# More CT/Baptism Debate



## Poimen (Aug 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> For one thing, don't make the huge mistake of starting with John the Baptist when you start studying baptism.
> 
> Rather, a person should start with Genesis 6-9. Then they should take a look at Exodus 14-15.
> ...



True but you would admit that your bias is showing through right? 

After all a baptist would never start with the OT (at least that has been my experience). One baptist's tract/book I read awhile ago stated that he began with the NT which only confirmed what he saw in the OT. I personally believe that is the wrong approach since all doctrine proceeds from the OT (Luke 24:44; 2 Timothy 3:15-17) but then, I am a paedobaptist!

[Edited on 8-11-2005 by poimen]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



Of course! I am biased towards the truth! 



> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> After all a baptist would never start with the OT (at least that has been my experience). One baptist tract/book I read awhile ago said that he began with the NT which only confirmed what he saw in the OT. I personally believe that is the wrong approach since all doctrine proceeds from the OT (Luke 24:44; 2 Timothy 3:15-17) but then, I am a paedobaptist!



I especially like starting with Genesis 6-9 and Exodus 14-15 (instead of circumcision in Genesis 17) because _*it is logically required even for a person who wants to investigate the issue from a New Testament perspective!*_

Why? Because the New Testament _*explicitly*_ tells us to look there. 1 Peter 3:20-21 tells us that the salvation of Noah and his family prefigured "baptism". And 1 Corinthians 10:2 tells us that the Israelites in the exodus were "baptized".

These 2 facts are not up for argument like the long-standing debate about the links between circumcision and baptism (Colossians 2:11-12 notwithstanding). Why are they not up for debate? Because the word "baptism" is explicitly used by Peter, and the word "baptized" is explicitly used by Paul. These two apostles plainly tell us that we should be looking at Genesis 6-9 and Exodus 14-15 if we are going to understand baptism. 

And in both cases, credobaptists should be uncomfortable. Noah was righteous. And because of that, his _entire family_ was saved. And Peter explicitly tells us that baptism is like this. Paul said that all Israelites were "baptized" . . . Paul uses that specific word. And we know that little children and infants were among those in the exodus. Thus, 1 Cor. 10:2 is an explicit New Testament reference to a type of infant baptism. Both this passage and 1 Peter 3:20-21 are _New Testament_ passages, and both of them offer support for infant baptism.

I just think these 2 passages should be brought to the table in the baptism debate more often. When credobaptists want New Testament support for infant baptism, I don't go to Genesis 17 . Instead, I turn to 1 Peter 3 and 1 Corinthians 10. Then I let those passages themselves point us back to the Old Testament.

Anyway, I realize I'm preaching to the choir, Daniel. You and I are already on the same page. I'll get off my soapbox now.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



Yes! 

I have often pointed my students and objectors to Genesis 6. This is the way of life from the very beginning: Adam sinned, we all fell. Every covenant or that comes afterward (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, Prophetic) includes believers and their seed. So why wouldn't the new covenant? And why weren't the Jews told about this change? Indeed, wouldn't they be upset if their children were not included in the covenant. 

Conclusion: The life of infants is (ordinarily) bound up with their parents.

Okay, now I guess I'm doing the same thing you are. I'll get off the soapbox now too!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 11, 2005)

> And in both cases, credobaptists should be uncomfortable. Noah was righteous. And because of that, his entire family was saved. And Peter explicitly tells us that baptism is like this. Paul said that all Israelites were "baptized" . . . Paul uses that specific word.



I am not uncomfortable as you say. You assume to much when you speak. They are different baptisms and they represent different things. Does Baptism save? In Noahs case it did. Does Baptism regenerate anybody. Nooooooo. When salvation is mentioned in the scripture is it always the one that is eternal and saves persons from the wrath to come? Noooooo.

You assume to much.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I am not uncomfortable as you say. You assume to much when you speak. They are different baptisms and they represent different things. Does Baptism save? In Noahs case it did. Does Baptism regenerate anybody. Nooooooo. When salvation is mentioned in the scripture is it always the one that is eternal and saves persons from the wrath to come? Noooooo.
> 
> You assume to much.



I don't assume much of what you say, so there is obviously a miscommunication somewhere. I don't think water baptism regenerates anyone. And is the word "salvation" always in reference to eternal things? Of course not. 

But you assumed that I assumed those things.

I guess you just assumed too much. 

:bigsmile:

[Edited on 8-11-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 11, 2005)

No I didn't assume you didn't understand. Having read your thoughts before, I know you understand soteriology. I just showed you that I didn't believe what you were saying applied based upon a words definition or just because you had a few references with a word in it. 

Your assuming was that Credo's were uncomfortable by the way you interpreted and applied the passages you quoted.

Here is one of the main differences between us.



> One of the main issues between those who differ on Covenant Theology is whether the New Covenant membership includes only born again members or if it includes unregenerate and regenerate alike.



The Covenant of Redemption is the determining factor. Not baptism.

[Edited on 8-12-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Steve Owen (Aug 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> I have often pointed my students and objectors to Genesis 6. This is the way of life from the very beginning: Adam sinned, we all fell. Every covenant or that comes afterward (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, Prophetic) includes believers and their seed. So why wouldn't the new covenant?



Yes, but not the physical seed. *'Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.'* (Gal 3:7 ). And again, *'"For more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married woman," says the LORD.'* (Isaiah 54:1 ).

As a matter of fact, the case of Noah supports the Credo case more than that of the Paedo-baptist. What age were Noah's sons? Old enough to be married! The word that God spoke to Noah, He spoke to all mankind through Noah (2Peter 2:5 ) but only his (adult) family would come on board. 


> And why weren't the Jews told about this change? Indeed, wouldn't they be upset if their children were not included in the covenant.



They were told (Jer 31:31-34 ). But many of them were nonetheless upset and went about telling the churches that they still needed to observe circumcision (Gal 5:1-12; Phil 3:2 etc).


> Conclusion: The life of infants is (ordinarily) bound up with their parents.


Hey, what's this about 'ordinarily'? Are the promises of God 'Yea and Amen' or are they not. Did God give Himself a little get-out clause when it came to children? Of course not! The promises are not to the physical seed, but to the spiritual. Eli, Samuel, David, Hezekiah, Josiah etc knew this the hard way.

BTW, the very first prophet (Luke 11:50-51 ) and hero of faith was Abel. He had no physical family, but he still speaks (Heb 11:4 ) to his spiritual children today. We know of no family of Melchizedek, but he is 'beyond all contradiction' greater than Abraham (Heb 7:7 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Larry Hughes (Aug 12, 2005)

Randy,



> I am not uncomfortable...



Strictly speaking when I was a pure unbeliever I was not uncomfortable either. I say that in general and not against you, credos or paedeos for that matter. But rather that not grasping a truth, any truth, credo or paedeo would necessitate uncomfortableness. Many people bask in falsehood every day at many levels. Again, I'm speaking of the principle and not specific assertions.



> Does Baptism regenerate anybody. Nooooooo. When salvation is mentioned in the scripture is it always the one that is eternal and saves persons from the wrath to come? Noooooo.



I agree who would disagree in a broad sense of the term "salvation". But, stictly speaking the one that saves is Christ and His work, his passive and active obedience, that and that alone saves as in justifies. Nothing adds to this nor can take away from it (this concept is most often lost). Baptism nor the Lord's Supper neither "save" per se, neither does the printed inked words, "all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved" like some kind of incantation or "word" version of ex opere operato. Your or my "grasping of the promises themselves do not save or justify us either, strictly speaking.

It is the message and not the Words that are miraculous. It is the message to which one is awakened and called. That's why Paul can say we who are called are called by the Gospel and in Romans those called are chosen, elect, justified, glorified. The objective work of Christ, the Gospel, saves and the communication of this is made to one made alive by the Holy Spirit and is received. The reception of the message and the reflecting utter relying upon it IS faith. Belief in regeneration is not faith. 

But the Spirit works through means not "poof" or zap devoid of the Word. At least that is the normative. Baptism is another communication of the Gospel. It is another way to "say" the Gospel, as is the Lord's Table. For what else is the Gospel but being marked into Christ's death and ressurrection, what else is the Gospel but His body broken for us, what else is the Gospel but His blood shed for the forgiveness of my and your sins.

