# Infant Baptism & New Testament Texts



## biblelighthouse (Sep 14, 2005)

I believe the infant baptism argument is very strong when based upon Covenant Theology, and the church´s identity with the Abrahamic covenant. However, in this paper, I took the more "œbaptistic" approach of just looking up the word "œbaptism" in multiple portions of Scripture, in order to demonstrate that every method of approach, _properly done_, still leads to the same Biblical truth. 

Here is the article I wrote. Please have a look:
http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sacraments/baptism-ot.htm

Let me know your thoughts.


----------



## blhowes (Sep 14, 2005)

I look forward to reading your article - its printing as we speak. You can't go wrong taking a 'baptistic approach'...or can you?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 14, 2005)

Excellent article, Joseph.


----------



## blhowes (Sep 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Excellent article, Joseph.



I really enjoyed your article. It certainly was a new and interesting way of looking at things. 

I'm going to go back a reread and study different parts of it, but let me just comment on one part that caught my attention. 



> So, here is how this all may be summed up:
> 
> 1) Noah alone is said to walk with God.
> 2) Noah alone is said to be obedient.
> ...


I agree with your rationale that lead to these conclusions, and its certainly food for further thought. My first baptist impression, though, is that you may have gotten into details that weren't necessarily intended by the text, similar to how some people read more into the details of a parable.

1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 

The focus as I see it is that eight souls went into the ark. All eight souls in the ark were saved (physically). Similarly, all are saved (spiritually) who have been baptized (spiritually) unto the resurrection of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Mayflower (Sep 15, 2005)

Great articel Joseph !


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> I really enjoyed your article. It certainly was a new and interesting way of looking at things.



Thank you! I appreciate your comments. I was trying to get a fresh perspective on the issue, and not just rehash the age-old line of argumentation, as excellent as it may be. Sometimes it is refreshing to just come at an argument from an entirely different angle.



> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> I'm going to go back a reread and study different parts of it, but let me just comment on one part that caught my attention.
> 
> ...



Excellent! I am thankful that you and I see Genesis 6-9 the same way.




> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> My first baptist impression, though, is that you may have gotten into details that weren't necessarily intended by the text, similar to how some people read more into the details of a parable.
> 
> The focus as I see it is that eight souls went into the ark. All eight souls in the ark were saved (physically). Similarly, all are saved (spiritually) who have been baptized (spiritually) unto the resurrection of Jesus Christ.



I used to view this text the same way. And there is certainly truth in what you are saying. However, there is something you might want to consider:

We are discussing the subjects of water baptism, not the subjects of the regeneration to which that baptism points. So, regardless of whatever else the text is telling us, we need to focus on the particular question at hand. 

Now carefully think about how the *subjects* of the Noahic baptism were determined. Were they determined by an analysis of faith/righteousness? No, God determined that they would receive a type of baptism because they were related to their covenant head, Noah. He was right with God, so Noah and his entire family received a type of baptism.

Furthermore, concerning your comparison of "salvation by ark" and "salvation by Christ", the text of 1 Peter does not present it this way. Notice in verse 20 that Peter says they were saved "by water", not "by ark". I think this is an important hint to us that Peter has water baptism in mind, not just Spirit baptism. (In fact, I would argue that this is the case in most baptism passages . . . the sign and the thing signified are often talked about interchangably throughout Scripture.) 

In short, Peter does not talk about Spirit baptism without having water baptism in mind as well. And his comment that Noah's family was "saved by water" is a demonstration of this. Peter wishes to draw some kind of parallel between Noah's baptism and New Testament water baptism. And when we take a look at Genesis 6-9 to learn about the *subjects* of Noah's baptism, we learn that covenantal headship is a requirement, and that regeneration is not.


