Credo-Baptism Answers Genesis 6&7 and 1 Peter 3:20-22

Status
Not open for further replies.

iddevalois

Puritan Board Freshman
Being new to comprehensive Reformed theology, my wife and I have recently been reading Scripture with several questions floating around in our minds. We've been discussing baptism, especially what it is and for whom it is meant.

With this in mind, my wife pointed out to me this last week something that struck her from the Scriptures. She began a study of the book of Genesis with a small group and they reached chapters 5-7 last week. She pointed out Genesis 6:9-10 and 7:1, namely that God counted Noah righteous and then dealt mercifully with his whole household.

This prompted some very thoughtful consideration from the both of us. We've grown up understanding that baptism is done on an individual basis, not as something that's done as a household. It doesn't make sense for a person or people to be baptized based on the faith of another, so went our line of reasoning.

My mind then went to 1 Peter 3:20-22 and how Peter remembers Noah and the flood and claims that "baptism now corresponds to this."

Can someone help me connect the dots here? How do these texts relate to one another, and then to the doctrine of baptism?

Posting this to both paedobaptism and credobaptism answers forums out of curiosity.
 
Noah was a sign of better things to come--he passed through the water for the physical preservation of life. Being with Noah in the ark did not confer salvation, as Ham's later acts show. You cannot take every picture and shadow and make a one-to-one relationship to what we have now. Jonah's marine incident was a sign of Jesus' death and resurrection. But Jesus didn't have to get swallowed by a fish for the sign to apply: what the sign meant came true in a different way.
So the sign of Baptism, prefigured in many ways in the OT, is now applied to those who have passed from death unto life by being born again. Not by a physical connection to some parent, but by spiritual union with Christ, in whom alone is life eternal.
 
Does God particularly work within families in graciously and providentially extending the Gift of Salvation? Absolutely, both statedly and observably. Do these texts generally convey or allude to that truth? I believe so. Do they further intend to speak to the issue of infant baptism? Not that I can see. If we really want to extend the stated symbolism beyond what is says, then it could be pointed out that Peter also emphasises that only eight souls were in the ark, all adults.

In my personal opinion, when attempts are made to seize on these kinds of abstracts to support a specific controverted position, it more likely betrays a weakness in it, rather than adds strength to it. It is reminiscent of the patristic abuse of analogy, where they saw a reference to baptism in nearly every mention of water in the OT.

Texts must be applied according to their stated intent. Sober exegesis of 1 Peter 3:18-22 shows the apostle is speaking to, and that it applies to "us" (vv 18 & 21), i.e. believers who have made an appeal for a good conscience through baptism.
 
Last edited:
I think a study of typology, Sensus Plenior, and intertextuality would be beneficial here.

Like mentioned above, the point by point comparisons similar to the patristics should likely be avoided.
 
I've looked at a few things since my previous post, and have a few more thoughts.

I think we can get into trouble when we confuse typology and allegory. There are some uses of allegory in scripture (Galatians 4:21-31 being the best example). In allegory, the details have symbolic meaning. In Galatians, Paul could not lay it out any clearer, linking details in the story of Sarah and Hagar to the old and new covenants. Jesus also uses allegory in some of his parables, giving the details meaning (though this is often not the case). Just because they employed allegorical interpretation does not mean we ought to. Allegory is rare in scripture, and we ought not slap allegorical meaning on every passage. This is especially tempting when interpreting OT narrative. The patristic fathers got in trouble because they did this for most passages of scripture, providing symbolic meaning to each detail.

Typology is more of an analogous relationship. Details are fuzzy, and it is not direct prophecy. It is a correspondence and foreshadowing. Unlike analogy, the details are not as important.

I think in 1 Peter, we are keyed into the typological nature with the term 'corresponds.' Notice how Peter does not break down the story of Noah point by point and apply symbolic meaning to each detail.

Hopefully this helps in your exegesis!
 
No wise words on the issue of 'when' for baptism. Credo makes far more sense to me than infant baptism, but the Lord works his way no matter whether sprinkled as a baby, or dunked as an adult. Remember that, and trust your Lord.

Your (putative?) children may be elect. They may not be elect. That's in God's hands, not your own. Your choosing to baptize as infants, or waiting for them to confess the faith when older will not matter one bit to their salvation.

Edited to add: I was both sprinkled as an infant by unbelieving parents (a social event), and brought up in an unbelieving home. I came to faith through the witness of some folks in my neighborhood, as a youngster and was 'willingly' baptized as a young women. Was that first 'baptism' operative? Who knows, who cares. All I know is that the Lord mercifully saved a wretch like me. I DO think of my baptism as an adult as my real baptism, btw. My sign and seal. Knowingly, willingly, joyfully.
 
