:4-6, Gal. 5:1-5, heb. 10:26, Rom. 11:17-22, Rev. 22:19, I Cor. 6:9, Heb. 3:6-14, II Peter 2:20-22

Just because someone was baptized as an infant is not an automatic ticket into heaven. Faith has to be nourished or it will die. Any Lutheran or other orthodox Christian who tells you that he has an automatic ticket into heaven just because he was baptized, he can live like Satan himself, but will still sneak into the pearly gates, is very mistaken. He may well wake up in hell!

Growing up Baptist, I saw several people who went forward during an altar call, prayed the Sinner's Prayer, and were "born again", and years later committed terrible crimes: murder, child molestation, etc.. I know of other "born again" Christians who have completely left the church, do not pray, and are not really sure they believe in God. I know one born-again Baptist who converted to be a Muslim to marry her husband. Are these people really going to get into heaven just because they have their "Born Again, Keep-out-of-Hell Free" card?

I know what some Baptists will say, "Well, obviously those people were not saved to begin with!" How can you know for sure?

By the way, Lutherans agree with Calvinists on Predestination for the Elect. We strongly disagree with the Calvinist idea of "Double Predestination" which says that God chooses who will go to heaven and who will go to hell.

Lutherans believe that God chooses who will go to heaven, and Man sends himself to hell.

Not logical? Who said God has to be logical?

I do NOT believe in the doctrine of eternal security. Where did you get that from? In fact, I reject all five points of Calvinism, as others here who know me can attest.

So, try again. But get your facts straight before posting something about me.

 

[reformed_baptist]

slight correction here;

I do NOT believe in the doctrine of eternal security. Where did you get that from? In fact, I reject all five points of Calvinism, as others here who know me can attest.

Eternal security has nothing whatsoever to do with Calvinism but rather belongs to certian Arminian camps, it is not to be confused with the persverence of the saints which teaches that one who is genuinely saved will perservere in the faith right upto the end.

Any6way sorry for intrrupting, back to the subject at hand

 

[reformed_baptist]

If you have small children or infants, bring them to Christ. He wants to save them too. Bring them to the waters of Holy Baptism and by faith in the power of the Word of God, God will save them, as He promised in Acts 2:38. Nourish the seed of faith that God has placed in them at baptism, so that they will grow in faith in Christ.

Belive right now, my friend! Believe right now and be saved immediately! Believe and immediately be a child of God, a Christian. Salvation and eteranl life is a free gift. Just believe and it is yours!

I wonder if you can see the contradiction in your words, in a previous post you said;

God chooses when to save us, not us. With me, He chose to save me when I was nine years old.

Yet here you are saying that Jesus wants to save our children - how do you know that if he only saves those he has chosen to save?

As for Acts 2:38 that you keep referring to if the waters of baptism wash a persons sins away how can they fail to reach heaven? either sin is washed away or it isn't?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I wonder if you can see the contradiction in your words, in a previous post you said;



Yet here you are saying that Jesus wants to save our children - how do you know that if he only saves those he has chosen to save?

As for Acts 2:38 that you keep referring to if the waters of baptism wash a persons sins away how can they fail to reach heaven? either sin is washed away or it isn't?

baptism washes away the taint of original sin and any conducted sins up to that point. Not those sins commited after baptism.

 

[The Biblicist]

The question is not whether baptism saves, as the scriptures clearly says it does. The question is not whether baptism washes away sins, as the scriptures clearly says it does. However, the question is HOW does baptism save and wash away sins - literally or figuratively. The scriptues clearly says it does as a "FIGURE" - 1 Peter. 3:21.

Moreover, the same can be said of the sacrficial and ceremonial system in the Old Testament. The language of redemption was always directly connected with sacrifices and ceremonial cleansings ("for sins" "for thy cleansing") however, Hebrews 10:1-4 informs it did not LITERALLY remit or wash away sins at all but only did in figure as a "shadow."

