The Baptism debate

[The Biblicist]

Sorry, brother, you still have not convinced me. The "like figure" refers to the Flood being like figure to baptism, not salvation. You are taking the literal and forcing your theology into it.

In other words, what you are saying is that the text should mean as follows:

"The flood is a figure of baptism and it is baptism that now saves us."

However, that is not what the text literally says is it? It is clear from the parenthical explanation (which contains a denial and an assertion), that it cannot possibly mean that for several reasons.

1. Literal baptism does indeed wash away the literal filth on the literal flesh but Peter is denying baptism accomplishs that. Hence, he cannot be referring to literal filth or literal flesh as his words would be oxymoronic if these expressions are taken literal as that would be a lie. Rather he is using these expressions in keeping with their theological use as metaphors for "sin" (filth) and the "sin nature" (the flesh) Hence, he is denying that baptism remits sin or removes the sin nature. Such a parenthetical denial perfectly harmonizes with his parenthetical assertion that immediately follows.

2. If baptism did indeed literally save us it would be the solution to a conscience defiled by sin but it is not. It is the "answer" of a GOOD conscience toward God. Your position would demand it is the solution for a defiled conscience so that sin is removed. However, Peter denies baptism is in connection with a defiled conscience but rather is the response of a "good" conscience toward God. Therefore, the parenthetical positive assertion harmonizes perfectly with the parenthetical denial.

Furthermore, if we remove the parenthetical explanation we have the direct statement "The like figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us.....by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

He does not say that Baptism "doth also now save us...by remitting our sins" which your interpretation would require if the flood was a figure of baptism that saves us.

Note the word "now"? This is a direct contrast to "saved by water" back then during the flood. How does baptism "NOW" save us in contrast to then being "saved by water" during the flood?

It saves us in the very same manner "now" as being "saved by water" saved Noah then. What manner is that? Literally it is the Ark that saved them FROM THE WATER and so the phrase "saved by water" cannot refer to literal salvation. It can only refer to FIGURATIVE salvation. How so? The literal ark provided PHYSICAL salvation "by the water" LIFTING IT UP above the earth. The ark is a type of Christ and the lifting up of the ark "by water" is a type of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism now saves us as they were "saved by water" then as both are FIGURES of "the resurrection of Jesus Christ" which LITERALLY saves us SPIRITUALLY.

That is why the KJV pedobaptist translators translated "antitupos" as "like" figure because "anti" can literally mean two things are either in opposition to each other OR they correspond to each other. Hence, two types that are "like" each other in that they both are figures of "the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The "saved by water" figure then but baptism figure now - hence, baptism is a "LIKE figure" to then. In both cases literal spiritual salvation is by neither but only by what they both typified together - "the resurrection of Jesus Christ." It is the resurrection of Jesus Christ that LITERALLY saves us from sin as sin and death would still have Christ in the grave unless God accepted the redemption of Christ for our sins and thus the resurrection life of Christ is salvation. In verse 18 "quickened by the Spirit" means "MADE ALIVE by the Spirit" and thus his death was JUSTIFIED by the Spirit.

"saved by water" was the figure of the resurrection THEN but baptism is the figure of the resurrection "NOW".

 

[The Biblicist]

Romans 2-4

English Standard Version (ESV)


God's Righteous Judgment


God's Judgment and the Law


God's Righteousness Upheld


Abraham Justified by Faith

4
The Promise Realized Through Faith

You ignore my response to your post (see post 12) and try to weave together a patch work of passages jerked out of their context instead of dealing with Romans 4:9-12 and what it literally states. You are violating your own rules of engagement. I responded to your post but you don't respond to post #12? Why? Because you cannot??

If I have to stick to the context of 1 Peter 3:18-21 then you have to stick to the context of Romans 4:9-12.

You admitted that Abraham was justified by faith WITHOUT circucmison and was justifed BEFORE he was circumcised. I pointed out that Paul gave this example of Abraham and justification by faith in relationship to circumcision as THE EXAMPLE of ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH (vv. 12-13). Hence, your human reasoning about his descendants and their relationship to circucmision has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TEXT and is effectively repudiated by Paul's own words in verses 12-13.

This also refutes your patch work interpretation that the phase "works of the law" and "works" in this context merely refers to becoming a Jew and that Paul in Romans 4:9-12 is merely denying that Gentiles must become Jews by circumcision to be saved. The "works" in Romans 4:1-6 were those of Abraham 430 years BEFORE Moses and the Mosaic law existed and yet Paul says justification was not obtained by Abraham's "works" (Rom. 4:1-3) but by faith "without works."

Romans 4:9-12 demand that justification by faith without circumcision is the example for ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH which would include all before Abraham when NO MOSAIC LAW existed as well as, all concurrent in his age when circumcision did not exist (e.g. Shem, Job) as well as, all who lived during the time of Moses and after the coming of Christ - or ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH.

Thus my point is prove true. Circumcision plays absolutely no part in connection with justification other than a "sign" and "seal." Thus "sign" and "seal" means it is ony an OUTWARD SYMBOL and CONFIRMATION of what has already been obtained by faith. Since Catholicism makes circumcision correspond to baptism that is a complete death blow to baptism being anything more than an outward symbol and confirmation of an already obtained inward reality just as Baptists teach.

 

[Wittenberger]

You ignore my response to your post (see post 12) and try to weave together a patch work of passages jerked out of their context instead of dealing with Romans 4:9-12 and what it literally states. You are violating your own rules of engagement. I responded to your post but you don't respond to post #12? Why? Because you cannot??

If I have to stick to the context of 1 Peter 3:18-21 then you have to stick to the context of Romans 4:9-12.

