Featured The Baptism debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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


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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will repost my two posts again

 

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

 

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

 

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


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

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

Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

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

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

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

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

So I and Lutheranism agree with you on this point.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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


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