Jesus illustrates this clearly in Luke 5:12-15 with the cleansing of the leper:

12 ¶ And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

He was LITERALLY cleansed "immediately"

He was nevertheless told to go "offer for thy cleansing according as Moses commanded." This involved a sacrfice "for thy cleansing." Did he offer the sacrifice in order to be cleansed but because he had been cleansed? Both! He offered a sacrifice in order to be cleansed CEREMONIALLY or FIGURATIVELY because he had already been cleansed LITERALLY.

Bottom line it was "for a testiomy unto them." Likewise with baptism and the Lord's Supper as they are New Testament counterparts to Old Testament ceremonial institutions.

So it is very simple. When one believes they are saved LITERALLY. When one submits to baptism they are saved FIGURATIVELY. Scripture must be compared to scripture if truth is to be arrived at.

Again, not one paedobaptist has been able to respond to this post and so I simply repost it again

 

[The Biblicist]

Below is my response to the correlation between circumcision under the Old Covenant with baptism under the New Covenant in regard to justification before God. I deal with the Roman Catholic correlation in particular which in essence is the basis for all Reformed Roman Catholcism.

Rom. 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Abraham is being used to illustrate Paul's doctrine of justification by faith without works.

1. Abraham lived 430 years before Moses and the Old Covenant Law

2. Abraham's "works" cannot be construed to be of the Old Covenant

3. Abraham was the "father of circumcision" and therefore what role does circumcision play in justification by faith.

The subject is Justification and two requiresments must be met for the "ungodly" to be justified before God:

1. Imputed righteousness - v. 6
2. Forgiveness of sins - vv. 7-8

The man in possession of these two requirements is the "blessed" man and this is the state of "blessedness"!

The argument on this forum is how does such a man obtain this state of "blessedness" and thus be a "blessed...man."

The answer is provided in Romans 4:9-12

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.


Again, Catholic Church Catechism makes it very clear that circumcision plays the same sacramental role under the Old Covenant that baptism does under the New Covenant and they argue that point using Colossians 2:12.

"Jesus' circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth, IS THE SIGN of his incorporation into Abraham's descendants, into THE PEOPLE OF THE COVENANT. It is THE SIGN of his submission to THE LAW and his deputation to Israel's worship, in which he will participate through his life. THIS SIGN PREFIGURES that 'circumcision of Christ' WHICH IS BAPTISM." - #527 Catholic Church Catechism, 2nd Edition, p. 133

"CIRCUMCISION: The rite prescribed in Judaism and other cultures which involves the cutting off the foreskin of a male. Circumcision was a SIGN OF THE COVENANT between God and his people Israel and PREFIGURED THE RITE OF CHRISTIAN INITIATION IN BAPTISM. " - Glossary, Catholic Church Catechism, 2nd Edition, p. 871

"SIGNS OF THE COVENANT. The Chosen People received from God distinctive SIGNS and SYMBOLS tht marked its liturgical life. These are no longer solely celebrations of cosmic cycles and social gestures, but SIGNS OF THE COVENANT, SYMBOLS of God's mighty deeds for his people. Among these liturgical SIGNS FROM THE OLD COVENANT are CIRCUMCISION, anointing and consecration of kings and priests, laying on of hands, sacrifices, and above all the Passover. The Church SEES IN THESE SIGNS A PREFIGURING OF THE SACRAMENTS OF THE NEW COVENANT." - #1150, Catholic Church Cathechism, 2nd Edition, p. 297

Therefore, if we replaced the words "circumcised" and "circumcision" with any of the New Testament SIGNS and SYMBOLS in Romans 4:9-12 we would have the Apostles view of the Roman Catholic application of such signs in regard to justification by faith:


9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the BAPTIZED only, or upon the UNBAPTIZED also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in BAPTISM, or in UNBAPTISM? Not in BAPTISM, but in UNBAPTISM.
11 And he received the sign of BAPTISM, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being UNBAPTIZED: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not BAPTIZED; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of BAPTISM to them who are not of the BAPTIZED only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he being yet UNBAPTIZED.

Again, no one has been able to answer this post and so I repost it again. My Lutheran friend and TS have attempted to get around it by broadening the context but both have failed to prove their points. TS fails to recognize that "the faith" is used several different ways in the book of Romans.