The Word, Baptism and the Lord's Table are meant to engender, strengthen and sustain faith, NOT to hinder them by becoming something we do out of obedience. They are not our duties to actively please God but His gifts given to us. And when we passively, not actively, receive them that is believe Him when in them He communicates, "I have utterly forgiven your sins for My Sons sake and given My Sons righteousness to you", when we receive by passively believing, trusting and resting upon His Son, the One alone in Whom the Father is pleased, communicated in all of these - THEN it is pleasing to God and true worship. To see baptism or the Lord's Supper as an obedience given to God is to miss the point entirely, make them Law and remove from them Gospel, a very dangerous thing to do. Rather, strictly speaking these are passively received as is all Gospel. Each has their specific function, time and place but all communicate the same thing and that is grace and grace is received not purchased by doing.

Adults hear the Gospel all the time and many never come to faith and even worse reject it out right. So the words themself do not save ex opere operato any more than does baptism. Yet, we are to proclaim the Words, broadcast the Word namely the Gospel. And here is the point, we communicate them to spiritually dead people. That is those who can no more act to believe than a dead corpse can act to rise from the grave. The credo position has trouble in that babies cannot recieve the Gospel because they are in and of themselves incapable of doing so. Yet, they seem to forget that fallen man in and of himself is dead in trespasses and sins and can no more grasp the Gospel than a rock can grasp the theory of relativity. Strictly speaking we communicate the Gospel to dead people. Physically it would be like going to a grave yard and trying to hold a two way conversation. Yet, we do so. Why? Because we are told that is where the power will be and at that junction, the Gospel message, is where the Holy Spirit has promised to be and work.

Likewise in baptism of infants, the promise is unto them and we are to give it to them and thus they receive it. It is a perfect picture of receiving and captures grace most purely as the helpless infant receives the Gospel via the water. The timing of it, regeneration or not matters no more than it does with adults. Do you wait to find out if a person is regenerate before giving them the Gospel as if there is another way? Of course not, you merely communicate where the promise is given. We baptize children based upon the promise of God and the command of God's word that has never been removed from Gen. 17 forward, we do not nor are we commanded to baptize based upon regeneration a thing we cannot see.

Larry


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 13, 2005)

Larry,
I was just illustrating that his pet passages really didn't apply. We cleared that up earlier in the post. I explained I wasn't questioning his soteriology also.




> Adults hear the Gospel all the time and many never come to faith and even worse reject it out right. So the words themself do not save ex opere operato any more than does baptism.



I have to take issue here. The word does cause regeneration and it does bring faith. 

Psalm 19:7 Romans 10:17

Just skimming and not really wanting to debate with you. Be Encouraged brother, Randy

[Edited on 8-13-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Steve Owen (Aug 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Larry,
> 
> 
> ...



 Also James 1:18 and 1Peter 1:23.

Martin


----------



## Larry Hughes (Aug 13, 2005)

Randy,

Likewise on the debate brother, you and I are always square with each other on debates (even when we disagree) and I truly appreciate, respect and love you as my brother in Christ. You are a most gracious and a solid thinker.

I think we would agree rather than disagree on the one point you stated though. Perhaps I was unclear. I'm not saying the Word is not the instrument whereby regeneration does occur. Rahter that the word does not regenerate nakedly without the Holy Spirit that was my point. One can speak the Word to a man and he not come to faith. Knowing your accumen on the Word I'd have a hard time believing you believe otherwise. Else conversion would come automatically upon every hearing of the Word (and by Word I mean the Gospel and not the Law which brings death and not life) and no one could reject it. People reject it, therefore, the Word by itself does not regenerate a man.

BTW Psalm 19:7 is speaking of the Law in the covenant community and the growth of the Christian. It assumes already within the community. Calvin, et. al. have commented extensively on this passage for the Law NEVER has the power of life and the Gospel only does.

Here's the difference:

Gospel:

Romans 1:16, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."

1 Cor. 1:18, "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 

Law:

Romans 8:3, "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,"

Acts 13:39, "and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses."

L


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I was just illustrating that his pet passages really didn't apply. We cleared that up earlier in the post.



You are way off base. And the real problem here is not that you are disagreeing with me. And the problem is not even that you are missing something implicit in the Bible. The problem is that you are contradicting that which is *explicitly stated* in Scripture!

I said that Genesis 6-9 (with 1 Peter 3:19-20), and Exodus 14-15 (with 1 Corinthians 10:2) are very important Scriptures to be used when studying New Testament baptism in the Church.

You disagreed with me.

But in BOTH places, Scripture, in fact the New Testament itself, *explicitly* tells us that those passages are relevant! Take a look with me:

From 1 Peter 3:
". . . God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and *this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also* . . . "

The Apostle Peter *explicitly* tells us that there is a parallel to be drawn between the story of Noah's ark, and New Testament baptism.

From 1 Corinthians 10:
"For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; *and all were baptized* into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. . . . Now *these things happened as examples for us* . . . Now these things happened to them *as an example*, and *they were written for our instruction*, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. "

The Apostle Paul *explicitly* tells us that the baptism of Israel was an "example" for us, and was "written for our instruction". Paul talks about the sacraments, and draws explicit parallels with Israel, and explicitly tells us that it is for our instruction, today, in the New Testament.


But you want to draw distinctions. You said that they are "different baptisms and they represent different things."

So, the major issue here is that *you are drawing distinctions at certain points, precisely where the Scriptures are drawing parallels.* 

But we don't have to debate and wonder whether there is really a significant parallel between Noah's "baptism" and our New Testament baptism. The Apostle Peter explicitly told us that there is! 

And we don't have to wonder and debate whether there is really a significant parallel between Israel's "baptism" and our New Testament baptism. The Apostle Paul explicitly told us that there is!

[Edited on 8-14-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> The Word, Baptism and the Lord's Table are meant to engender, strengthen and sustain faith, NOT to hinder them by becoming something we do out of obedience. They are not our duties to actively please God but His gifts given to us. And when we passively, not actively, receive them that is believe Him when in them He communicates, "I have utterly forgiven your sins for My Sons sake and given My Sons righteousness to you", when we receive by passively believing, trusting and resting upon His Son, the One alone in Whom the Father is pleased, communicated in all of these - THEN it is pleasing to God and true worship. To see baptism or the Lord's Supper as an obedience given to God is to miss the point entirely, make them Law and remove from them Gospel, a very dangerous thing to do. Rather, strictly speaking these are passively received as is all Gospel. Each has their specific function, time and place but all communicate the same thing and that is grace and grace is received not purchased by doing.
> 
> Adults hear the Gospel all the time and many never come to faith and even worse reject it out right. So the words themself do not save ex opere operato any more than does baptism. Yet, we are to proclaim the Words, broadcast the Word namely the Gospel. And here is the point, we communicate them to spiritually dead people. That is those who can no more act to believe than a dead corpse can act to rise from the grave. The credo position has trouble in that babies cannot recieve the Gospel because they are in and of themselves incapable of doing so. Yet, they seem to forget that fallen man in and of himself is dead in trespasses and sins and can no more grasp the Gospel than a rock can grasp the theory of relativity. Strictly speaking we communicate the Gospel to dead people. Physically it would be like going to a grave yard and trying to hold a two way conversation. Yet, we do so. Why? Because we are told that is where the power will be and at that junction, the Gospel message, is where the Holy Spirit has promised to be and work.
> ...



  



Larry,

That was a truly wonderful, helpful, encouraging, satisfying, and edifying post!!!

With your permission, I may quote you sometime on my website. That was some good stuff you just wrote!!

Thank you for your excellent words above.

In Christ,
Joseph




[Edited on 8-14-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 14, 2005)

> You are way off base. And the real problem here is not that you are disagreeing with me. And the problem is not even that you are missing something implicit in the Bible. The problem is that you are contradicting that which is explicitly stated in Scripture!



I am sorry if I assume to much. Let me ask you a few questions and make a statement. I could be incorrect in my assesment. 



> From 1 Peter 3:". . . God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.
> In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also . . . "




(1Pe 3:20-21) 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. 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:


Joe,
Are you sure that Peter is referring to a Christian's water baptizism here? Does water baptism save us or does spiritual baptism as in Romans 6. Because Noah was physically saved by the ark. The water killed the sin that surrounded them in humanity.