You admitted that Abraham was justified by faith WITHOUT circucmison and was justifed BEFORE he was circumcised. I pointed out that Paul gave this example of Abraham and justification by faith in relationship to circumcision as THE EXAMPLE of ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH (vv. 12-13). Hence, your human reasoning about his descendants and their relationshpi to circucmision has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TEXT and is effectively repudiated by Paul's own words in verses 12-13.

This also repudiates your attempt to weave together a fabric of texts to attempt to prove he is merely repudiating a Jewish doctrine of justification by circumcison. He is rather repudiating both circumcision and uncircumcision as factors for justification before God by making Abraham's justification by faith without works (vv. 5-6), without circumcision (vv. 9-12) the example of ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH whether they are Jew or Gentile whether they are in circumcision or uncirumcised.

Thus my point is prove true. Circumcision plays absolutely no part in connection with justification other than a "sign" and "seal." Thus "sign" and "seal" means it is ony an OUTWARD SYMBOL and CONFIRMATION of what has already been obtained by faith. Since Catholicism makes circumcision correspond to baptism that is a complete death blow to baptism being anything more than an outward symbol and confirmation of an already obtained inward reality just as Baptists teach.

My dear Christian brother, if you will take another look at the passage of Scripture that I copied and pasted it was the entirety of Romans chapters 2, 3, and 4! I just wanted to make sure we had the whole scriptural context. The weaving together of the verses was done by the Holy Spirit, not by me, brother.

I really don't think we are getting anywhere. I did think we were getting somewhere when I read the three chapters of Romans mentioned above, it became very clear to me that God does not consider someone a Jew, just because they are physically circumcised. They must be spiritually circumcised also.

You didn't notice that "admission" on my part, but blasted forward with a barrage of your own extrapolations, interpretations and condemnations of my positions.

I SINCERELY hope that one day, brother, you and I can sit down with our Lord in heaven and he will straighten us both out on the real truth of Scirpture, but for right now, I feel like we are both wasting our valuable time.

God bless you, brother. I admire your zeal to preach the Gospel. May God use you to bring many lost souls to our Savior!

 

[The Biblicist]

In other words, what you are saying is that the text should mean as follows:

"The flood is a figure of baptism and it is baptism that now saves us."

However, that is not what the text literally says is it? It is clear from the parenthical explanation (which contains a denial and an assertion), that it cannot possibly mean that for several reasons.

1. Literal baptism does indeed wash away the literal filth on the literal flesh but Peter is denying baptism accomplishs that. Hence, he cannot be referring to literal filth or literal flesh as his words would be oxymoronic if these expressions are taken literal as that would be a lie. Rather he is using these expressions in keeping with their theological use as metaphors for "sin" (filth) and the "sin nature" (the flesh) Hence, he is denying that baptism remits sin or removes the sin nature. Such a parenthetical denial perfectly harmonizes with his parenthetical assertion that immediately follows.

2. If baptism did indeed literally save us it would be the solution to a conscience defiled by sin but it is not. It is the "answer" of a GOOD conscience toward God. Your position would demand it is the solution for a defiled conscience so that sin is removed. However, Peter denies baptism is in connection with a defiled conscience but rather is the response of a "good" conscience toward God. Therefore, the parenthetical positive assertion harmonizes perfectly with the parenthetical denial.

Furthermore, if we remove the parenthetical explanation we have the direct statement "The like figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us.....by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

He does not say that Baptism "doth also now save us...by remitting our sins" which your interpretation would require if the flood was a figure of baptism that saves us.

Note the word "now"? This is a direct contrast to "saved by water" back then during the flood. How does baptism "NOW" save us in contrast to then being "saved by water" during the flood?

It saves us in the very same manner "now" as being "saved by water" saved Noah then. What manner is that? Literally it is the Ark that saved them FROM THE WATER and so the phrase "saved by water" cannot refer to literal salvation. It can only refer to FIGURATIVE salvation. How so? The literal ark provided PHYSICAL salvation "by the water" LIFTING IT UP above the earth. The ark is a type of Christ and the lifting up of the ark "by water" is a type of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism now saves us as they were "saved by water" then as both are FIGURES of "the resurrection of Jesus Christ" which LITERALLY saves us SPIRITUALLY.

That is why the KJV pedobaptist translators translated "antitupos" as "like" figure because "anti" can literally mean two things are either in opposition to each other OR they correspond to each other. Hence, two types that are "like" each other in that they both are figures of "the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The "saved by water" figure then but baptism figure now - hence, baptism is a "LIKE figure" to then. In both cases literal spiritual salvation is by neither but only by what they both typified together - "the resurrection of Jesus Christ." It is the resurrection of Jesus Christ that LITERALLY saves us from sin as sin and death would still have Christ in the grave unless God accepted the redemption of Christ for our sins and thus the resurrection life of Christ is salvation. In verse 18 "quickened by the Spirit" means "MADE ALIVE by the Spirit" and thus his death was JUSTIFIED by the Spirit.

"saved by water" was the figure of the resurrection THEN but baptism is the figure of the resurrection "NOW".

In verse 18 it is Christ that was "quickened by the Spirit" and in verse 21 it is "by the resurrection of Christ" that we are saved.

The salvation of Noah was justified while the condemnation of those who rejected Noah was justified. Noah suffered unjustly by their hands but they are suffering justly by the hand of God.