In this immediate context faith is defined by Paul in Romans 4:21 to be confidence in the promise of God to be performed by the power of God without his assistance, participation or contribution and that is the kind of faith directly applied to justification by faith in the gospel in Romans 4:21-25.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

My Lutheran friend,

Below is the summation of my soteriological position on the purpose of baptism in the New Testament:

The question is not whether baptism saves, as the scriptures clearly says it does. The question is not whether baptism washes away sins, as the scriptures clearly says it does. However, the question is HOW does baptism save and wash away sins - literally or figuratively. The scriptues clearly says it does as a "FIGURE" - 1 Peter. 3:21.

1 Peter 3:21 doesn't support your view that baptism is a "Figure" of salvation. Look closely at what 1 Peter actually says.

in which[c] he went and proclaimed[d] to the spirits in prison, 20 because[e] they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

Interesting passage btw. Without going into the other theological implications of this passage look at what he's saying...Jesus proclaimed to the spirits in prison which are there because they didn't obey during the time of Noah's building the Ark. Now look at the next passage.

21 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 good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Now Baptism which now saves has a direct relationship to Noah's Ark because Noah's Ark forshadows baptism where Noah and his family were saved in the Ark through the Deluge. Note another forshadowing of baptism is the exodus through the red sea. That is how that passage is constructed.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Again, no one has been able to answer this post and so I repost it again. My Lutheran friend and TS have attempted to get around it by broadening the context but both have failed to prove their points. TS fails to recognize that "the faith" is used several different ways in the book of Romans.

Not at all. I've shown you the context of Romans 4 and the emphasis of that chapter is not on blessedness but on faith. You fail to recognize this and restructure the whole chapter on the one word blessedness which is an example quote from David. The Context of the Chapter is about Faith not blessedness. Blessedness is a result of the faith that Paul is addressing. Your problem is you attempt to create another context which was never intended by the author. Or more simply put. You use that passage out of its context applying the context to fit your theology thus you use pretext to determine the passage and its wrong. I've explained this numerous times to you but you fail to listen. Therefore there is nowhere to go with this passage in the discussion. The only solution is to agree to disagree.

 

[The Biblicist]

1 Peter 3:21 doesn't support your view that baptism is a "Figure" of salvation. Look closely at what 1 Peter actually says.

I have and you must embrace mental gymnastics to support your false interpretation. Go back and look at my analysis and see if you can respond. Your Lutheran friend could not - go ahead and give it your best shot.

Interesting passage btw. Without going into the other theological implications of this passage look at what he's saying...Jesus proclaimed to the spirits in prison which are there because they didn't obey during the time of Noah's building the Ark.

You are missing his point completely. He has been warning his readers not to be persecuted due to just consequences but rather if they are going to be persecuted let it be for their testimony of godliness.

Jesus is then brought into this discussion to illustrate BOTH types. He was persecuted for righteousness BUT he also suffered for the sins of his people justly even though He himself committed no sin. The Holy Spirit vindicated his suffering and death by quickening him from the dead.

At this point, Peter brings into this discussion in order to illustrate unjust and just suffering Noah and his family in contrast to those who persecuted Noah but are now suffering their just penal consequences in hell.

Why does he bring this particular portion of humanity now suffering in hell? Because Whom the Spirit quickened from the dead - Jesus Christ - by raising him up from the grave is typified by the ark being raised up "by water" and it is this act whereby Noah was "saved by water" which corresponds figuratively to baptism wherein the believer also is being raised up in the waters of baptism that equally presents in "figure" "the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

What you are completely blind to is the fact that Noah found saving grace in the eyes of the Lord BEFORE he even built the ark much less before the water came. Also, he was already IN THE ARK with the door closed by God before a drop of water touched the ark. Just as believers are already "in Christ" before baptism.

Hence, "saved by water" can only refer to SPIRITUAL salvation FIGURATIVELY and not literally as LITERALLY they were actually being saved FROM THE WATER rather than being "saved by water." FIGURATIVELY the water saved them only by LIFTING UP the ark which is a CORRESPONDING FIGURE with baptism as both picture "the resurrection of Jesus Christ" which LITERALLY and SPIRITUALLY saves.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have and you must embrace mental gymnastics to support your false interpretation. Go back and look at my analysis and see if you can respond. Your Lutheran friend could not - go ahead and give it your best shot.