(Rom 6:3-6) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

I know theologians would argue that this is not water baptism. They would say that water is not mentioned here. It is baptism into Christ without water. Thus the teaching of Spiritual Baptism. I can see the inference of water baptism though. I have been silenced by some Presbyterian's that this is not water baptism, nor is it a defence of immersion into water baptism because water is not mentioned here.

If it is a water baptism, something is important here that I believe is missed by Paedo's. The fact that consciousness of what is going on before God is necessary. Infants are not usually given credit for giving an *answer of a good conscious * before God or paedocommunion would have taken root.

Joe,
Let's deal with the other passage after we have settled on this issue of Noah and Peter. I don't want to only address part of the discussion without the other. I do want to discuss the whole. I just want to do it in parts so that we can discuss them intelligently.

[Edited on 8-14-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Randy,
> 
> Likewise on the debate brother, you and I are always square with each other on debates (even when we disagree) and I truly appreciate, respect and love you as my brother in Christ. You are a most gracious and a solid thinker.
> ...



Larry we are in agreement as I actually suspected. I know you are solid. I just thought your wording was a bit shadowed and full light should be shown from your thorough thinking. 


Love you brother, Randy


----------



## Larry Hughes (Aug 14, 2005)

Joseph,

Absolutely, I'm quite humbled and thank God for His teaching me. If someone else can profitt from it and be strengthened go ahead. And thanks for the encouragement back. It is edifying/strengthening when one learns some fresh Gospel that helps in one's own struggles and doubts, and it is doubly edifying/strengthening when someone else catches what you yourself was edified and strengthened by so that they too are the same. It can almost be like a domino effect, only geometric in progression (sorry nerdy science thing). I think that's what its like to truly strengthen each other in the Word, and Grace of Christ.

Randy,

I need my brothers to keep me straight and in check and I'm glad you caught the lack of clarity in my statement(s). I'm trying to learn to "shoot less from the hip", it can be tough when emotions are jazzed up. Always appreciated. And this helps strengthen like I just mentioned because it forces one to really focus and re-think what they are saying and not saying.

Your Brother In Christ,

Larry


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > From 1 Peter 3:". . . God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.
> ...



Excellent question!

For starters, I like the way the WCF 28:2 talks about sacraments:



> 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*.



(Unfortunately, the 1689 LBCF omits this paragraph. Any idea why??)

We can see the truth of the above statement throughout Scripture:

Israelites boys were automatically born as covenant members. Nevertheless, circumcision (the sign) was talked about as if it were covenant membership itself (the thing signified). Just look at Genesis 17:10 . . . "This is My covenant . . . Every male child among you shall be circumcised". God says "this is My covenant" regarding circumcision, even though circumcision is only the sign.

And consider God's words in reference to the Lord's Supper . . . "This is My Body" . . . "This is the New Covenant in My Blood" . . . Is the bread actually Christ's body? No, but Jesus talked about it as if it was. Is the wine actually Christ's blood? Is the wine itself the New Covenant? No, but Jesus talked about it that way.

Throughout Scripture, the sign and the thing signified are often talked about as if one were the other . . . the sacraments are tightly wrapped up with that which they signify (albeit certainly not in an _ex opere operato_ sense).

Now consider controversial passages which tell us that "baptism saves" us. That should be really confusing to a person who expects the sign and thing signified to always be talked about seperately. You are correct that we can somewhat skirt the issue in 1 Peter 3 if we just say, "he's only talking about spiritual baptism". But that is much more difficult to do in places like Acts 22:16, with phrases like, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins". Or consider Mark 16:16 . . . "He who believes and is baptized will be saved". In both cases, it is pretty difficult to make a case that Paul is talking about anything other than water baptism. But of course we know that the apostles did not believe in baptismal regeneration . . . just read Acts 8 to prove that regarding Simon Magus. We would be more comfortable to just read something along the lines of, "the Holy Spirit baptizes you and washes away your sins", or "He who believes and is Spirit baptized will be saved". But that is not what the texts say! 

(And for those of you who want to argue over the meaning of the Greek word "eis" in the book of Acts, sorry, but I think that argument is way off base . . . "excuseagesis" rather than exegesis.)

So how can we reject baptismal regeneration, along with Acts 8, and yet not wince when we read that baptism "saves" in Mark, Acts, and 1 Peter?

It doesn't have to be so difficult. We read Genesis 17:10, where God says circumcision IS the covenant, and yet we know the sign is just being talked about AS IF it were the thing signified . . . the Jewish boys were *already* covenant members prior to circumcision. We read the Gospels and 1 Corinthians, and don't have any problem with Jesus saying, "this IS My Body", and "this IS the new covenant in My Blood". We're not Roman Catholics, so we know that Jesus was just talking about the sign AS IF it were the thing signified.

So, I think a lot of our  over "water baptism" versus "spiritual baptism" in the Scriptures could be most peacefully resolved if we didn't treat baptismal studies so differently from our studies of circumcision, the Lord's Supper, etc. Just "get comfortable" with the fact that Scripture often talks about the sign as if it were the thing signified.

Is water baptism being talked about in Acts 2, Acts 22, Mark 16, Romans 6, 1 Corinthians 10, 1 Corinthians 12, and 1 Peter 3? YES! So does that mean that the apostles believed in baptismal regeneration? NO! Did they understand the difference between spiritual baptism and water baptism? YES! (Again, just look at Acts 8 and Simon Magus, who was water-baptized, but was apparently not Spirit-baptized.) 

If we do not take the approach suggested above, we run into all kinds of trouble. For example, just as you said, if 1 Peter 3 is just talking about water baptism, then it would be hard not to lean toward the heresy of baptismal regeneration, because this passage says that baptism "saves us". But on the other hand, it is a real exegetical stretch to make any attempt to convert this to a baptismal passage that is devoid of water. The passage itself says, "eight souls were *saved by water*", and shortly later, it goes on to talk about "the putting away of the filth of the flesh", and we are supposed to believe that water-baptism was the furthest thing from the minds of 1st-century readers? I don't think so! Now, it is helpful that the text tells us that it is not the cleansing of the body itself that saves us, but the answer of a good conscience. (I will discuss this phrase a little later.) So Peter does remind us that there is no _ex opere operato_ nonsense going on. However, many learned scholars have made the error of thinking that the phrase "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh" makes this a non-water-baptism passage. Baloney! Peter IS talking about water (thus his statement about 8 souls being saved by water). Rather, Peter is just simply saying that it is NOT the water baptism ITSELF that effectively "saves". . . (which you and I already agreed upon from the beginning!)

[I apologize . . . I was planning to respond rather concisely. But it's just not happening. If you are still reading at this point . . . I'm sorry for my wordiness.]

Anyway, just try going back through all the baptism passages, without being uptight over whether they are talking about spirit baptism or water baptism in any given spot. You can pretty much expect that all of the passages WILL apply well to Spirit-baptized people, and SHOULD apply well to water-baptized people. However, we all know that not all water-baptized people (whether credo or paedo) prove to be actually elect, saved, and Spirit-baptized. So there are of course many merely-water-baptized people who just don't fit the bill in baptism passages just as Romans 6, 1 Corinthians 12, and 1 Peter 3.

Again:



> 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*.






> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> (Rom 6:3-6) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
> 
> I know theologians would argue that this is not water baptism. They would say that water is not mentioned here. It is baptism into Christ without water. Thus the teaching of Spiritual Baptism. I can see the inference of water baptism though. I have been silenced by some Presbyterian's that this is not water baptism, nor is it a defence of immersion into water baptism because water is not mentioned here.



I agree that this passage primarily focuses on truths about Spirit baptism. And I agree with you that water baptism is also on Paul's mind here. (However, as a side note, I vehemently disagree that Romans 6 makes any kind of mandate for baptism by immersion . . . but we are not discussing baptismal modes at this moment.)