Noah and his family were "saved by water" not in any literal sense as it is the water they were literally saved from. The phrase "saved by water" has to do with the ark in which they were already inside and the door closed by God prior to any water coming up from beneath or coming down from above. The water literally LIFTED UP the ark. If lifting up the ark is a symbol of baptism then it is the admission that baptism does not spiritually save anyone because Noah was saved before he built the ark and typologically if the ark was a figure of Christ he was already "in Christ" before the water made contact with the ark. Hence, if "saved by water" is a symbol of baptism then baptism cannot provide any more literal spiritual salvation than did then "saved by water" provided any literal spiritual salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

My dear Christian brother, if you will take another look at the passage of Scripture that I copied and pasted it was the entirety of Romans chapters 2, 3, and 4! I just wanted to make sure we had the whole scriptural context. The weaving together of the verses was done by the Holy Spirit, not by me, brother.

If you will look more closely at my post you will see that I did not requote the scriptures but only the topic headings that cannot be found in the scriptures but were supplied by you. I was referring to you patchwork of arrangement under extrabiblical headings.

I really don't think we are getting anywhere.

If you will stop playing dodge ball and confront the evidence being placed before you we will get somewhere. You completely ignored my response in post #12 but circumvented it by your topically arrangement of scriptures. Why not deal with my response instead of ignoring it and attempting to topically arrange the scriptures to circumvent what the text LITERALLY says?

To me the reason is obvious. It is the very same tactic that the Catholics on this forum used to circumvent his LITERAL language.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You ignore my response to your post (see post 12) and try to weave together a patch work of passages jerked out of their context instead of dealing with Romans 4:9-12 and what it literally states. You are violating your own rules of engagement. I responded to your post but you don't respond to post #12? Why? Because you cannot??

If I have to stick to the context of 1 Peter 3:18-21 then you have to stick to the context of Romans 4:9-12.

You admitted that Abraham was justified by faith WITHOUT circucmison and was justifed BEFORE he was circumcised. I pointed out that Paul gave this example of Abraham and justification by faith in relationship to circumcision as THE EXAMPLE of ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH (vv. 12-13). Hence, your human reasoning about his descendants and their relationship to circucmision has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TEXT and is effectively repudiated by Paul's own words in verses 12-13.

This also refutes your patch work interpretation that the phase "works of the law" and "works" in this context merely refers to becoming a Jew and that Paul in Romans 4:9-12 is merely denying that Gentiles must become Jews by circumcision to be saved. The "works" in Romans 4:1-6 were those of Abraham 430 years BEFORE Moses and the Mosaic law existed and yet Paul says justification was not obtained by Abraham's "works" (Rom. 4:1-3) but by faith "without works."

Romans 4:9-12 demand that justification by faith without circumcision is the example for ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH which would include all before Abraham when NO MOSAIC LAW existed as well as, all concurrent in his age when circumcision did not exist (e.g. Shem, Job) as well as, all who lived during the time of Moses and after the coming of Christ - or ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH.

Thus my point is prove true. Circumcision plays absolutely no part in connection with justification other than a "sign" and "seal." Thus "sign" and "seal" means it is ony an OUTWARD SYMBOL and CONFIRMATION of what has already been obtained by faith. Since Catholicism makes circumcision correspond to baptism that is a complete death blow to baptism being anything more than an outward symbol and confirmation of an already obtained inward reality just as Baptists teach.

Biblicist, would you please respond to the following that Wittenberger wrote in Post #20:

"The real issue here is, what about Abraham's infant male children who received the sign of promise as infants?

If you are saying that circumcision was solely a sign that the believer had professed his faith in God, why didn't the Hebrews wait until the child was old enough to make a public profession of his faith and THEN circumcise him? Why would go tell Abraham to circumcise all male descendents on the eigth day of life?? If you are right, the sign should always come AFTER the expression of faith.

If a Hebrew child died before the "Age of Accountability" what happened to them?
What about a Hebrew child whose parents were wicked sinners and refused to circumcise him? Would he still be "saved"? Genesis chapter 7 says that child will be cut off."

 

[The Biblicist]

So what does this text of Scripture literally say? It seems to me it says that a Jew is not just a Jew just because he is circumcised, he has to also have a circumcision of the heart to be deemed righteous in God's eyes.

If that was what Paul was trying to convey then Abraham would have needed to be justified IN ADDITION to circumcision! However, that is not his point because he is proving instead that Abraham was justified by faith WITHOUT circumcision as the example for ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH regardless if they are EVER CIRCUMCISED:

Rom. 4:11 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:

The words "though they be not circumcised" completely repudiates your theory as your theory demands that justification is IN ADDITION to circumcision.

Furthermore, Abraham was a GENTILE as where Isaac as the term Israel was first used for Jacob and "Israelites" or "Jews" for the children of Jacob.

Moreover, his words "that he might be the father OF ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE" completely repudiates your theory because that includes all in the hall way of faith that lived before him none of which were circumcised (Abel, Seth, Moses). That includes all concurrent with him who were never circumcised (Seth, Job). That includes all who would follow him some of which would never be circumcised IN ORDER THAT HE MIGHT BE THE FATHER OF ALL WHO BELIEVE THOUGH THEY BE NOT CIRCUMCISED.

Abraham was counted as righteous before being circumcised. Circumcision was a sign of God's saving act. It occurred AFTER Abraham was saved. Abraham was saved by his faith, prior to circumcision, not saved due to his circumcision.

So I and Lutheranism agree with you on this point.

What do you mean "on this point"? That is the ENTIRE point being made by Paul as he is setting forth the justification of Abraham WITHOUT circumcision as the example FOR ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH not merely for SOME! That is a purpose clause identifying the very point Paul is making. There is no exception for anyone who is "OF FAITH."

The real issue here is, what about Abraham's infant male children who received the sign of promise as infants?

First, does the text says ANYTHING about his descendants? No! So you are again violating your own rules of engagement to stick with what the text LITERALLY says!

