Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson
That entire scripture shows that it isn't the act of going down in the water
|
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 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,
wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Pe 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Baptism includes the act of going down in the water. Without going down in the water it isn't baptism. Peter drew the parallel between Noah and family being saved, and our being saved, and the connecting point is the water. He specifically points out Noah and family were 'saved by water'. Then he says 'the like figure whereunto', that is to say, the 'antitype' that corresponds to Noah and family being saved by water is baptism. He also says 'baptism doth also now save us'. To suggest that the going down into the water is not 'the act' under consideration is completely contrary to what Peter says.
Quote:
|
but it is the good conscience from which the act comes from.
|
Peter continues after stating that baptism now saves us: 'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh'. This does not equate to 'not the going down into the water'. It states that salvation in baptism is not a washing of dirt off the body, but the 'answer of a good conscience toward God.' You have read into his words something that simply isn't there. He did not say 'not the going down into the water'. In fact, he specifically pointed to the water as the common denominator between Noah and family being saved, and us being saved. He denies that baptism is a simple mikvah or lustration, like the various ceremonial washings performed under the law (for the cleansing of lepers or women after their menstrual cycle, for example) or like any regular bathing (as in washing dirt off your body). Instead, baptism is the answer of a good conscience towards God.
The response or answer of a good conscience towards God is nothing else than the proper pious or godly response to the Gospel. Just as Noah believed God and built and entered into the ark, and was saved by water, so we believe God and are saved by baptism.
No matter how who slice it, dice it, or spin it, Peter said 'baptism saves us'. Your view however has us being saved before baptism, and again I ask, 'How does baptism save us if we have already been saved?'
Note on translation: The term translated 'answer' could also be translated 'request'.
1Pe 3:21 which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but
the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ; (American Standard Version)
1Pe 3:21 also to which an antitype doth now save us--baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but
the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ, (Young's Literal translation)
1Pe 3:21 A la figura de la cual el bautismo que ahora corresponde nos salva (no quitando las inmundicias de la carne,
sino como demanda de una buena conciencia delante de Dios,) por la resurrección de Jesucristo: (Reina-Valera)
1Pe 3:21 quod et vos nunc similis formae salvos facit baptisma non carnis depositio sordium
sed conscientiae bonae interrogatio in Deum per resurrectionem Iesu Christi (Vulgate)
1Pe 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but
as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (ESV)
1Pe 3:21 Whereof the baptisme that nowe is, answering that figure, (which is not a putting away of the filth of the flesh,
but a confident demaunding which a good conscience maketh to God) saueth vs also by the resurrection of Iesus Christ, (1599 Geneva)
1Pe 3:21 Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but,
the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (Douay-Rheims tranlsation)
1Pe 3:21 ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σώζει βάπτισμα, οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου,
ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς Θεόν, δι᾿ ἀναστάσεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
The word in question is 'eperotema' (underlined in all the examples above). Some have translated it as 'answer', some have chosen 'confident demanding', 'appeal', 'question', etc. The Spanish uses the term 'demanda' (demanding), and the Latin uses 'interrogatio' (questioning, interrogation). The Greek eperotema is defined by Thayer as follows:
ἐπερώτημα
eperōtēma
Thayer Definition:
1) an enquiry, a question
2) a demand
3) earnestly seeking
3a) craving, an intense desire
Part of Speech: noun neuter
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G1905
Citing in TDNT: 2:688, 262
All three definitions indicate a demanding, seeking, or desiring.
Liddell-Scott has this for a definition:
ἐπερώτ-ημα, Ion. ἐπειρ-ώτημα, ατος, τό,
question, Hdt. 6.67, Th.3.53,68, Epicur.Sent.Vat.71.
2.
answer to inquiry put to higher authority: hence, sanction, κατὰ τὸ ἐ. τῶν Ἀρεοπαγιτῶν SIG 856.6 (ii A.D.), cf. 1008.4 (iii A.D.).
3. = Lat. stipulatio, PCair. Preis.1.16 (ii A.D.), Cod.Just.8.10.12.3 (pl.):
hence prob., pledge, συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐ. εἰς θεόν 1 Ep.Pet.3.21.
Liddell-Scott claims the correspondence with Latin 'stipulatio' is how it should be understood in the verse in question, although they offer no reasoning for it, and even indicate 'probably', not definitively. The other primary definitions, that is 'question' and 'response to an inquiry given to a higher authority' seem more likely.
So then Peter is saying that baptism is the 'answer to inquiry put to higher authority' which saves us. It is 'of a good conscience' (some say '
for a good conscience'), obviously. But to suggest that it is something that happens
after being saved creates a contradiction and an absurdity: We are saved, and then give our answer to God in baptism, which saves us????
The straightforward meaning of the text is that baptism saves us, thus we are not saved prior to baptism. Further, that this involves water is undeniable, since Peter brought it up specifically as an antitype to Noah being saved by water.
Now, was Noah saved apart from faith? Of course not. Without faith, Noah would have perished along with the rest of the unbelieving world. But his salvation took place 'by water', that is, in the Deluge, which is a type that has it's correlation in baptism, which saves us now. Just so, we today are saved 'by faith',
but that salvation occurs in baptism.
Baptism is no mere washing of dirt off the body. It is the answer of a good conscience towards God.
Notice, baptism is the answer. It does not say baptism is an outward sign of an inward answer, but it says that baptism itself is the expected answer of a good conscience towards God.
Quote:
|
That good conscience is a reflection of a conversion that has already happened (within the context of this scripture).
|
First of all, 'conversion' can mean a lot of things, and does not necessarily mean 'the moment in time when a person is saved'. A person who is about to be baptised most certainly has been 'converted'. That, after all, is what repentance is all about - converting from a life of sin and unbelief to a life of obedience faith. But nowhere does the Bible say that 'conversion saves us', nor does it anywhere say 'repentance saves us'. It does however say that 'baptism saves us'.
Jesus said this:
He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. (
Mark 16:16a)
He did not say 'he that believeth and is saved shall be baptised'. If I told you 'Whoever believes me and comes on down will get a free new car, but if you don't believe me you won't get the car', what do you think needs to happen for you to get the new car? Would you say 'Oh, he must have meant if I believe what he's saying and get a new car, I'll come on down'? Only if you were missing both a full six pack and the little plastic thingy that holds it together.
Nobody argues that merely being dunked in water is efficient to save. Such a thing is not even baptism. Baptism, however, saves us.
Linear Mode