The things in Romans 6 are certainly true of all Spirit-baptized people. And whenever someone is water baptized, we _assume_ these things are true of them, although there are exceptions like Simon Magus in Acts 8. And this type of thinking should be no different when we look at the Old Testament, either. 100% of the Israelites, both adults and infants, whether elect or non-elect, all partook of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4). All the Israelites, both adults and infants, whether elect or non-elect were sprinkled with the blood of the covenant under Moses (cf. Exodus 24:8). Nevertheless, in each case, some were covenant keepers, and some were covenant breakers. Korah partook of Christ just like the rest of the Israelites. But he ended up proving himself to be reprobate when he raised up a rebellion against Moses in the desert. Many who were sprinkled with blood in Exodus 24:8 later proved to be reprobate. I have no doubt that the apostles had "Romans 6 thoughts" about Simon Magus after he was baptized in water. But Simon ended up proving himself to be an enemy to God. And to leave the subject of baptism for a moment, also consider how all the apostles considered Judas "one of us" for over 3 years . . . he only showed himself to be reprobate at the end. But until Simon proved evil, the apostles considered Him Spirit-baptized as well as water-baptized. And until Judas proved evil, the other apostles no doubt assumed that Christ's words in Matthew 19:28 were addressed to Judas as well as to the others. 



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> If it [1 Peter 3] is a water baptism, something is important here that I believe is missed by Paedo's. The fact that consciousness of what is going on before God is necessary. Infants are not usually given credit for giving an *answer of a good conscious * before God or paedocommunion would have taken root.



First of all, regarding baptism, I agree with you that the "answer of a good conscience" is necessary. Peter explicitly says so.

However, I think you may not have fully thought through the implications of Peter making this statement _in this particular context_. 

We must remember that Peter is explicitly drawing a parallel between the "baptism" of Noah's family and New Testament baptism. Now, before we can draw a parallel, we must *first* carefully understand what happened with Noah. Then, and only then, can we confidently understand the connections Peter makes to Noah's story.

Read all the way through Genesis 6-9. Who is "righteous" before God? Noah alone. God says nothing about anyone else being righteous in His sight. (In fact, after the flood, we find excellent evidence for the probable reprobation of Ham, one of Noah's sons.)

So, Noah himself did have the "answer of a good conscience" before God. God had justified Noah, and Noah trusted God for salvation, so he had the answer of a good conscience before the Lord. And on the basis of this one man's righteous standing, God chose to save Noah's _entire household_. As Peter says, "eight souls were saved through water".

And Peter tells us that New Testament baptism is a "like figure" unto this. Just as Noah's household received baptism because of a parent's faith, so New Testament households receive baptism because of a parent's faith.

The "answer of a good conscience" before God was certainly necessary for Noah, but was not necessary for the rest of his family. Similarly, in New Testament baptism, the "answer of a good conscience" is necessary. It either needs to be there in the adult believer receiving baptism, or in the parent of the child receiving baptism.



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Joe,
> Let's deal with the other passage after we have settled on this issue of Noah and Peter. I don't want to only address part of the discussion without the other. I do want to discuss the whole. I just want to do it in parts so that we can discuss them intelligently.



No problem, my friend and brother. I appreciate your willingness to thoughtfully discuss this issue. I'm sure this issue it emotionally-laden for both of us to some extent. You're fervent about credobaptism because you don't want to give up such a long-standing belief. And I am fervent about paedobaptism after having just switched over from such a long-standing belief. Any way you look at it, I know you and I both think strongly about this issue. So I am all the more thankful that we can take time to discuss this calmly, as co-heirs of redemption in the Body of Christ!


Your brother in Christ,
Joseph




[Edited on 8-14-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 17, 2005)

* bump *


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 17, 2005)

Sorry Joe,

I didn't forget you. I just got involved with studying ecclesiology.(Presbyterianism) I am also reading two bios (Edwards 'A Life' and one on William Symington and reading Messiah the Prince by him also).

I just got sidetracked. I will get back to you. I promise.

unbump


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 19, 2005)

Joe, I am not sure you answered my first question. I think you did but you went into a few circles outside of my question. Remember I am a bear with very little brain and I don't see the tie between Baptism and circumcision as you do. In Colossians 2:11,12 I believe Baptism and circumcision are two distinct things. One is not the other. Maybe if you cut down your answer I can get it. What is baptism to you? To me it is being placed in Christ. It is being buried with him in death and being risen with Him in life where we now are seated in the heavenlies with Him. 

I also find disagreement with you concerning Noah's family. His children were very active in obeying on their own. They obeyed.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 19, 2005)

The baptism and flood analogy are novel-- but I don't see it so devastating to credo-baptism... you still implicitly infer your paedo-baptist presuppositions in your inferences which are no where explicit in the OT or NT text...


----------



## Brian (Aug 19, 2005)

_I hope to merely help the discussion along. If it is more expedient to ignore me and this post, please do so! No hard feelings, and I would rather get out of the way and enjoy than anything._



> Joe, I am not sure you answered my first question. I think you did but you went into a few circles outside of my question"¦



To summarize: baptism, eucharist, and circumcision are all sacraments. Therefore, they all ought to function roughly the same way. Circumcision is often refered to in Scripture as actually being what it symbolized (Genesis 17). Similarly, the Lord´s Supper is said to be the Lord´s body (I Cor. 11:24-25) even though many who partake don´t taste the heavenly bread (cf. John 6:35). Therefore, water-baptism can be talked about _as actually being_ Spirit-baptism. Along with WCF 28:2 there is a union between water-baptism and Spirit-baptism. Water-baptism is necessary for Spirit-baptism, but it does not guarantee nor effect Spirit-baptism.

Randy´s original question:


> Joe,
> Are you sure that Peter is referring to a Christian's water baptizism here? Does water baptism save us or does spiritual baptism as in Romans 6. Because Noah was physically saved by the ark. The water killed the sin that surrounded them in humanity.



Summary answer from Joseph:
Peter is referring to a water baptism (water with Noah). Water baptism doesn´t save us, spirit baptism does. Yes, Noah was physically saved by the ark, but it points at the deeper reality of Noah´s spiritual baptism. This is typological of every baptism performed now: everyone who passes through the water of baptism (Noah´s family) may prove to be a Noah (water baptism accompanied by Spirit baptism) or a Ham (water baptism alone, therefore ultimately reprobate).

Follow up questions:
Randy


> I also find disagreement with you concerning Noah's family. His children were very active in obeying on their own. They obeyed.


How do you understand their obedience? By putting their faith in YHWH for the forgiveness of sins? By getting on the ark? Was Ham ultimately reprobate?

Joseph - 
(side note: I don´t think you have to worry about Randy thinking you or Paedos are teaching baptismal regeneration until he charges you with it. Just a thought"¦)
How do you understand baptism to be similar to and different from other sacraments? How can you help credos understand that even though Noah´s children were responsible adults, you still infer infant baptism from this text?

I just want to help and clarify. Ignore if too much or excessive.

BRIAN


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> What is baptism to you? To me it is being placed in Christ. It is being buried with him in death and being risen with Him in life where we now are seated in the heavenlies with Him.



Your definition for baptism is far too narrow. Were 100% of the Israelites in the exodus placed into Christ? They were all baptized according to 1 Corinthians 10:2. Certainly, 100% of them were partakers of Christ, but that doesn't mean they were all regenerate. How about all of the ceremonial baptisms in the Old Testament referred to in Hebrews 9? Were all recepients of those baptisms placed in Christ? Surely not.

The New Testament doesn't say that Noah's baptism and the Israelites' baptism and the ceremonial purification baptisms were entirely different from New Testament baptism. On the contrary, Scripture does just the opposite: various NT passages explicitly draw parallels among these baptisms, just where you are trying to draw distinctions.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 19, 2005)

[please note: this post is meant to answer one particular question, and is not intended to support either paedobaptism or credobaptism . . . this is just a brief overview of what I believe the meaning of "baptism" to be, based on my reading of Scripture.]



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> What is baptism to you?



*Baptism is a symbol of cleansing from sin and regeneration by the Holy Spirit.*

I believe this fact about baptism points all the way back to a creation motif from the very first chapter of Genesis:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, *darkness* was over the surface of the deep, and the *Spirit of God* was *hovering over the waters*. And God said, "*Let there be light*," and there was light." (Genesis 1:1-3)

Notice the pattern:
1) Darkness
2) The Holy Spirit & water
3) Light


The earliest *explicit* reference to baptism in Scripture is Noah's flood in Genesis 6-9, according to 1 Peter 3:20-21. Consider the pattern:

1) Spiritual *darkness* (except for Noah)
2) *Water* (the flood . . . also called "baptism")
3) Spiritual *light* (except for Ham)


Now consider the Israelites' exodus from Egypt, which is also explicitly called "baptism" in 1 Corinthians 10:2. Notice the pattern:

1) Bondage in Egypt (this is what I am calling their "*darkness*")
2) Crossing the Red Sea (*water* baptism)
3) Freedom from Egypt (this is what I am calling their "*light*")


Now consider the various OT ceremonial purifications which Hebrews 9 calls "baptisms". The pattern holds true:

1) Ceremonial uncleanness - can't approach God (spiritual *darkness*)
2) Ceremonial purification - (baptisms by blood, *water*, or both)
3) Ceremonial cleanness - can approach God (spiritual *light*)



Then, in the book of John, we see a recapitulation of the first few verses in Genesis:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." (John 1:1-5)

The world was lying in spiritual darkness, but the Light was coming! And that Light is Jesus.