* It is also important to note that many of these suppposedly "fuzzy" questions become much clearer when we consider the baptism of 2 million Israelites in the Red Sea crossing. There, we certainly see that water was applied (Ps. 77:17), we know for sure that they were baptized for covenantal reasons (Exodus 2:24) and not for the Israelites' faith, and we know that infants were included. --- So regarding the Noahic baptism, if it can be demonstrated with good probability that the covenantal headship principle applied there as well (and I believe I have shown that), then it makes more sense to accept it, rather than just arbitrarily throwing it out the window because, "Well, even though the connection is there, maybe the Holy Spirit didn't intend for us to make that connection anyway." In other words, if we really are not supposed to accept that these connections to NT baptism are meaningful, then the burden of proof is on the dissenter.

Please just remember what you already said to me. 
*You said: "I agree with your rationale that lead to these conclusions"* 
Since you do agree with that rationale, please don't dismiss it unless you find a _convincing_ argument to the contrary from the same text.


I'm enjoying this discussion. Let's keep it up!


Your brother in Christ,
Joseph






[Edited on 9-15-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## blhowes (Sep 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Furthermore, concerning your comparison of "salvation by ark" and "salvation by Christ", the text of 1 Peter does not present it this way. Notice in verse 20 that Peter says they were saved "by water", not "by ark". I think this is an important hint to us that Peter has water baptism in mind, not just Spirit baptism. (In fact, I would argue that this is the case in most baptism passages . . . the sign and the thing signified are often talked about interchangably throughout Scripture.)


Thanks for the correction. OK, if we could park here a second. What does it mean when it says that Noah and his family were saved *by* the water? If it said saved *from* the water, that makes sense. But how were they saved by the water?


----------



## blhowes (Sep 15, 2005)

I guess this pretty much answers my question. Is that how everybody else here understands that phrase?

*Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament*
Through water (di'hudatos). "œBy means of water" as the intermediate agent, an apparent change in the use of dia in composition just before (local use) to the instrumental use here. They came through the water in the ark and so were saved by the water in spite of the flood around them. Peter lays stress (Hart) on the water rather than on the ark (Heb_11:7) for the sake of the following illustration.

*Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary*
saved by water "” The same water which drowned the unbelieving, buoyed up the ark in which the eight were saved. Not as some translate, "œwere brought safe through the water." However, the sense of the preposition may be as in 1Co_3:15, "œthey were safely preserved through the water," though having to be in the water.


----------



## Steve Owen (Sep 15, 2005)

FYI, the NASB translates, *'....in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.'*

The NKJV is similar: *'....through water.'* 

If the water saved them, then we seem to be in difficulty with baptismal regeneration! 

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> I guess this pretty much answers my question. Is that how everybody else here understands that phrase?
> 
> *Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament*
> ...




I would basically agree with this. The water that destroyed the world is the same water that bouyed up the ark. But there is also more: 

That same water had a positive spiritual effect on Noah's family *by* its very destruction of the world. By wiping evil off the earth, the water protected Noah's family from further evil temptations and influences.

Similarly, when _anyone_ (whether regenerate or not) is baptized and is brought into a church body, he/she effectively gets the "world washed away". He/she is now "in the ark" of the Church, so to speak. When you are in a meeting of the local church body on a Sunday morning, the world is shut out, along with its temptations. 

(Unfortunately though, today, many churches have allowed the world to seep in. Such churches are essentially "leaky boats" that are not seaworthy.)


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> If the water saved them, then we seem to be in difficulty with baptismal regeneration!



Nonsense. 

OT Circumcision represented regeneration (Gen. 17:7; Deut. 30:6), and was said to *be* the covenant itself (Gen. 17:10). Nevertheless, we recognize that physical circumcision was just the sign, while heart circumcision was the thing signified.

Likewise, when Jesus initiated the Lord's Supper, He said that the wine *is* the new covenant (1 Cor. 11:25). Nevertheless, we recognize that the wine is just the sign, while the new covenant in His blood is the thing signified.

It is no different with baptism. Water baptism is mentioned in Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16, Galatians 3:27, etc. And yet in none of these cases is baptismal regeneration in view. Rather, Scripture speaks of the sign interchangably with the thing signified.


The WCF puts it quite well:



> CHAPTER XXVII.
> Of the Sacraments.
> 
> II. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.




So, there should be no difficulty understanding the water which now "saves us", according to 1 Peter 3. This is just another case of the sign being spoken of as if it were the thing signified . . . a very common Scriptural occurence.