Last edited:
No wise words on the issue of 'when' for baptism. Credo makes far more sense to me than infant baptism, but the Lord works his way no matter whether sprinkled as a baby, or dunked as an adult. Remember that, and trust your Lord.

Your (putative?) children may be elect. They may not be elect. That's in God's hands, not your own. Your choosing to baptize as infants, or waiting for them to confess the faith when older will not matter one bit to their salvation.

Edited to add: I was both sprinkled as an infant by unbelieving parents (a social event), and brought up in an unbelieving home. I came to faith through the witness of some folks in my neighborhood, as a youngster and was 'willingly' baptized as a young women. Was that first 'baptism' operative? Who knows, who cares. All I know is that the Lord mercifully saved a wretch like me. I DO think of my baptism as an adult as my real baptism, btw. My sign and seal. Knowingly, willingly, joyfully.
That's like saying that choosing to discipline one's children or not will not matter one bit to their salvation. It's not true. God uses means to accomplish His salvific purposes, and those means matter a great deal.
 
That's like saying that choosing to discipline one's children or not will not matter one bit to their salvation. It's not true. God uses means to accomplish His salvific purposes, and those means matter a great deal.
I agree with you, we must remember that God uses means else we become fatalists. I am happily a compatibility/divine determinist. However, this exact point is where infant baptism falls apart for me.
 
I agree with you, we must remember that God uses means else we become fatalists. I am happily a compatibility/divine determinist. However, this exact point is where infant baptism falls apart for me.
As am I. I just noticed this is the Credo-Baptism Answers section, though, so I don't know the etiquette of pursuing further discussion of your statement.
 
Here is a playlist from Pastor James White. Worth taking a listen to as a whole.
Baptism Series
I second this. I found White's 16 part series on baptism very helpful. I would also suggest listening to R. Scott Clark's series on paedobaptism. I listened to it when I was on the fence between the two positions, and thinking through his arguments strengthened my belief in credobaptism.
 
I think we are getting our apples and oranges mixed up here. One is covenants baptism and that would include everyone in the family. The other is believers baptism where a person old enough to profess Jesus as Lord and places believing faith in Christ follows in obedience in baptism. They are both there and both valid. The lost are not brought up in believing home so are denied covenant baptism. These individuals upon saving knowledge receive believers baptism. The issue that determins which is the parents. A believing home of course wants the sign and seal of baptism saying they trust in the loving God that their children are elect and they believe that till the child dies in their sins. That is not ment to leave out the sign and seal of the covenant and work of the Holy Spirit in a persons life who comes to salvation later. They too have a means of showing they are a part of the same conevant believers baptism.
 
I think we are getting our apples and oranges mixed up here. One is covenants baptism and that would include everyone in the family. The other is believers baptism where a person old enough to profess Jesus as Lord and places believing faith in Christ follows in obedience in baptism. They are both there and both valid. The lost are not brought up in believing home so are denied covenant baptism. These individuals upon saving knowledge receive believers baptism. The issue that determins which is the parents. A believing home of course wants the sign and seal of baptism saying they trust in the loving God that their children are elect and they believe that till the child dies in their sins. That is not ment to leave out the sign and seal of the covenant and work of the Holy Spirit in a persons life who comes to salvation later. They too have a means of showing they are a part of the same conevant believers baptism.
This is the exact opposite of the Baptist position. Are you a closet paedobaptist? Have you read the LBCF on who are the proper subjects of baptism?
 
Where am I so off as you say? I said the Baptist position is believers baptism and it is. In obediance to Christ command and it is. I do believe in paedo baptism I am not ashames of that and I am a Reformed Baptist. Here is the 1689 LBC
1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ. To those baptized it is a sign of their fellowship with him in his death and resurrection, of their being grafted into him,1 of remission of sins.
2 and of submitting themselves to God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of life
Those who personally profess repentance toward God and faith in and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ are the only proper subjects of this.
Brother this is exactly what I said the Baptist position is. Presbyterian's have done a lot of things right though I have my areas of disagreement with them, not doctrinally but their govermental structure. I would not be so vehement against the beliefs of a sound organization. I personally believe both sides have merit.
 
I do believe in paedo baptism ... I am a Reformed Baptist.

Brother, these two things are mutually exclusive. They don't mix. You can't believe in paedo baptism and be a Reformed Baptist at the same time.

Here's the 2nd London Baptist Confession.

Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.


I'll add that if you do actually believe in paedo-baptism, then you are not allowed to post in this forum and should not reply further.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top