But who would point the way to the Light? The next two verses answer this question:

"There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe." (John 1:6-7)

And what was John's ministry? It was a ministry of baptism, of course. 

The world was in spiritual darkness, and John the baptist came as a voice crying in the wilderness, baptizing people, and pointing them to the Light. Thus, the pattern is still alive:

1) The world is in spiritual *darkness*.
2) John baptizes with *water* --- John points toward the "Light"
3) The "*Light* of the world" comes.



But Jesus Himself had a far greater baptism to give: the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is the baptism toward which all other baptisms point. What happens in Spirit baptism? The heart is cleansed from sin and is regenerated. Note the pattern:

1) A soul is in spiritual *darkness*.
2) Jesus baptizes him/her with the *Holy Spirit*.
3) The soul is now in spiritual *light*.


And what about water baptism? On the external level, it works the same way:

1) A person is outside the visible church (apparent spiritual *darkness*).
2) The person is baptized in *water*.
3) He/She is now inside the visible church (apparent spiritual *light*).


Notice the very close parallels between water baptism and Spirit baptism. One brings one from darkness to light, externally. The other brings one from darkness to light, internally. Both are passages from darkness to light, but one is with water, while the other is with the Holy Spirit. One is the sign, while the other is the thing signified.

So, to come full circle, I do not think it is any mere coincidence that we see the "Spirit of God hovering over the waters" in between the "darkness" of Genesis 1:2 and the "light" of Genesis 1:3.

Baptism marks the passage from darkness to light, from death to life, from being an outcast to being in God's presence, from being "formless and empty" (Gen. 1:2) to being "very good" (Gen. 1:31).

*Baptism is a symbol of cleansing from sin and regeneration (i.e. "new creation") by the Holy Spirit.*


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Brian_
> 
> Joseph -
> (side note: I don´t think you have to worry about Randy thinking you or Paedos are teaching baptismal regeneration until he charges you with it. Just a thought"¦)



I do not worry about them thinking I believe in baptismal regeneration.

Rather, my earlier post was meant to point out how the sign is often talked about in Scripture as if it were the thing signified. It was Randy who seemed to miss this (in my opinion). He seemed worried that we might have to infer baptismal regeneration if 1 Peter 3 is really talking about a water baptism, since this text says that baptism "saves" us. I just wanted to encourage him to not try to force the Bible to always look like a systematic theology textbook. Yes, 1 Peter 3 does say that baptism saves us, and so Spirit baptism must be in view here, but that does not preclude the text from simultaneously referring to water baptism. Again, the sign is often talked about as if it were the thing signified.




> _Originally posted by Brian_
> 
> How can you help credos understand that even though Noah´s children were responsible adults, you still infer infant baptism from this text?



I merely am trying to emphasize what Scripture emphasizes. Is it theoretically possible that all 6 of Noah's kids were regenerate? I suppose so. But God didn't seem to figure it was important to tell us this. He easily could have written, "Noah's family was righteous, blameless among the people of the time, and they walked with God". But God chose a very different emphasis. God said, "Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God." We aren't told about the other 7 people because their righteousness/unrighteousness before God is _apparently unimportant in this context_. God only cares to tell us that He found Noah righteous, one man. 

In this same vein of thinking, notice carefully the very specific wording used in Genesis 7:1 --- "The Lord then said to Noah , 'Go into the ark, you and your whole family <*everyone*>, because I have found you <*singular*> righteous in this generation."

God tells us that He saved Noah and his family, because He found Noah to be righteous.

Also look at Genesis 6:22 and 7:5 --- "Noah did everything just as God commanded Him", and "Noah did all that the Lord commanded him." 

We are told explicitly, twice, that Noah was obedient to everything the Lord commanded. But these statements are not made about Noah's family. Of course, that doesn't mean that they were disobedient, either . . . it just means that their obedience was _not important enough_ for God to share with us. We are told in Genesis 7:7 and 7:13 that all 8 of them went into the ark to escape the flood, but that is a far cry from saying that all 8 people were obedient to everything that the Lord commanded. In fact, for all we know, Noah's family may have heckled him just as badly as the surrounding people, up until the day the flood started. After all, they didn't all enter the ark until the very day the water started pouring out of the sky. We just don't know either way . . . we cannot say whether Noah's family was a obedient bunch, a disobedient bunch, or a mixture of both.

However, once we get to Genesis 9, the spiritual states of Noah's children becomes more clear. Ham is wicked, dishonoring his father, and his son Canaan is thrice-cursed. Shem and Japheth are good, honoring their father, and are both blessed.

So if we are to make any conclusions from the text at all, we have good reason to assume that the 8 entered the ark as a mixed bunch . . . some regenerate, and at least one unregenerate.


Genesis 6:8 - Who found favor in God's eyes, Noah himself, or all 8 of his family? Answer: only Noah is mentioned.

Genesis 6:9 - Who was righteous, blameless, and walked with God? Answer: only Noah is mentioned here

(BTW, God obviously doesn't mind mentioned Noah's sons . . . in fact, He mentions them by name in the very next verse, Genesis 6:10. But significantly, God says nothing about their righteousness, like He had said in verse 9 about Noah. Rather, God states that which is especially important about the 3 of them: that they are the sons of Noah.)

So far in Genesis 6, only Noah is said to have found favor with the Lord, and only Noah is said to walk with God.

Genesis 6:18 - Because of Noah's righteousness, who will be saved? Answer: Noah _and his family_

Genesis 6:22 - Who obeyed God's command, Noah, or the whole family of 8? Answer: Only Noah is mentioned.

Genesis 7:1 - Who did God send into the ark? Answer: Noah _and his whole family_

Genesis 7:5 - Who was obedient to God? Answer: Only Noah is mentioned.


Was every member of Noah's family regenerate? Answer: Apparently not, according to Genesis 9:22-27

Nevertheless, did God bless _all three sons_ of Noah? Yes, God blessed Noah, and all three of his sons. (Genesis 9:1)


So, here's what I see in Genesis 6-9:

1) Noah alone is said to walk with God.
2) Noah alone is said to be obedient.
3) Noah's entire family is saved.
4) God blesses Noah, and God blesses all 3 of his sons, too.
5) Nevertheless, Ham proves to be wicked, and is thrice-cursed.


Man walks with God.
Man and his family is baptized.
All receive blessings.
Nevertheless, not all are are regenerate.


----------



## Steve Owen (Aug 20, 2005)

I think this thread has been the most interesting that I´ve seen since my arrival here. in my opinion, Joseph has done an excellent job in bringing out what he sees as the meaning of the history of Noah.

I´d like first to cover the subject of the mode of baptism that was raised earlier. The point was made that the world of Noah´s day and the Egyptians were "˜immersed´ in water, and the suggestion made that immersion was therefore a sign of judgment rather than blessing. Joe has suggested that baptism is a symbol of moving from darkness to light; without wholly disagreeing, I suggest that it also symbolizes the dying to the old life and rising to the new life in Christ. "˜If any man be in Christ, he is (or "˜there is´) a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.' 

Therefore the going down into the water symbolizes dying to sin and when the one baptized rises again, it is to new life. This is surely the significance of Romans 6:4. The people of Noah´s day and the Egyptians certainly went down into the water, but they didn´t come up again! The Ark went "˜through water´ (1Peter 3:20 ), but came out the other side to Mt. Ararat. The Israelites went through the Red Sea, but unlike their pursuers, they came out on the other side; as it is written, "˜When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow you´ (Isaiah 43:2 ). Noah and his family died to the old world and their old life in it. The Israelites died to their life of slavery in Egypt. Both people came out of the water into a new environment as God had promised them. This is the true symbolism of baptism. Perhaps it might be added that "˜The rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights´ (Gen 7:12 ). The unbelievers of Noah´s day were certainly well sprinkled! 