If you are saying that circumcision was solely a sign that the believer had professed his faith in God, why didn't the Hebrews wait until the child was old enough to make a public profession of his faith and THEN circumcise him? Why would go tell Abraham to circumcise all male descendents on the eigth day of life?? If you are right, the sign should always come AFTER the expression of faith.

Again, you are leaving the text and what the text literally states and worst presenting a position that contradicts what the text literally states to be Paul's purpose for setting this example of Abraham before his readers.

However, I will entertain you. The fact that Abraham was already previously justified by faith BEFORE he was circumcised demonstrates clearly that circumcision had no LITERAL application to obtaining justification. Hence, Paul says it is but an outward "sign" and "seal" of something he already had. Thus it was merely a outward SYMBOL and CONFIRMATION of something already in possession.

Even in the Old Testament it is clearly set forth as the SYMBOL of NEW BIRTH or circumcision of the heart. Hence, it is enacted upon the descendents at a time fitting with that kind of symbol of NEW BIRTH or near the LITERAL BIRTH of a child at eight days old in keeping with that symbol.

However, under the New Covenant there are no infants brought into that covenant except SPIRITUAL infants as Jerimiah clearly says:

Jer. 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

This is quoted in describing the New Covenant in Hebrews 8. Even the "least of them" will not have to be taught by others to know the Lord - that repudiates confirmation of children. That repudiates infant baptism bringing infants into the new covenant.

Under the New Covenant "ALL" shall know me and NONE shall have to be taught to know the Lord as in the case of infants.

So under the OLD covenant it is infants that are circumcised in keeping with the type of NEW BIRTH which is the only way to be saved under the NEW Covenant. Old Testament TYPE of New Testament reality - SPIRITUAL BORN children regardless of how physically old they are (Jn. 3:1-7).

If a Hebrew child died before the "Age of Accountability" what happened to them?

No one on the day of judgement will be judged for the sin of Adam as Christ removed that basis of judgement (Jn. 1:29). Hence, all who stand before the judgement are said only to be judged ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN WORKS.

Dying infants HAVE NO WORKS to be judged and so cannot be judged on that basis. Since none are judged by Adam's sin then they are safe from all judgement. God appoints the time of death and they are delievered by Christ exactly as they were brought under death by Adam. Withour personal choice by one man's disobedience death passed upon them and without personal choice by the obedience of One many are made righteous.

What about a Hebrew child whose parents were wicked sinners and refused to circumcise him? Would he still be "saved"? Genesis chapter 7 says that child will be cut off.

Circumcision was a type of NEW BIRTH and thus in keeping with the type children who were not circumcised were "cut off" from the people of God. The same is true with the antitype. All who are not BORN AGAIN by the Spirit of God will not see or enter the kingdom of God - Jn. 3:3,5.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm sorry, brother, but on this verse you have not convinced me.

It is not my job to convince you! That is God's job.

My job in a debate is to demonstrate from the text that your interpetation is wrong so that you cannot overturn the evidence I have provided.

In Romans 4:11 the stated point of the text is to provide Abraham's justification by faith WITHOUT circumcision to be the example for ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH regardless if they are never circumcised. Your interpretation denies this literal stated purpose.

In 1 Peter 3:18-21 if "saved by water" is the symbol of baptism then baptism does not spiritually save anyone as the previous symbol was of those already literally and spiritually saved before they ever entered the ark and moreover, it is the ark not the water that literally saved them. In both cases literal spiritual salvation was provided by the "resurrection of Jesus Christ" not by the ark or by baptism. However, both are EQUALLY symbols of "the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The parenthetical explanation destroys literal salvation by baptism as literal salvation by baptism would be the solution to a conscience defiled by sin rather than the response of a GOOD conscience toward God.


The best you can do is say that I have not convinced you. You have not yet provided any contextual evidence to overthrow my defense of this text which proves your interpretation is wrong. All you can do is say you are not convinced. But you cannot respond to the evidence. The debate is over and my job is finished UNLESS you can demonstrate with contextual data where my interpretation is flawed.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

If that was what Paul was trying to convey then Abraham would have needed to be justified IN ADDITION to circumcision! However, that is not his point because he is proving instead that Abraham was justified by faith WITHOUT circumcision as the example for ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH regardless if they are EVER CIRCUMCISED:

Rom. 4:11 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:

The words "though they be not circumcised" completely repudiates your theory as your theory demands that justification is IN ADDITION to circumcision.

Furthermore, Abraham was a GENTILE as where Isaac as the term Israel was first used for Jacob and "Israelites" or "Jews" for the children of Jacob.

Moreover, his words "that he might be the father OF ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE" completely repudiates your theory because that includes all in the hall way of faith that lived before him none of which were circumcised (Abel, Seth, Moses). That includes all concurrent with him who were never circumcised (Seth, Job). That includes all who would follow him some of which would never be circumcised IN ORDER THAT HE MIGHT BE THE FATHER OF ALL WHO BELIEVE THOUGH THEY BE NOT CIRCUMCISED.







What do you mean "on this point"? That is the ENTIRE point being made by Paul as he is setting forth the justification of Abraham WITHOUT circumcision as the example FOR ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH not merely for SOME! That is a purpose clause identifying the very point Paul is making. There is no exception for anyone who is "OF FAITH."




First, does the text says ANYTHING about his descendants? No! So you are again violating your own rules of engagement to stick with what the text LITERALLY says!



Again, you are leaving the text and what the text literally states and worst presenting a position that contradicts what the text literally states to be Paul's purpose for setting this example of Abraham before his readers.