[Edited on 9-15-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 15, 2005)

Sign / thing signified is the hermeneutical factor that prevents us from coming to RCC/FV views of baptism, etc.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Sign / thing signified is the hermeneutical factor that prevents us from coming to RCC/FV views of baptism, etc.






It is a _very_ important distinction . . . a _critical_ one!


----------



## blhowes (Sep 15, 2005)

Here are just a few different renderings of the end of 1 Peter 3:20.


> NASB: ....in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
> 
> Geneva: ...wherein fewe, that is, eight soules were saued in the water.
> 
> ...



Does anybody know which is closest to the Greek?


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 16, 2005)

Jesus believes in believer's baptism


----------



## Poimen (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Here are just a few different renderings of the end of 1 Peter 3:20.
> 
> 
> ...



They are all pretty much spot on, but I like the ESV/NASB rendering of the verb 'diasozo' as "were brought safely" through water rather than "saved." The same verb is used in these verses to refer to being restored to health in the gospels or rescued from the sea (Acts 27-28). 

Did you have a specific question about the Greek or one or more of the words in the English translation?

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by poimen]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Here are just a few different renderings of the end of 1 Peter 3:20.
> 
> 
> ...




This is just my opinion, but I don't think this verse really hinges on a debate over how to translate the preposition from Greek to English.

Prepositions are often difficult to translate. Should we translate it "by" or "through"? Does is make a huge difference?

What is clear (according to your own commentary quotes above) is that Peter focuses on the water in this phrase, rather than on the ark. Peter compares Noah's experience to NT baptism. And Peter focuses on the water.

I'm not all that sure that the "by" or "through" distinction matters a whole lot. But I could be wrong.


----------



## blhowes (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> Did you have a specific question about the Greek or one or more of the words in the English translation?


I'm just trying to understand exactly what Peter is saying about Noah's baptism so I can understand the analogy he's making in relating NT baptism to Noah's baptism. Though its true that Noah and all in the ark were brought safely through the water, and also that the water saved them (by keeping the ark afloat), they convey slightly different meanings and I'm curious which was Peter's intended meaning. If Peter's intended focus in verse 20 was that the water saved them, is there a way he could have said it in the Greek to more clearly make that distinction?

Peter uses diasozo (translated saved, KJV) in verse 20 and sozo (translated save, KJV) in verse 21. Are they essentially the same word?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



Ok . . . you have picqued my curiosity . . . I plan to look at this nuance in detail now . . .


----------



## blhowes (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> This is just my opinion, but I don't think this verse really hinges on a debate over how to translate the preposition from Greek to English.


I'm just trying to understand the point Martin made about the different way to translate the verse and how, or if, it makes a difference in the overall scheme of things.



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> What is clear (according to your own commentary quotes above) is that Peter focuses on the water in this phrase, rather than on the ark. Peter compares Noah's experience to NT baptism. And Peter focuses on the water.


<continuing to think about that>

Thanks for the diversion. I had to almost laugh last night as I was walking home from the train. With my last day at work only 2 weeks away and no job in sight, it'd be natural to have that heavy on my mind. But, instead, I found myself walking along, just focused on the 1 Peter passage and what the Lord through Peter was trying to teach me about baptism as it relates to Noah's baptism. After coming from work, where you can cut the negative atmosphere with a knife, it was indeed a blessing to have such a diversion.



[Edited on 9-16-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> I had to almost laugh last night as I was walking home from the train. With my last day at work only 2 weeks away and no job in sight, it'd be natural to have that heavy on my mind. But, instead, I found myself walking along, just focused on the 1 Peter passage and what the Lord through Peter was trying to teach me about baptism as it relates to Noah's baptism. After coming from work, where you can cut the negative atmosphere with a knife, it was indeed a blessing to have such a diversion.





Praise the Lord! It is truly a wonderful blessing to know the peace that comes from focusing on His Holy Word!

Focusing on anything in Scripture, anything at all, is a focus on something that is holy, pure, and eternal. God's Word is certainly a wonderful Rock to run to, especially when this fallen world goes topsy turvy.