Now let´s consider Noah´s family. Joseph is quite correct that only Noah is described as being righteous. However, his sons and their wives were all adults. It is a bit of a stretch to get infant baptism from this! The fact is that Noah was "˜A preacher of righteousness´ (2Peter 2:5 ). He was calling upon his friends and neighbours, as well as his family, to come on board the ark. In this, he is a type of Christ, calling out to all who will hear, "˜The Kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the good news!´ (Mark 1:15 ). But only Noah´s physical family would listen to him, just as only Christ´s spiritual family will hear Him (John 12:37ff).

This brings us to a most important point. It was necessary for at least one of Noah´s sons to come on board the Ark. It was also necessary for Abraham to have a son. The Old Testament is looking towards the coming of a physical Seed who should be the Descendant of Noah, of Abraham, of Jacob and of David. Therefore each of these men *had* to have a son and a lineage. The OT is full of long genealogies (that we are tempted to skip over when we´re reading through 1Chronicles!). The last genealogy in the Bible is that of Christ. We don´t have a clue who, say, Peter´s grandfather was, and Paul counted his impeccable Jewish genealogy as so much "˜dung´ (Phil 3:4-8 ). The Seed has come! We are not looking for another. 

It is written of Christ that, "˜He shall see His seed´ (Isaiah 53:10 ). How can that be since He left no physical offspring? Obviously, the prophet is referring to a spiritual progeny. As it is written, "˜Here am I and the children whom God has given Me´ (Heb 2:13 ). How were these children born? "˜Not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God´ (John 1:13 ). *'If you are Christ's then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.'* Not through a physical bloodline, but through a spiritual one. And not heirs of an earthly inheritance, but of 'a better, that is a heavenly country' (Heb 11: 16 ).

If this isn´t enough to prove my point, let´s consider birth narratives. The OT has plenty of them (Isaac, Jacob, Perez, Moses, Samuel, Samson"¦..). The last birth narrative in the Bible is that of Christ. Thereafter, we are not interested in the physical birth of, say, Peter, Paul, Lydia or the Philippian jailor- we are interested in their spiritual birth (Matt 16:16; Acts 9:1ff; 16:14, 30-31 ). With the coming of Christ and the New Covenant, things have changed. 

Therefore we ourselves "˜put no confidence in the flesh´ (Phil 3:3 ). "˜That which is born of the flesh is flesh´ (John 3:6 ) and to presume otherwise is an egregious error. So is there any special hope that we Christians may have for our children? Of course! Much in every way! We can teach them, catechise them, bring them to church and to Sunday school and show them an example of Christian living. But the most important thing we can do is to pray and pray constantly. "œWe gave them life in the flesh; You, Lord, must give the life in the Spirit."

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 8-20-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

[Edited on 8-20-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

[Edited on 8-20-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> I think this thread has been the most interesting that I´ve seen since my arrival here. in my opinion, Joseph has done an excellent job in bringing out what he sees as the meaning of the history of Noah.



Thank you, Martin. I'm enjoying this discussion. Thank you for putting in your 2 cents! I enjoy hearing your thoughts.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> I´d like first to cover the subject of the mode of baptism that was raised earlier. The point was made that the world of Noah´s day and the Egyptians were "˜immersed´ in water, and the suggestion made that immersion was therefore a sign of judgment rather than blessing. Joe has suggested that baptism is a symbol of moving from darkness to light; without wholly disagreeing, I suggest that it also symbolizes the dying to the old life and rising to the new life in Christ. "˜If any man be in Christ, he is (or "˜there is´) a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.'



No disagreement there, Martin! John 1 certainly parallels Genesis 1, and the "darkness" and "light" there are certainly not talking about physical light and darkness. Rather, they are symbols for spiritual light (life) and spiritual darkness (death). I completely agree that baptism marks death to the old and life to the new . . . and the "old and new" are things which Scripture also refers to as "darkness and light".



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Therefore the going down into the water symbolizes dying to sin and when the one baptized rises again, it is to new life.



Your problem here, I think, is that virtually no baptism in the Bible looks like this. Noah received a type of baptism, but he did not go underwater. It was an ark, not a submarine! The Israelites were baptized, but they did not go underwater . . . the Egyptians did. And how about all of the numerous ceremonial washings/cleansings/purifications in the OT which Hebrews 9 calls "baptisms"? Those were not immersions either! 

Nevertheless, I still very much agree with your observation of the death/life motif in baptism. I agree that Noah died to his old life in his "baptism" and passed to a new one. The same goes for the Israelites and their baptism. The same goes for those in the OT who passed from ceremonial uncleanness to ceremonial cleanness. But, you rightly ask, how can a death/life motif fit baptism if baptism is not by immersion? We could discuss this one point for quite some time. But for the moment, I will only point to one passage . . . Exodus 24:8, where Moses dipped hyssop into blood and then _sprinkled_ the Israelites with it. This is one of the baptisms mentioned in Hebrews 9. Were the Israelites immersed in blood? No. But through the sprinkling of blood, _they were identified with the death of the sacrifice_. They were identified with the sacrificial death in two ways:
1) As long as they would be covenant keepers, their identification with the death of the sacrifice marked the idea that the sacrifice had been killed in their place, so that they could instead enjoy life.
2) If they became covenant breakers, their identification with the death of the sacrifice marked their impending judgment and doom. If they broke the covenant, then they could expect the same thing to happen to them as happened to the sacrifice.

Thus, this baptism did identify them with the death of the sacrifice. It simultaneously marked out covenant keepers for life, and covenant breakers for death.

(And just for grins, here's a little side-note: Think about the passage the Ethiopian eunuch was reading right before his conversion and baptism. He was reading the suffering servant passage in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. Well, note the fact that near the beginning of that passage, it speaks of Jesus who will "_sprinkle_" the nations. Now, we know that the Israelites were baptized into the death of their sacrifice via sprinkling. And the perfect sacrifice for the Ethiopian eunuch was Christ. So I wonder what mode of baptism was used for him, to baptize him into the death of Christ? It's just a thought.)




> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Noah and his family died to the old world and their old life in it. The Israelites died to their life of slavery in Egypt. Both people came out of the water into a new environment as God had promised them. This is the true symbolism of baptism.



Good observations! Just don't let yourself forget that neither Noah nor the Israelites ever went under water. Like I pointed out earlier, Noah had an ark, not a submarine. 

And regarding the Israelites, while they were never immersed, _they were most certainly sprinkled_! God tells us so in Psalm 77. This Psalm speaks of the Israelites' exodus from Egypt, as we can see in verse 15 and 19-20. In between, in verse 17, we find out that "the clouds poured down water". . . . God Himself was sprinkling the Israelites! But I digress.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Now let´s consider Noah´s family. Joseph is quite correct that only Noah is described as being righteous. However, his sons and their wives were all adults. It is a bit of a stretch to get infant baptism from this!



Please understand that my goal is not to _prove_ paedobaptism from Genesis 6-9. Rather, my goal is merely to point out that the themes in these chapters are _more compatible_ with paedobaptism than with credobaptism. We should not expect things to be super-clear just yet. The truth should be somewhat clear here. It should become even more clear when we look at the baptism of the Israelites in their exodus from Egypt (infants were included in that one). Things should get even more clear when we look at Leviticus 12, Hebrews 9, Genesis 17, and Colossians 2 in conjunction with one another. Things should get even clearer in the Gospels, Acts, and so on. (However, we should never solely focus on the later writings, to the exclusion of the earlier ones.) We need to fully consider ALL relevant passages when figuring out the proper theology of baptism. So please just remember that Genesis 6-9 is just the first of many passages I want to look at. It does certainly seem to lean more towards paedo than credo, but on the other hand, I do not presume to "prove" anything just yet, from this one solitary passage.

You keep bringing up the fact that all 8 occupants of the ark were adults, not infants. But that is just not the point. The point is whether the 8 were individually saved because of individually walking with God, or whether the 8 were corporately saved because of their relationship to Noah, the one person who is repeatedly said to be righteous, to walk with God, to be obedient, etc. In other words, what is the _emphasis_ in Genesis 6-9 . . . the individual righteousness of each of the 8, or the righteousness of Noah, by which his entire household was saved? Age is irrelevant.

And to this day, I don't think a child must be an infant to receive paedobaptism. If the Holy Spirit regenerates a man, and he joins a church, then I think his 12-year-old (or whatever age) son still living with him should be baptized too, even though he is certainly not an infant. (Ishmael was circumcized at age 13!)



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> The fact is that Noah was "˜A preacher of righteousness´ (2Peter 2:5 ). He was calling upon his friends and neighbours, as well as his family, to come on board the ark.



How do you know he was calling upon everyone to board the ark? How do you know that is the "righteousness" he was preaching?



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> This brings us to a most important point. It was necessary for at least one of Noah´s sons to come on board the Ark.



So, by your own admission here, all would have been well had only 3 people been on the ark: Noah, his son Shem, and Shem's wife. The other 5 were dispensable. Noah still would have had a righteous descendant, and the forerunner of the Israelites and Christ would not have drowned.

But it's interesting, isn't it, that God didn't restrict the baptism to Noah and Shem and his wife? Rather, God included ALL of Noah's family in the baptism, even wicked Ham. He certainly doesn't appear to have been saved because of his own righteousness! Rather, God blessed Noah and all three of his sons, including Ham. That period of history was a really good time to have Noah as a father!




> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> If this isn´t enough to prove my point, let´s consider birth narratives. The OT has plenty of them (Isaac, Jacob, Perez, Moses, Samuel, Samson"¦..). The last birth narrative in the Bible is that of Christ. Thereafter, we are not interested in the physical birth of, say, Peter, Paul, Lydia or the Philippian jailor- we are interested in their spiritual birth (Matt 16:16; Acts 9:1ff; 16:14, 30-31 ). With the coming of Christ and the New Covenant, things have changed.



The New Testament is the turning point where the Gospel moved away from being centralized in Israel, to being sent out into all the world. So _of course_ the majority of converts in those first few decades would be first-generation converts. 

You do not seem to be keeping in mind that the OT spanned thousands of years, whereas the NT spanned only about 70 years, less than 40 of which (only one generation!) came after the beginning of Christ's ministry. So there is not even enough time in the NT to see much in the way of God's salvific blessings passing down through generational lines. 

Nevertheless, there is still compelling evidence. 
First of all, contrary to your assertion that "things have changed", there is no Scripture that says so! God has _always_ included children in blessings with their parents. The children of His people have always been considered His people as well. God put them in, and so they must stay in until He takes them out. And God has never taken them out.
Furthermore, the NT explicitly and repeatedly is non-individualistic, but rather deals with entire households. When Zaccheus alone came to faith, Jesus said that because he himself was a child of Abraham, that salvation came to his entire household. And in Acts 16:31, the apostles told the jailer that his entire household would be saved if he himself would believe in Jesus. 
Nevertheless, I know you don't pay much attention to such "household" passages . . . you think they somehow have a far different meaning in the NT than they did in the OT. . . . So I need to stop riding this horse for now . . . after all, this thread is supposed to be focused on OT baptisms such as Noah in Genesis and the Israelites in Exodus, so I am getting way ahead of myself. Let's deal with the OT for now, and the NT will arrive soon enough.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Therefore we ourselves "˜put no confidence in the flesh´ (Phil 3:3 ). "˜That which is born of the flesh is flesh´ (John 3:6 ) and to presume otherwise is an egregious error.



Agreed! The flesh accomplishes nothing. My kids having my DNA does nothing for their spiritual well-being. But God's promises *can* be trusted. And He has promised to be God to me and to my children. He has told me that the promises are for me and my children. God has revealed to me through the Word that when I bring my children to Him, He counts it as if they themselves came to Him. So if God Himself has chosen to exercise His sovereignty in this way, then who am I to second guess Him? God blesses whom He wills, and curses whom He wills. If God chose to make no distinction whatsoever between the children of believers and the children of unbelievers, then I would have no place to question His righteousness. But this is not what He has done. God has chosen to give His people one of the most precious blessings of all: blessings to their children. God has sovereignly chosen to do this, and I greatfully & graciously accept these wonderful blessings from Him.

Should we make much of "geneaologies", per se? No, I do not believe we should. In fact, the NT even says that we should not. But keep in mind the difference between geneaologies and God's promises to my children:

* A genealogy primarily looks backward.

* God's promise to my children looks forward.

It would be presumptuous and sinful for me to look backwards to my father and say, "Well, he's a Christian, therefore I must be OK with God." This is the sin committed by many of the Jews at the time of Christ. They looked backward, and figured they were OK with God because Abraham was their ancestor. This is presumptuous sin. 

But it was not presumptuous for Abraham to look forward and presume the salvation of his children, and their children, and his children's children (Psalm 103:17), even to 1000 generations (Psalm 105:8). (By the way, if a generation is 40 years, there are still 38,000 years left to God's promise here. :bigsmile: ) Rather, it would be presumptuous to _disbelieve_ God's promises to us in both the OT and the NT. 

We can believe God for the salvation of our children. But we should never believe that we ourselves are OK with God just because our parents are Christians. Looking backward for assurance is wrong. But looking forward in trust is commanded.


Also, remember that no paedobaptist believes that 100% of his descendants will certainly be saved. Remember that baptism marks the entrance into a covenant relationship with God. Noah and his family were baptized. But at the same time, death came to the rest of the world. And later, even Ham ended up proving a covenant-breaker, and his son was thrice-cursed. The Israelites were baptized (with the Egyptians being judged with death in the process), and every single one of the Israelites partook of Christ. But many of them (including Korah and his rebellious followers) proved to be covenant breakers, and God swiftly brought judgment upon them. In Exodus 24, the Israelites were all baptized. They were sprinkled with blood, and identified with the death of the sacrifice. This meant life for those who would be covenant keepers, signifying the substitutionary atonement. But it also meant death for those who would be covenant breakers, signifying the death and destruction they would receive, just as the sacrifice had received.

Baptism signifies passage from death to life, from light to darkness. But it also carries with it the threat of judgment. 

Baptism is effective, in one way or another, for all who are baptized. Baptism signifies the passage from death to life that all covenant keepers receive. But it also signifies the death and judgment that is awaiting all who become covenant breakers. If my child is baptized, then one of those two meanings will ultimately apply to that child. I certainly hope and expect that it will be the former. But there still remains the possibility that it will be the later. One of my children might turn out to be a Ham or a Korah. Both were baptized, but their baptisms ended up being unto judgment.

But I pray that my children will be Shems, Joshuas, and Calebs!  (and maybe a John Calvin or two . . .  )


----------



## Steve Owen (Aug 20, 2005)

Wow! You were quick off the mark coming back to me, Joseph. I'm obviously not making you think hard enough......yet!
Thanks for your kind words. 



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> ...


I think you're trying to be too literal here. All analogies fail if you press them too hard. Noah and his family weren't sprinkled either. They were snug inside the Ark. But they, and the Israelites did go 'through water' as Peter says and came out the other side. However, baptism is not supposed to be a figure of Noah or Moses but a figure of Christ (Rom 6:4 ). The OT 'baptisms' are adumbrations of New Covenant baptism, not templates for it.


> And how about all of the numerous ceremonial washings/cleansings/purifications in the OT which Hebrews 9 calls "baptisms"? Those were not immersions either!



I don't really want to get into a technical discussion about the meaning of _bapto_ and _baptizo_ (though we can if you like!). However, their basic meaning is to _imerse_ or _dip_. It is therefore unwise to assume that the 'various washings' (_baptismois_) of Heb 9:10 refer to the 'sprinklings' of v19. They are more likely to refer to the washing of hands, cups etc by dipping. 


> Nevertheless, I still very much agree with your observation of the death/life motif in baptism. I agree that Noah died to his old life in his "baptism" and passed to a new one. The same goes for the Israelites and their baptism. The same goes for those in the OT who passed from ceremonial uncleanness to ceremonial cleanness. But, you rightly ask, how can a death/life motif fit baptism if baptism is not by immersion? We could discuss this one point for quite some time. But for the moment, I will only point to one passage . . . Exodus 24:8, where Moses dipped hyssop into blood and then _sprinkled_ the Israelites with it. This is one of the baptisms mentioned in Hebrews 9. Were the Israelites immersed in blood? No. But through the sprinkling of blood, _they were identified with the death of the sacrifice_. They were identified with the sacrificial death in two ways:
> 1) As long as they would be covenant keepers, their identification with the death of the sacrifice marked the idea that the sacrifice had been killed in their place, so that they could instead enjoy life.
> 2) If they became covenant breakers, their identification with the death of the sacrifice marked their impending judgment and doom. If they broke the covenant, then they could expect the same thing to happen to them as happened to the sacrifice.



