Jump to content


No Registration necessary. Ever want to ask an Independent Baptist a question? Now is your chance, just click the "Ask A Question" button to the right and ask away. Hopefully, one or more Independent Baptist will reply to your question soon. While in Beta, all questions will be hidden until approved.

- - - - -

Baptism saves in 1 Peter 3:20-21?

Baptism saves in 1 Peter 3:20-21?

Name: Genevanpreacher
Add a little more detail (optional): Just curious what y'all think. I am serious though. How does a Baptist like yourself handle this when discussing baptism with a 'church of christ' member?


Let's look at the verses:


"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:"


Okay, What does this say about baptism saving us? "Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh"-it does nothing for sin, which is of the flesh, BUT, "the answer of a good conscience toward God" Meaning it is an act of obedience-when we obey, as in getting baptized once we are born again, we are obeying the example put forth for us.


Notice also, is says, "the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us ...BY the resurrection of Jesus Christ" It is the resurrection that saved, not the baptism itself. The baptism is a response to our being saved.


Consider the flood, the example: eight saved by water. Were Noah and his family ACTUALLY saved BY the water? NO, of course not, the water was judgment against the rest-they were saved by God upon the waters, in spite of the waters. God allowed them to ride above the judgment. GOD saved them, and in their obedience to Him, they rode the waters to safety, to a new life.


God, in His grace, saved Noah and his family, and they passed through the water, as it were, as evidence. So we are saved by God's grace, and we pass through the baptismal waters as proof of it.

Notice - The like figure - Noah & family were in the ark; we are baptised into Christ whereby the sprinkled blood of Christ speaks to us that our conscience is cleansed.


Hebrews puts it like this -

9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

"washings" is the translation of βαπτισμόiς baptismos, contrasting the oft-repeated sacrificial rituals with the once only sacrifice of Christ, & baptism into him. 


11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Interestin'. Thank you.


Uke says  "Were Noah and his family ACTUALLY saved BY the water? NO, of course not,...". Yet the text 'says' so.


Covenanter, explainin' the Greek words, should mean nothing to a God who can give us his word in English? Let's talk in our tongue.

I know you mean well, but the text talks for itself.


I like to look into the older texts in English every once in a while. (pre-KJV, in the 'right' line of bibles, not perversions.) They seem to explain things from a different view point sometimes, which gives clarity.

This is not a KJV bashing session, but historical Biblical 'educationology'.


Please stand by with a little patience for me as a fellow believer. It's late and time to snooze. I, Lord willin', will add some more tomorrow.

"Which were in time passed disobedient, when once the long suffering of God abode in the days of Noe, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved in the water. To the which also the figure that now saveth us, even baptism agreeth (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but in that a good conscience maketh request to God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..."


In this old English translation the fellas thought the way our Baptist forefathers thought, that our salvation was in the shed blood of Christ AND the fact of the resurrection, of which our testimony of baptism pictures. If Christ didn't arise, our faith is vain, and we are all still in our sins. 


And, look at the wording, "eight souls were saved IN the water..." not BY the water.


So yes, Uke, the word of the Lord does not actually say "saved BY the water", according to the men of God before us, and previous to the KJV.


That bible verse, from the 1560 Geneva Bible.


Look also in Acts 22:16, and read the one word missing from the KJV, that is in the Tyndale 1526, as well as the Matthews 1537, and 1560 Geneva Bible - "in".


                                                                             "...in calling on the Name of the Lord."


Kinda an important word, that Alexander Campbell just loved not having there. You might remember the 'father of baptismal regeneration' who converted multitudes of 'Baptist' brethren to his way of thinking, using the words of these verses.


It seems we Baptists have been teaching scriptures right without even having the right wording in our Bibles. No controversy. No bashing. Just historic bible publishing history, from bibles that are not discarded as some say, but readily available for free online in our world today.


Words to ponder, words to get upset about from a supposed IFB? Not really.


I am independent. I am fundamental. I am Baptist to the core. And I follow the ways of God that lead to the discovery of the true Baptist doctrines.

I do not preach and teach from the Tyndale. It has a multitude of 'non-biblical', 'non-Baptist' wording of verses.

I do not preach and teach from the Matthews 1537, for the same issues.

But I do preach and teach from the 1560 Geneva Bible, for the accuracy it portrays, in it 'agreeing' with Baptist doctrines.


I am not bashing KJV, just pointing out there is a difference with it and the 1560 Geneva Bible, when it comes to 'proving' the doctrines of our faith as Baptists. Every denomination, (outside of Baptists who actually believe God wrote his word down for us to learn how to believe), will hate the Geneva, because it teaches in words, what our Baptist forefathers of the faith preached through discernment using the KJV.


Now lest I get 'deported' from this site - please take notice: the Original KJV had, according to Scrivner , quoted in Edward F. Hill's book "The King James Version Defended", states there were 2738 alternative verse translations in the 1611's gloss, the side column where notes and references were, (2156 in the O.T., 582 in the N.T.) 


8422 marginal notes, 4111 literal meanings in original Hebrew and Aramaic in the Old Testament, as well as 67 variant readings.

With 112 literal renderings of Greek, and 37 variant readings, in the New Testament.


So unless I misunderstood my 'teachers' about the KJV, they were serious about knowing what God said, enough to clarify it in the gloss of the publication of 1611.


Jus' saying.


Not trying to get kicked out nor offend anyone, but wanting to share information about the accuracy of our Baptist heritage.

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500