However, I will entertain you. The fact that Abraham was already previously justified by faith BEFORE he was circumcised demonstrates clearly that circumcision had no LITERAL application to obtaining justification. Hence, Paul says it is but an outward "sign" and "seal" of something he already had. Thus it was merely a outward SYMBOL and CONFIRMATION of something already in possession.

Even in the Old Testament it is clearly set forth as the SYMBOL of NEW BIRTH or circumcision of the heart. Hence, it is enacted upon the descendents at a time fitting with that kind of symbol of NEW BIRTH or near the LITERAL BIRTH of a child at eight days old in keeping with that symbol.

However, under the New Covenant there are no infants brought into that covenant except SPIRITUAL infants as Jerimiah clearly says:

Jer. 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

This is quoted in describing the New Covenant in Hebrews 8. Even the "least of them" will not have to be taught by others to know the Lord - that repudiates confirmation of children. That repudiates infant baptism bringing infants into the new covenant.

Under the New Covenant "ALL" shall know me and NONE shall have to be taught to know the Lord as in the case of infants.

So under the OLD covenant it is infants that are circumcised in keeping with the type of NEW BIRTH which is the only way to be saved under the NEW Covenant. Old Testament TYPE of New Testament reality - SPIRITUAL BORN children regardless of how physically old they are (Jn. 3:1-7).




No one on the day of judgement will be judged for the sin of Adam as Christ removed that basis of judgement (Jn. 1:29). Hence, all who stand before the judgement are said only to be judged ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN WORKS.

Dying infants HAVE NO WORKS to be judged and so cannot be judged on that basis. Since none are judged by Adam's sin then they are safe from all judgement. God appoints the time of death and they are delievered by Christ exactly as they were brought under death by Adam. Withour personal choice by one man's disobedience death passed upon them and without personal choice by the obedience of One many are made righteous.




Circumcision was a type of NEW BIRTH and thus in keeping with the type children who were not circumcised were "cut off" from the people of God. The same is true with the antitype. All who are not BORN AGAIN by the Spirit of God will not see or enter the kingdom of God - Jn. 3:3,5.

This is good -- except the part which I put in bold makes no sense. Maybe you would want to revise what you said, or clarify and explain further: "Hence, it is enacted upon the descendents at a time fitting with that kind of symbol of NEW BIRTH or near the LITERAL BIRTH of a child at eight days old in keeping with that symbol."

I believe the answer is simple: I believe the Bible teaches that the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is that the Old was based on both spiritual and physical (familial and national) requirements, whereas membership in the New is based solely on spiritual rebirth which cannot be produced by an outward physical ritual, as you have clearly shown by your exposition of scripture. Since under the New Covenant one cannot be made a member by family or national ties, the outward physical ritual can only symbolize the inward spiritual reality. That is the difference between membership in the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant and membership in spiritual Israel -- the Church -- under the New Covenant.

Paedobaptists would like to make Covenants the same or make the New a continuance of the Old, but they are not the same, and the New is not a continuance of the Old. It is a "NEW" Covenant, not a "Continuing" or "Revised" Covenant!

 

[The Biblicist]

This is good -- except the part which I put in bold makes no sense. Maybe you would want to revise what you said, or clarify and explain further: "Hence, it is enacted upon the descendents at a time fitting with that kind of symbol of NEW BIRTH or near the LITERAL BIRTH of a child at eight days old in keeping with that symbol."

The symbol of new birth (circumcision) is appropriately applied at birth of physical infants under the Old Covenant as that is another figure of new birth at eight days old under the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant sets forth the type whereas the New Covenant is the reality.

The "new" covenant is not "new" in the sense of application as there is no other covenant of redemption and thus it is called "the blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20) and applied to all who are of faith from the garden of Eden until the coming of Christ (Rom. 4:25; Heb. 4:2; Acts 10:43; Heb. 11; Gal. 3:17).

No one was ever saved by the Old Covenant and no one will ever be saved by the Old Covenant as the Old covenant was never established by God to save anyone as it cannot provide life. It was provided to instruct in the nature of sin and lead them to faith in Christ - heb. 4:2; Acts 10:43; Gal. 3:20-23.

The "new" covenant was publicly ratified by Christ's blood on the cross but applied to all pre-cross saints by faith - Rom. 4:25; Acts 10:43.

The "new" covenant public administration within the kingdom of God was established by Christ but the redemptive applications are "the blood of the everlasting covenant" applied to Abraham by faith "in Christ" - Gal. 3:17.

This is precisely why Abraham is set forth as THE EXAMPLE of gospel faith for all who are of faith - Gal. 3:6-8 and the example of justification by faith for all who are of faith - Rom. 4:11 because he was actually chose and justified "in Christ" as is all true believers - Gal. 3:17 - by faith in the coming Christ - Acts 10:43

 

[Wittenberger]

If you will look more closely at my post you will see that I did not requote the scriptures but only the topic headings that cannot be found in the scriptures but were supplied by you. I was referring to you patchwork of arrangement under extrabiblical headings.



If you will stop playing dodge ball and confront the evidence being placed before you we will get somewhere. You completely ignored my response in post #12 but circumvented it by your topically arrangement of scriptures. Why not deal with my response instead of ignoring it and attempting to topically arrange the scriptures to circumvent what the text LITERALLY says?

To me the reason is obvious. It is the very same tactic that the Catholics on this forum used to circumvent his LITERAL language.

Dear brother,

The headings in the Scipture that I copied and pasted are the headings from the English Standard Version. I didn't put them there, the editors of the ESV did. Take a look at your KJV. It has similar headings but they are at the top of each page.