The sprinkling of Exod 24:8 is not a baptism. It is not so translated in the Septuagint. Nor was it a *'fleshly ordinance'* of Heb 9:10. It was an act which foreshadowed the expiation of our sins by the blood of Christ, but it is nowhere described as a baptism.


> (And just for grins, here's a little side-note: Think about the passage the Ethiopian eunuch was reading right before his conversion and baptism. He was reading the suffering servant passage in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. Well, note the fact that near the beginning of that passage, it speaks of Jesus who will "_sprinkle_" the nations. Now, we know that the Israelites were baptized into the death of their sacrifice via sprinkling. And the perfect sacrifice for the Ethiopian eunuch was Christ. So I wonder what mode of baptism was used for him, to baptize him into the death of Christ? It's just a thought.)



 Nice one! However, the Septuagint version of Isaiah 52:15 does not give _bapto_ or _baptizo_. There is no reason to call this sprinkling a baptism. Also, the NKJV margin for this verse gives 'startle' as an alternative to 'sprinkle', and if you look at the context, that seems to fit somewhat better.



> > _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> > Noah and his family died to the old world and their old life in it. The Israelites died to their life of slavery in Egypt. Both people came out of the water into a new environment as God had promised them. This is the true symbolism of baptism.
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, but they went *through *the waters, and most importantly, came out the other side. 


> And regarding the Israelites, while they were never immersed, _they were most certainly sprinkled_! God tells us so in Psalm 77. This Psalm speaks of the Israelites' exodus from Egypt, as we can see in verse 15 and 19-20. In between, in verse 17, we find out that "the clouds poured down water". . . . God Himself was sprinkling the Israelites! But I digress.



But He sprinkled the egyptians in exactly the same way. What does this prove? Should we baptize practising heathens?



> Please understand that my goal is not to _prove_ paedobaptism from Genesis 6-9. Rather, my goal is merely to point out that the themes in these chapters are _more compatible_ with paedobaptism than with credobaptism. We should not expect things to be super-clear just yet. The truth should be somewhat clear here. It should become even more clear when we look at the baptism of the Israelites in their exodus from Egypt (infants were included in that one). Things should get even more clear when we look at Leviticus 12, Hebrews 9, Genesis 17, and Colossians 2 in conjunction with one another. Things should get even clearer in the Gospels, Acts, and so on. (However, we should never solely focus on the later writings, to the exclusion of the earlier ones.) We need to fully consider ALL relevant passages when figuring out the proper theology of baptism. So please just remember that Genesis 6-9 is just the first of many passages I want to look at. It does certainly seem to lean more towards paedo than credo, but on the other hand, I do not presume to "prove" anything just yet, from this one solitary passage.



Well, suffice it to say that I utterly disagree with your last sentence! However, I look forward to discussing the other texts.


> You keep bringing up the fact that all 8 occupants of the ark were adults, not infants. But that is just not the point.



Well, you would say that, wouldn't you? 


> The point is whether the 8 were individually saved because of individually walking with God, or whether the 8 were corporately saved because of their relationship to Noah, the one person who is repeatedly said to be righteous, to walk with God, to be obedient, etc. In other words, what is the _emphasis_ in Genesis 6-9 . . . the individual righteousness of each of the 8, or the righteousness of Noah, by which his entire household was saved? Age is irrelevant.


The point is that they all went into the Ark in order to be saved. They were all old enough to make up their own minds, and did so. As I said earlier, the physical seed of Noah pre-figures the spiritual seed of Christ.


> And to this day, I don't think a child must be an infant to receive paedobaptism. If the Holy Spirit regenerates a man, and he joins a church, then I think his 12-year-old (or whatever age) son still living with him should be baptized too, even though he is certainly not an infant. (Ishmael was circumcized at age 13!)



If he can make a credible confession of faith, then I might agree with you, but if not- then God forbid!


> > _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> > The fact is that Noah was "˜A preacher of righteousness´ (2Peter 2:5 ). He was calling upon his friends and neighbours, as well as his family, to come on board the ark.
> 
> 
> ...


Well, whom do you think he was preaching to, and what do you think he was saying?


> > _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> > This brings us to a most important point. It was necessary for at least one of Noah´s sons to come on board the Ark.
> 
> 
> ...



Purely for the coming of the Messiah, then yes. But clearly God had other plans for the nations which He achieved through Ham and Japheth.


> But it's interesting, isn't it, that God didn't restrict the baptism to Noah and Shem and his wife? Rather, God included ALL of Noah's family in the baptism, even wicked Ham. He certainly doesn't appear to have been saved because of his own righteousness! Rather, God blessed Noah and all three of his sons, including Ham. That period of history was a really good time to have Noah as a father!



Ham was certainly a sinner; but then so was Noah himself. Ham did not get a blessing, but he wasn't cursed either.




> First of all, contrary to your assertion that "things have changed", there is no Scripture that says so!



Oh yes there is, and a very clear one! Jer 31:31-33 and Heb 8:8ff.



> God has _always_ included children in blessings with their parents. The children of His people have always been considered His people as well. God put them in, and so they must stay in until He takes them out. And God has never taken them out.



This simply isn't so. As I've pointed out elsewhere, Abraham circumcised Ishmael knowing full well that he wasn't in the covenant. Nor were the children of Keturah. The Edomites (Esau) were also not in the covenant. To be sure, children were included in the Old Covenant, but they did not always receive the blessings (1Sam 2:12ff; 8:5; 2Kings 8:16-18 etc, etc). The notion that because you and I are Christians, we may _presume_ that our children will be Christians too, is *false*. It wasn't even true under the Old Covenant, let alone the New!


> Furthermore, the NT explicitly and repeatedly is non-individualistic, but rather deals with entire households. When Zaccheus alone came to faith, Jesus said that because he himself was a child of Abraham, that salvation came to his entire household. And in Acts 16:31, the apostles told the jailer that his entire household would be saved if he himself would believe in Jesus.



Come off it! Even Presbyterians don't go this far! J.A.Alexander, in his commentary on Acts writes on 16:31:-

*'"Thou and thy house" does not mean that they were to be saved by his faith, but by faith in the same Saviour.'* 




> Agreed! The flesh accomplishes nothing. My kids having my DNA does nothing for their spiritual well-being. But God's promises *can* be trusted. And He has promised to be God to me and to my children. He has told me that the promises are for me and my children. God has revealed to me through the Word that when I bring my children to Him, He counts it as if they themselves came to Him.



If God really promised this, the He would be the most atrocious liar, and tens of thousands of parents would arise on the last day to tell Him so! But of course, He hasn't promised it. The promises are to one's _spiritual_ children, not to the physical. The Lord Jesus said; *'For I have come to set a man against his father; a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's enemies will be those of his own household'* (Matt 10:35-36. cf. Micah 7:6 ). This is the reality of being a Christian in very many countries today, and to many people in all countries. Francis Turretine found it to be true when his son was the one who introduced Unitarianism into the church at Geneva. 


> But it was not presumptuous for Abraham to look forward and presume the salvation of his children, and their children, and his children's children (Psalm 103:17), even to 1000 generations (Psalm 105:8). (By the way, if a generation is 40 years, there are still 38,000 years left to God's promise here. :bigsmile: ) Rather, it would be presumptuous to _disbelieve_ God's promises to us in both the OT and the NT.



*'Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham'* (Gal 3:7 ).


> Also, remember that no paedobaptist believes that 100% of his descendants will certainly be saved.



Why not? Do God's promises only hold good half the time? 



> Remember that baptism marks the entrance into a covenant relationship with God. Noah and his family were baptized.



I think you need to be careful here. Noah and his family received something of which baptism is the antitype (1Peter 3:21 ). They didn't receive the real thing.


> But I pray that my children will be Shems, Joshuas, and Calebs!  (and maybe a John Calvin or two . . .  )



 That you have absolutely right! I pray so too.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------