Blessings,
Joseph


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> If Peter's intended focus in verse 20 was that the water saved them, is there a way he could have said it in the Greek to more clearly make that distinction?



Well, I can certainly say this much:

If Peter's intended focus in verse 20 was that the ark saved them, then he simply could have used language like Hebrews 11:7, and would have been _much_ more clear.

But Peter didn't use Heb. 11:7 language because he wasn't focusing on the ark.

I think the commentaries you quoted above are correct. He was focusing on the water.


----------



## blhowes (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> If Peter's intended focus in verse 20 was that the ark saved them, then he simply could have used language like Hebrews 11:7, and would have been _much_ more clear.


I must have misspoken. I meant is there a clearer way in the Greek that he could have said that the water saved them as opposed to them being safely brought through the water.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



I understood your question. But I don't know Greek well enough to answer it. I was just pointing out that he could have worded things _much_ differently if he wanted to emphasize the ark. Thus, I was only offering that as implicit evidence that he was emphasizing the water instead.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 16, 2005)

I appreciate the article Joseph. Do you know of any teachers past or present who have linked the Darkness/Spirit/Water passage in Genesis to baptism?

Cheers Brother!


----------



## Poimen (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



Yes. If water was in the accusative case then Peter would have been saying "saved because of water." Peter's use of the preposition 'dia' in the chosen case means "through" or "by means of." 

Yet the whole construction of the verse still tells us that water was the means of their 'salvation' not the ark. The water is the means, not the ground of their safety. 

This is very similar to Paul's use of the word "faith" in regards to justification. Whenever he says were are justified by faith he never uses the accusative case which is significant because if he did then we would be justified because we had faith instead of being justified because of Christ's righteousness which we received by faith. He always uses the genitive (as Peter does in this verse) so we say we are justified by faith.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 16, 2005)

Very helpful points, Daniel. Thank you!


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> I appreciate the article Joseph. Do you know of any teachers past or present who have linked the Darkness/Spirit/Water passage in Genesis to baptism?
> 
> Cheers Brother!



Tertullian (circa 200 A.D.) linked Genesis 1:2 to baptism:



> From Tertullian's treatise, *On Baptism*:
> 
> We keep this pronouncement in mind as a standing rule, while none the less discussing whether or not it is foolish, and whether impossible, for reformation to be brought about by water. Since in fact that substance has had conferred upon it a function of such high dignity, I suppose we need to ask what is *the significance of the liquid element*. It has indeed a very high one, *ever since the beginning*. For it is one of those elements which before the world was at all brought into order, were in still unpolished form Ã­n the beginning at rest with God. In the beginning, it says, God made the heaven and the earth: but the earth was invisible and dis-composed, and *there was darkness over the deep, and the Spirit of God was borne upon the waters*.
> 
> You are bound, my friend, to have in reverence first the antiquity of the waters, that they are an ancient thing, and then the honour done them, that they are the resting place of the Spirit of God, more pleasing to him at that time than the other elements. *For the darkness was as yet wholly formless*, still without the adornment of the stars, the depth morose, the earth unready, and the sky unshapen:* only the liquid, a material always perfect, joyous, simple, of its own nature pure, laid down there a worthy carriage for God* <to move upon>. Next *after that also God's ordering of the world was in a sort of way carried out by regulative waters*: for by dividing the waters he brought about the suspension of the firmament of heaven in the midst, and by gathering the waters aside <into one place> he accom- plished the spreading out of the dry land. Thereafter, when the world had had its constituents set in order, and inhabitants began to be given to it, it was the waters first which were commanded to bring forth living things: *the liquid was the first to bring forth that which should have life, so that in baptism it need be no wonder if waters already know how to make alive*. And was not also the task even of forming man accomplished with waters in partnership? Matter was taken up from the earth: yet it was only workable through being moistened and wet - the earth in fact which the waters, when gathered aside into their own place four days before, had modified into mud by the moisture left behind. If I go on to tell of all or most of the things I could relate concerning the significance of this element, the greatness of its power or its favour, with all the devices, all the functions, all the equipment it supplies the world with, I fear I should seem to have composed a panegyric on water in preference to the doctrine of baptism: though even so, I should be explaining more fully that *there is no room for doubt whether God has brought into service in his very own sacraments that same material which he has had at his disposal in all his acts and works*, and whether this which is the guide of earthly life makes provision of heavenly things besides.



And some more modern writers have done so as well:



> "In the Old Testament account of the Creation, the spirit of God hovers like a bird above the primeval sea, wafting with its wing-beat the breath of God into the slime from which the world was made (Genesis 1:2). So Pliny speaks of 'that famous breath (spiritus) that generates the universe by fluctuating to and fro as in a kind of womb.' It is much the same imagery that portrays the Holy Spirit fluttering down on the head of Jesus at his baptism (Matthew 3:16), making him, too, a 'Bar-jona', 'Son of a Dove'."
> - John M. Allegro, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross



Just two days ago, it appears that Leithart posted something on his website to this effect too:



> All of this is made from the formless and voidness of Genesis 1:2. The structure of this verse suggests that the "deep" is equivalent to the formless and voidness. Genesis 1 therefore describes the Spirit´s shaping of cosmic order from an original formless watery deep. The world emerges from water.
> 
> Water is thus an appropriate ritual image for baptism, even infant baptism. Baptism marks a beginning, a new creation, the emergence of a new man from the waters of the deep. The beginning is not yet glorified and fully formed, but neither is it chaotic. A child is plunged into the water, but it will take time, separations, fillings to give shape to the life that begins in water. Like the water, the newly baptized is made ready for shaping through willing and obedient submission to the "pattern (TYPOS) of teaching," the baptized is molded into the image of Christ. The waters part, and the dry land appears.



The Anglican church sometimes links Genesis 1:2 with baptism:



> John the Baptist has come, "proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (v. 4). Many have taken the opportunity to start new lives in God. Jesus, too, is baptised by John - Mark does not tell us why. The opening of the heavens symbolizes the start of a new mode of communication between God and humankind. Perhaps "like a dove" (v. 10) is an allusion to the spirit hovering in Genesis 1:2.




We already know from 1 Corinthians 10:2 that the Israelites were "baptized" in the Exodus. And in Paradise Restored, David Chilton demonstrates a strong parallel between Genesis 1:2 and the exodus:



> Now, the fascinating thing about Moses´ statement in Deu-teronomy 32:11 "“ God´s "œfluttering" over His people by means ofthe Cloud "“ is that Moses uses that Hebrew word only one othertime in the entire Pentateuch, when he tells us that "œthe earthwas without form, and void; . . . and the Spirit of God wasmoving upon the face of the waters" (Gen. 1:2). Nor is that the only parallel between these two passages; forin Deuteronomy 32:10 Moses describes the wilderness throughwhich the people were traveling as a waste "“ the same word translated "without form" in Genesis 1:2 (and, again, these are the only two occurrences of the word in the Pentateuch). What Moses is saying, then "“ and this fact was surely understood by his Hebrew readers "“ is that *God's saving of His people through the Exodus was are-enactment of the history of the Creation: In saving Israel God was constituting them a New Creation. As in the beginning, the Spirit-Cloud hovered over the creation, bringing light in the darkness* (Gen. 1:3; Ex. 14:20; John 1:3-5),and leading on to the Sabbath-rest in the Promised Land, theNew Eden (Gen. 2:2-3; cf. Deut. 12:9-10 and Ps. 95:11, wherethe land is called a rest).