If you want to declare victory, go right ahead. Maybe I'm just too slow as a layperson to keep up with you, but you jump around so much that I can't keep up. I was willing to disuss the literal interpretation of individual passage of scripture. Once we have done that we can tie them all together, "scripture interprets scripture". You, however, want to start bringing in other outside verses immediately to interpret the verse/verses in question. I said at the beginning that I didn't want to debate in that manner.

On the verses in Romans, I and all Lutherans are in 100% agreement with you: Abraham was saved by faith ALONE! We are in agreement. God does save without baptism. Now move on to another verse, or declare early victory, and hoist your victory flag!

 

[Wittenberger]

If you will look more closely at my post you will see that I did not requote the scriptures but only the topic headings that cannot be found in the scriptures but were supplied by you. I was referring to you patchwork of arrangement under extrabiblical headings.



If you will stop playing dodge ball and confront the evidence being placed before you we will get somewhere. You completely ignored my response in post #12 but circumvented it by your topically arrangement of scriptures. Why not deal with my response instead of ignoring it and attempting to topically arrange the scriptures to circumvent what the text LITERALLY says?

To me the reason is obvious. It is the very same tactic that the Catholics on this forum used to circumvent his LITERAL language.

Dear brother,

The headings in the Scipture that I copied and pasted are the headings from the English Standard Version. I didn't put them there, the editors of the ESV did. Take a look at your KJV. It has similar headings but they are at the top of each page.

If you want to declare victory, go right ahead. Maybe I'm just too slow as a layperson to keep up with you, but you jump around so much that I can't keep up. I was willing to disuss the literal interpretation of individual passage of scripture. Once we have done that we can tie them all together, "scripture interprets scripture". You, however, want to start bringing in other outside verses immediately to interpret the verse/verses in question. I said at the beginning that I didn't want to debate in that manner.

On the verses in Romans, I and all Lutherans are in 100% agreement with you: Abraham was saved by faith ALONE! We are in agreement. God does save without baptism. Now move on to another verse, or declare early victory, and hoist your victory flag!

 

[Yeshua1]

This is good -- except the part which I put in bold makes no sense. Maybe you would want to revise what you said, or clarify and explain further: "Hence, it is enacted upon the descendents at a time fitting with that kind of symbol of NEW BIRTH or near the LITERAL BIRTH of a child at eight days old in keeping with that symbol."

I believe the answer is simple: I believe the Bible teaches that the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is that the Old was based on both spiritual and physical (familial and national) requirements, whereas membership in the New is based solely on spiritual rebirth which cannot be produced by an outward physical ritual, as you have clearly shown by your exposition of scripture. Since under the New Covenant one cannot be made a member by family or national ties, the outward physical ritual can only symbolize the inward spiritual reality. That is the difference between membership in the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant and membership in spiritual Israel -- the Church -- under the New Covenant.

Paedobaptists would like to make Covenants the same or make the New a continuance of the Old, but they are not the same, and the New is not a continuance of the Old. It is a "NEW" Covenant, not a "Continuing" or "Revised" Covenant!

You and I would tend to see the Old and new Covenants as 2 seperate/distinct relationships to God... olD one given to isreal, in force until yeshua, new given to the Church...

Believe Biblicist sees it as ONE Covenant, just adminstarted to isreal as the old, Under the Church as the new!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The symbol of new birth (circumcision) is appropriately applied at birth of physical infants under the Old Covenant as that is another figure of new birth at eight days old under the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant sets forth the type whereas the New Covenant is the reality.

The "new" covenant is not "new" in the sense of application as there is no other covenant of redemption and thus it is called "the blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20) and applied to all who are of faith from the garden of Eden until the coming of Christ (Rom. 4:25; Heb. 4:2; Acts 10:43; Heb. 11; Gal. 3:17).

No one was ever saved by the Old Covenant and no one will ever be saved by the Old Covenant as the Old covenant was never established by God to save anyone as it cannot provide life. It was provided to instruct in the nature of sin and lead them to faith in Christ - heb. 4:2; Acts 10:43; Gal. 3:20-23.

The "new" covenant was publicly ratified by Christ's blood on the cross but applied to all pre-cross saints by faith - Rom. 4:25; Acts 10:43.

The "new" covenant public administration within the kingdom of God was established by Christ but the redemptive applications are "the blood of the everlasting covenant" applied to Abraham by faith "in Christ" - Gal. 3:17.

This is precisely why Abraham is set forth as THE EXAMPLE of gospel faith for all who are of faith - Gal. 3:6-8 and the example of justification by faith for all who are of faith - Rom. 4:11 because he was actually chose and justified "in Christ" as is all true believers - Gal. 3:17 - by faith in the coming Christ - Acts 10:43

Okay, thanks for the further explanation. The part I originally quoted from you now makes more sense since your clarification above.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You and I would tend to see the Old and new Covenants as 2 seperate/distinct relationships to God... olD one given to isreal, in force until yeshua, new given to the Church...

Believe Biblicist sees it as ONE Covenant, just adminstarted to isreal as the old, Under the Church as the new!

Yes, it would seem that way.

 

[The Biblicist]

You, however, want to start bringing in other outside verses immediately to interpret the verse/verses in question. I said at the beginning that I didn't want to debate in that manner.

If you will look in your comments on Romans 4:9-12 you are the one jumping all over the place and bringing outside texts.

1. You went outside of Romans 4:9-12 by dealing with the circumcision of children which the text says NOTHING about. I simply followed your rabbit trail to answer a whole list of your questions that had nothing to do with the providing a literal interpretation of the text in question.

2. You tried to widen the text from Romans 4:9-12 to Romans 2 through Romand 4.

3. You have done everything but deal with the contextual evidence I have placed before you.

If you will look at my last comments on 1 Peter 2:18-21 you will find out that I do not leave the text and everything I have stated refers to the immediate text.

However, you are playig dodge ball. I can't get you to respond directly to the contextual evidences that I have placed before you. You either ignore them or write back that I have not convinced you. I am not trying to convince you as that is an impossible job. I am trying to present evidence that your interpertation is incorrect. Please deal with the data and stop playing dodge ball.

I will repost my two posts again

 

[The Biblicist]

The text itself depends upon the readers knowing the Biblical context from which it is pulled out of by Peter. If you are suggesting that we cannot use the very scriptures that Peter is alluding to when providing this example then you are abusing the literal interpretative principle of scripture.

The context from which Peter draws this analogy forbids the idea that SPIRITUAL salvation is LITERALLY in view as the spiritual salvation of Noah occurred nearly 100 years prior to this incident. Moreover, "saved by water" cannot possibly refer to any literal sense as it is the water they were literally being saved from and that literal salvation was provided by the ark not by the water.

What the water provided in the sense of "saved by water" was a FIGURE of the resurrection in the Old Testament that CORRESPONDS or is "like" baptism in the New Testament. The water in the Old Testament lifted up the ark just as the body in baptism is lifted up out of the water. That is precisely what the King James translation states "like figure" of salvation which the literal salvation is "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

The Greek word is "antitupos" and is translated by the KJV translators "like figure" or more literally "corresponding type" as both the lifting up of the ark
"by water" and "baptism" provide a "figure" of literal salvation obtained by the literal "resurrection of Jesus Christ."

It is the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ that literally obtains salvation as it is the proof that God accepted the life and death of Christ as the full satisfaction of the Law's righteous demands and penalty against sin or else death would still have claimed him in the grave.

Furthermore, the parenthetical explanation defies your interpretation. Literal water does in fact remove literal filth from the literal flesh but Peter is making a denial not an assertion as your position requires. He is denying that baptism removes the filth of the flesh and by his following assertion that it is instead the "answer" or "response" of a "GOOD CONSCIENCE" necessarily demands he is speaking of INTERNAL filth in regard to the fleshly nature as the conscience is not an EXTERNAL faculty but an INTERNAL faculty that is defiled by sin.

The fact that he states that baptism is the response to a "GOOD" conscience is proof that the conscience has already been previously cleansed from the defilement of sin. Thus this is an explicit denial by Peter that baptism removes sin or rectifies the fleshly nature but instead is only the response to a conscience that is already "good."

I think you now realize you have entered into a debate even on your terms that you cannot possibly win and are looking for a way to escape. I hope you are an honest man and will abide by your agreement. I have stuck to a very literal interpretation of this text. However, if by "literal" you mean that you can divorce this literal historical backdrop from this text than you are in reality abusing the literal principle of interpretation.

You will find that I do not depart from the actual text of 1 Peter 2:18-21 except to the context in the Old Testament from which Peter is drawing this analogy.

 

[The Biblicist]

In other words, what you are saying is that the text should mean as follows:

"The flood is a figure of baptism and it is baptism that now saves us."

However, that is not what the text literally says is it? It is clear from the parenthical explanation (which contains a denial and an assertion), that it cannot possibly mean that for several reasons.

1. Literal baptism does indeed wash away the literal filth on the literal flesh but Peter is denying baptism accomplishs that. Hence, he cannot be referring to literal filth or literal flesh as his words would be oxymoronic if these expressions are taken literal as that would be a lie. Rather he is using these expressions in keeping with their theological use as metaphors for "sin" (filth) and the "sin nature" (the flesh) Hence, he is denying that baptism remits sin or removes the sin nature. Such a parenthetical denial perfectly harmonizes with his parenthetical assertion that immediately follows.

2. If baptism did indeed literally save us it would be the solution to a conscience defiled by sin but it is not. It is the "answer" of a GOOD conscience toward God. Your position would demand it is the solution for a defiled conscience so that sin is removed. However, Peter denies baptism is in connection with a defiled conscience but rather is the response of a "good" conscience toward God. Therefore, the parenthetical positive assertion harmonizes perfectly with the parenthetical denial.

Furthermore, if we remove the parenthetical explanation we have the direct statement "The like figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us.....by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

He does not say that Baptism "doth also now save us...by remitting our sins" which your interpretation would require if the flood was a figure of baptism that saves us.

Note the word "now"? This is a direct contrast to "saved by water" back then during the flood. How does baptism "NOW" save us in contrast to then being "saved by water" during the flood?

It saves us in the very same manner "now" as being "saved by water" saved Noah then. What manner is that? Literally it is the Ark that saved them FROM THE WATER and so the phrase "saved by water" cannot refer to literal salvation. It can only refer to FIGURATIVE salvation. How so? The literal ark provided PHYSICAL salvation "by the water" LIFTING IT UP above the earth. The ark is a type of Christ and the lifting up of the ark "by water" is a type of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism now saves us as they were "saved by water" then as both are FIGURES of "the resurrection of Jesus Christ" which LITERALLY saves us SPIRITUALLY.

That is why the KJV pedobaptist translators translated "antitupos" as "like" figure because "anti" can literally mean two things are either in opposition to each other OR they correspond to each other. Hence, two types that are "like" each other in that they both are figures of "the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The "saved by water" figure then but baptism figure now - hence, baptism is a "LIKE figure" to then. In both cases literal spiritual salvation is by neither but only by what they both typified together - "the resurrection of Jesus Christ." It is the resurrection of Jesus Christ that LITERALLY saves us from sin as sin and death would still have Christ in the grave unless God accepted the redemption of Christ for our sins and thus the resurrection life of Christ is salvation. In verse 18 "quickened by the Spirit" means "MADE ALIVE by the Spirit" and thus his death was JUSTIFIED by the Spirit.

"saved by water" was the figure of the resurrection THEN but baptism is the figure of the resurrection "NOW".

Here is the second post on 1 Peter 2:18-21

 

[The Biblicist]

I post this response to your post on Romans 4:9-12 again. I will highlight your questions and statements in boldy black and my responses in red. You can see that it is you that leaves the text and starts jumping around and all I do is follow your lead and answer your rabbit trails. I will highlight where you departed from the text and introduced rabbit trails.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittenberger
So what does this text of Scripture literally say? It seems to me it says that a Jew is not just a Jew just because he is circumcised, he has to also have a circumcision of the heart to be deemed righteous in God's eyes.

If that was what Paul was trying to convey then Abraham would have needed to be justified IN ADDITION to circumcision! However, that is not his point because he is proving instead that Abraham was justified by faith WITHOUT circumcision as the example for ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH regardless if they are EVER CIRCUMCISED:

Rom. 4:11 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:

The words "though they be not circumcised" completely repudiates your theory as your theory demands that justification is IN ADDITION to circumcision.

Furthermore, Abraham was a GENTILE as where Isaac as the term Israel was first used for Jacob and "Israelites" or "Jews" for the children of Jacob.

Moreover, his words "that he might be the father OF ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE" completely repudiates your theory because that includes all in the hall way of faith that lived before him none of which were circumcised (Abel, Seth, Moses). That includes all concurrent with him who were never circumcised (Seth, Job). That includes all who would follow him some of which would never be circumcised IN ORDER THAT HE MIGHT BE THE FATHER OF ALL WHO BELIEVE THOUGH THEY BE NOT CIRCUMCISED.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittenberger
Abraham was counted as righteous before being circumcised. Circumcision was a sign of God's saving act. It occurred AFTER Abraham was saved. Abraham was saved by his faith, prior to circumcision, not saved due to his circumcision.

So I and Lutheranism agree with you on this point.


What do you mean "on this point"? That is the ENTIRE point being made by Paul as he is setting forth the justification of Abraham WITHOUT circumcision as the example FOR ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH not merely for SOME! That is a purpose clause identifying the very point Paul is making. There is no exception for anyone who is "OF FAITH."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittenberger
The real issue here is, what about Abraham's infant male children who received the sign of promise as infants? - [ YOUR FIRST RABBIT TRAIL OUTSIDE THE TEXT

First, does the text says ANYTHING about his descendants? No! So you are again violating your own rules of engagement to stick with what the text LITERALLY says!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittenberger
If you are saying that circumcision was solely a sign that the believer had professed his faith in God, why didn't the Hebrews wait until the child was old enough to make a public profession of his faith and THEN circumcise him? Why would go tell Abraham to circumcise all male descendents on the eigth day of life?? If you are right, the sign should always come AFTER the expression of faith. YOUR SECOND RABBIT TRAIL OUTSIDE THE TEXT

Again, you are leaving the text and what the text literally states and worst presenting a position that contradicts what the text literally states to be Paul's purpose for setting this example of Abraham before his readers.

However, I will entertain you. The fact that Abraham was already previously justified by faith BEFORE he was circumcised demonstrates clearly that circumcision had no LITERAL application to obtaining justification. Hence, Paul says it is but an outward "sign" and "seal" of something he already had. Thus it was merely a outward SYMBOL and CONFIRMATION of something already in possession.

Even in the Old Testament it is clearly set forth as the SYMBOL of NEW BIRTH or circumcision of the heart. Hence, it is enacted upon the descendents at a time fitting with that kind of symbol of NEW BIRTH or near the LITERAL BIRTH of a child at eight days old in keeping with that symbol.

However, under the New Covenant there are no infants brought into that covenant except SPIRITUAL infants as Jerimiah clearly says:

Jer. 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

This is quoted in describing the New Covenant in Hebrews 8. Even the "least of them" will not have to be taught by others to know the Lord - that repudiates confirmation of children. That repudiates infant baptism bringing infants into the new covenant.

Under the New Covenant "ALL" shall know me and NONE shall have to be taught to know the Lord as in the case of infants.

So under the OLD covenant it is infants that are circumcised in keeping with the type of NEW BIRTH which is the only way to be saved under the NEW Covenant. Old Testament TYPE of New Testament reality - SPIRITUAL BORN children regardless of how physically old they are (Jn. 3:1-7).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittenberger
If a Hebrew child died before the "Age of Accountability" what happened to them?[/B][/I] YOUR THIRD RABBIT TRAIL OUTSIDE THE TEXT


No one on the day of judgement will be judged for the sin of Adam as Christ removed that basis of judgement (Jn. 1:29). Hence, all who stand before the judgement are said only to be judged ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN WORKS.

Dying infants HAVE NO WORKS to be judged and so cannot be judged on that basis. Since none are judged by Adam's sin then they are safe from all judgement. God appoints the time of death and they are delievered by Christ exactly as they were brought under death by Adam. Withour personal choice by one man's disobedience death passed upon them and without personal choice by the obedience of One many are made righteous.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittenberger
What about a Hebrew child whose parents were wicked sinners and refused to circumcise him? Would he still be "saved"? Genesis chapter 7 says that child will be cut off. YOUR FOUTH RABBIT TRAIL OUTSIDE THE TEXT


Circumcision was a type of NEW BIRTH and thus in keeping with the type children who were not circumcised were "cut off" from the people of God. The same is true with the antitype. All who are not BORN AGAIN by the Spirit of God will not see or enter the kingdom of God - Jn. 3:3,5.

 

[Wittenberger]

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.