You are missing his point completely. He has been warning his readers not to be persecuted due to just consequences but rather if they are going to be persecuted let it be for their testimony of godliness.

Jesus is then brought into this discussion to illustrate BOTH types. He was persecuted for righteousness BUT he also suffered for the sins of his people justly even though He himself committed no sin. The Holy Spirit vindicated his suffering and death by quickening him from the dead.

At this point, Peter brings into this discussion in order to illustrate unjust and just suffering Noah and his family in contrast to those who persecuted Noah but are now suffering their just penal consequences in hell.

Why does he bring this particular portion of humanity now suffering in hell? Because Whom the Spirit quickened from the dead - Jesus Christ - by raising him up from the grave is typified by the ark being raised up "by water" and it is this act whereby Noah was "saved by water" which corresponds figuratively to baptism wherein the believer also is being raised up in the waters of baptism that equally presents in "figure" "the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

What you are completely blind to is the fact that Noah found saving grace in the eyes of the Lord BEFORE he even built the ark much less before the water came. Also, he was already IN THE ARK with the door closed by God before a drop of water touched the ark. Just as believers are already "in Christ" before baptism.

Hence, "saved by water" can only refer to SPIRITUAL salvation FIGURATIVELY and not literally as LITERALLY they were actually being saved FROM THE WATER rather than being "saved by water." FIGURATIVELY the water saved them only by LIFTING UP the ark which is a CORRESPONDING FIGURE with baptism as both picture "the resurrection of Jesus Christ" which LITERALLY and SPIRITUALLY saves.

How then does this fit into the discussion here on water baptism?

Romans 6: 1-10!

1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin — 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.

8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have and you must embrace mental gymnastics to support your false interpretation.

No mental gymnastics at all just the plain text of the passage which you conviniently ignore

Go back and look at my analysis and see if you can respond. Your Lutheran friend could not - go ahead and give it your best shot.

I've already commented on your analysis.

You are missing his point completely. He has been warning his readers not to be persecuted due to just consequences but rather if they are going to be persecuted let it be for their testimony of godliness.

I haven't missed his point entirely. And I wasn't addressing persecution but the plain interpretation of the text.

Jesus is then brought into this discussion to illustrate BOTH types.

Nowhere does he say in that passage that baptism is a type. He actually says that Noah's Ark is connected to the baptism which now saves you meaning that the Ark was a prefigure of Baptism.

He was persecuted for righteousness BUT he also suffered for the sins of his people justly even though He himself committed no sin.

I haven't disagreed with that part of the passage. I affirm that part of the passage

The Holy Spirit vindicated his suffering and death by quickening him from the dead.

I affirm that as well. But niether point validates what you think the passage is saying about baptism.
It is clear that you are the one working hard at the mental gymnastics to say something different that what Peter says regarding baptism. Look all I have to do is just quote the passage. The whole point Peter wants to make about suffering is summed up nicely in verse 17

For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.

Thats the point of this particular passage and he then says using Jesus sacrifice to say

For Christ also suffered once for sins, 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, 19 in which[c] he went and proclaimed[d] to the spirits in prison

That Jesus by his suffering and death brought people to God allowing them to put to death their sin nature (flesh) to be made new living creatures in Christ (alive in the spirit), in which, then then proclaimed this to those who died before hand. Specifically those

because[e] they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water

who could have been saved but disobeyed God whereas God saved Noah through the water which connects to baptism because baptism saves you not a removal of physical dirt but it appeals to God by the power of the resurrection for a good conscience (in order to live rightly btw.) as he says

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 good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

The passage is clear in its plain reading. You've done the gymnastics.

 

[Yeshua1]

baptism washes away the taint of original sin and any conducted sins up to that point. Not those sins commited after baptism.

there is indeed a liquid that washes away ALL sins past/present/future, but NOT the water of baptism, but the "blood of jesus!"