Meredith Kline, a well respected covenant theologian, wrote about the link between baptism and Genesis 1:2 --- 



> Special interest attaches to the appearance of the Glory-Spirit in a witness role in historical episodes or visionary scenes of re-creation that are repetitive of the original creation as described in Genesis 1:2. For besides confirming our identification of the Glory-Presence in Genesis 1:2, such evidence of the presence of God as a divine witness in Genesis 1:2 is an index of the covenantal cast of the whole creation narrative "¦ In the exodus re-creation, the Glory-cloud, described by Moses by means of the imagery of Genesis 1:2 ["hovering," Deut. 32:11] "¦ stood as pillar witness to the covenant that defined the legal nature of this redemptive action of God. *At the beginning of the new creation, at the baptism of Jesus, the Spirit descending over the waters in avian form, as in Genesis 1:2, was a divine testimony * to the Son, the Son who was given as God's covenant to the people. At the consummation of the new covenant with its new exodus-creation, the Glory-figure, apocalyptically revealed in Revelation 10:1ff., is seen clothed with a cloud, rainbow haloed, with face like the sun and feet like pillars of fire, standing astride creation with his hand raised in oath to heaven, swearing by him who on the seventh day finished his creating of the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all their hosts that in the days of the seventh trumpet the mystery of God will be finished. In the interpretive light of such redemptive reproductions of the Genesis 1:2 scene, we see that the Spirit at the beginning overarched creation as a divine witness to the Covenant of Creation, as a sign that creation existed under the aegis of his covenant lordship.




There are probably lots more quotes out there, linking Genesis 1:2 with baptism. The ones above just happen to be what I found right off the bat.




[Edited on 9-16-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Poimen (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Very helpful points, Daniel. Thank you!



You are .


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> ...



Outstanding! Thanks for taking the time!


----------



## blhowes (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> Yes. If water was in the accusative case then Peter would have been saying "saved because of water." Peter's use of the preposition 'dia' in the chosen case means "through" or "by means of."
> 
> Yet the whole construction of the verse still tells us that water was the means of their 'salvation' not the ark. The water is the means, not the ground of their safety.
> ...


Thank-you for the explanation.


----------



## Poimen (Sep 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



u r .


----------



## blhowes (Sep 19, 2005)

As I continue looking at the 1 Peter passage and thinking about its reference to Noah's baptism, I find myself still viewing the passage pretty much the same as my original post, with a little more depth added due to Joseph's article.

Two things are important to keep in mind with regard to Noah's baptism:
- All who were baptized were saved by the water (or were brought safely through the water).
- Only those who were in the ark were saved (or safe). 

Its also important to determine why those who were in the ark were allowed into the ark, when the rest of the world perished. As Joseph rightly pointed out: 

*Noah:*
Because Noah had found favor with God, was a righteous man, and walked with God.

*Noah's wife, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives:*
Because Noah had found favor with God, was a righteous man, and walked with God.

Noah's wife and the rest in Noah's family were not in the ark because of their own righteousness, but because of the righteousness of someone else, Noah. Instead of showing us, though, who should be baptized now, (in my opinion) instead it teaches an important thing about baptism and salvation. It teaches us about Jesus' substitutionary death on behalf of the elect. In context, the passage in 1 Peter about Noah's baptism is sandwiched between 1 Peter 3:18 and 1 Peter 4:1, which talk about Jesus dying in our place:


> 1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit
> 
> 1Pe 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;



In the story about Noah, its important to ask who was allowed into the ark and why, as we've already done. In 1 Peter 3:21, when it says:

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us...

its important to ask who the 'us' is. Its not just anybody who picks up the Bible to read it, but its referring to the elect (see 1 Peter 1:2)...those who are in Christ...figuratively, those who are in the ark. In the same way that only those who were in the ark were saved by the water, so also only those who are in Christ are saved by baptism. 

I'm not ruling out the possibility that the passage may also be teaching us who should be baptized, but as yet I don't see the passages teaching that, for two main reasons:

1. With Noah's baptism, all of his family was saved. I don't think that's true of NT baptisms.

2. If we use the story about Noah's baptism as the basis for determining who should be baptized, it seems we'd have to change our way of doing business now. Everybody in the Noah story was grown up and married, but they were all in the ark and baptized based on Noah's standing with God. They were baptized not because of their own righteousness or profession of faith, but based on Noah's. We have problems with that if we put that into practice now. Let's say I was unregenerate and my sons were married and on their own. If I got saved, and we used Noah's baptism as an example, myself, my wife, my two sons, and their wives would need to get baptized, and there'd be no need for them to make a profession of faith.

That's just my . Will I be getting any change back?

Bob


----------

