Infant Baptism & New Testament Texts

[blhowes]

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

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

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

Thank-you for the explanation.

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by blhowes

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

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

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

Thank-you for the explanation.

u r .

 

[blhowes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit

1Pe 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob