Believer's Baptism

[tabibito]

Would that "o" refer also to "antitype", or does it refer only to "water"?

"o" (here) is a reflexive pronoun - it must have an antecedent, very close, and matching the gender (case is irrelevant) of the word it stands for. It doesn't relate to anything that comes after its own position. "o" is also the nominative, masculine, singular, definite article, but antitype is neuter (as is Baptism) so "o" isn't the definite article - that would be "to."

[JonathanL]

"o" (here) is a reflexive pronoun - it must have an antecedent, very close, and matching the gender (case is irrelevant) of the word it stands for. It doesn't relate to anything that comes after its own position. "o" is also the nominative, masculine, singular, definite article, but antitype is neuter (as is Baptism) so "o" isn't the definite article - that would be "to."

I see. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Adrift]

Equating NT Baptism with OT Circumcision is also problematic as a proof for infant baptism, since only male infants were circumcised. Should only male infants be baptized?

Dr. Michael Heiser agrees with this point, and makes a number of others as well, but he actually makes what he believes is a "biblically defensible doctrine of infant baptism" (though I believe he think adult baptism makes more sense). So, in episode 5 of his podcast he says,



https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcas...ical-theology/
https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-con...Transcript.pdf

I'm not sure if I completely agree with his way of looking at the subject, but it's an interesting alternative.

[Cow Poke]

Dr. Michael Heiser agrees with this point, and makes a number of others as well, but he actually makes what he believes is a "biblically defensible doctrine of infant baptism" (though I believe he think adult baptism makes more sense). So, in episode 5 of his podcast he says,



https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcas...ical-theology/
https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-con...Transcript.pdf

I'm not sure if I completely agree with his way of looking at the subject, but it's an interesting alternative.

It was an interesting read, as well. Thanks.

[Cow Poke]

Dr. Michael Heiser agrees with this point, and makes a number of others as well, but he actually makes what he believes is a "biblically defensible doctrine of infant baptism" (though I believe he think adult baptism makes more sense)....

Thinking more on this, I think this is a classic case of confirmation bias. Somebody believes that infant baptism is scriptural, so they begin to look for anything in the Bible that would justify that. Even if their conclusion is correct, using a weak or irrelevant illustration or biblical concept or proof text to support it makes the other side dig in deeper.

[tabibito]

So by way of conclusion, taking the meaning of both circumcision and baptism as basically doing one thing for recipients and one thing only (that is, putting them in the community of faith so that they hear the truth) divorces both circumcision and baptism from salvation, immediately solving the problems we noted in the creeds in earlier podcasts.

and just as immediately divorces baptism from its scripturally declared role in salvation. As discussed here and here

This perspective simply looks at the text for what circumcision meant in the lives of Israelites, regardless of gender.

and ignores what the text says about the additional roles of baptism - which include conferring new life.

It isn't terribly complicated once we tear ourselves away from the creedal confusion and insist on the consistency of saying only about baptism what we can say about circumcision. That is how biblical theology of baptism ought to be framed and articulated.

What the scriptures say about baptism extends beyond what they say about circumcision. And this doesn't give a full picture of the role of circumcision anyway. (Gen 17: 10-13)

[Adrift]

Then there were those who opposed infant baptism. So Tertullian around 200 AD with what appears to be the very first mention of infant baptism,

Even earlier, Justin Martyr seems to make the case (approx. AD 155) that there is a structure or outline for when someone is to be baptized,

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, says the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if you refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it.

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.

[Sparko]

[Adrift]

Thinking more on this, I think this is a classic case of confirmation bias. Somebody believes that infant baptism is scriptural, so they begin to look for anything in the Bible that would justify that. Even if their conclusion is correct, using a weak or irrelevant illustration or biblical concept or proof text to support it makes the other side dig in deeper.

That's the thing. Dr. Heiser isn't (as far as I'm aware) pro-infant baptism, rather he's pro-believer's baptism, but he's simply suggesting that if you are pro-infant baptism, then there's a Biblically defensible way to justify it, as long as you divorce it from salvation directly.

[tabibito]

According to Peter (1 Peter 3:20) the baptism that saves is baptism in water. By chains established in various other references, baptism in water is baptism into Christ, different from John's baptism in water, and different from baptism in the Holy Spirit. Baptism into Christ cleanses, baptism into the Holy Spirit begins an ongoing process of purification. As you noted - circumcision of the heart.

[Adrift]

and just as immediately divorces baptism from its scripturally declared role in salvation. As discussed here and here


and ignores what the text says about the additional roles of baptism - which include conferring new life.


What the scriptures say about baptism extends beyond what they say about circumcision. And this doesn't give a full picture of the role of circumcision anyway. (Gen 17: 10-13)

Dr. Heiser deals with this in his Naked Bible podcast #8,

Source: Baptism and Problem Passages: 1 Peter 3:14-22

The overall theme of 1 Peter is that Christians must withstand persecution and persevere in their faith. That much is clear in this passage. But what's with baptism? And then adding the ark of Noah and spirits in prison? And does this passage say that baptism saves us? It doesn't.

. . .

Peter uses typology in 1 Peter 3:14-22. Specifically, he assumes that the great flood in Genesis 6-8 and the sons of God event in Genesis 6:1-4 typify or foreshadow the gospel and the resurrection in some way. For Peter, these events were commemorated somehow during baptism. That needs some unpacking.

There are some tight connections between Genesis 6:1-4 and the epistle of 2 Peter and Jude. Peter and Jude were very familiar with Jewish tradition about Genesis 6, found in books like 1 Enoch, and believed them. 1 Enoch 6-15 describes how the sons of God (also called "Watchers" in that book) who committed the offense of Genesis 6:1-4 were imprisoned under the earth (in the underworld) for what they had done. The Watchers appealed their sentence and they asked Enoch (in the book of 1 Enoch), the biblical prophet who never died (according to Genesis 5) to intercede for them. Now 1 Enoch 6:4 puts it this way:

They [the Watchers] asked that I [Enoch is the speaker] write a memorandum of petition for them, that they might have forgiveness, and that I write the memorandum of petition for them in the presence of the Lord of Heaven.

Now God sent back his response, also by way of Enoch, who went to the imprisoned spirits and announced to them that their appeal had been denied. That is described in 1 Enoch 13:1-3 and chapter 14:4, 5. Here are some excerpts. Verse 1 from chapter 13 says (with God as the speaker):

And Enoch, go and say to Azazel, "You will have no peace." A great sentence has gone forth against you to bind you. You will have no relief or petition because of the unrighteous deeds that you have revealed, because of all the godless deeds and the unrighteousness and the sin that you revealed to men. And then I [Enoch] went and spoke to all of them [the spirits in prison] together, and they were all afraid, and trembling and fear seized them.

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

And now the anti-type, that is, baptism:

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, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Now, two words in verse 21 need consideration. The word most often translated "appeal" (eperotema) in verse 21 is best understood as "pledge" here, a meaning that it has in other material. Likewise, the word "conscience" (syneidesis

© Copyright Original Source

https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcas...-peter-314-22/
https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-con...Transcript.pdf

Dr. Heiser also acknowledges the covenantal aspect of circumcision, but doesn't believe that changes anything that he's said in the transcript I cited. You can read about that here: http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/bi...y-circumcision

[Adrift]

Dr. Heiser talks about this too, and thinks it makes good sense. I could summarize it probably, but I'm feeling a little lazy. It's crazy, because I just noticed this thread, and I just also happened to be listening to Dr. Heiser's Naked Bible podcast on Colossians which deal with this very subject. At any rate, in case you're interested in his take on Spirit Baptism, check it out here:

https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcas...ssians-211-12/
https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-con...Transcript.pdf

[tabibito]

Re 1 Peter 3:20
Questions that the text answers (unpacking)
Does Peter claim that

1/ baptism saves?
2/ baptism is conducted by water?
3/ baptism saves by cleaning dirt from the body?
4/ baptism saves by/because_of the response/appeal/pledge of a clean conscience toward God?
5/ baptism is the anti-type of the saving of 8 souls through the flood?
6/ are other factors addressed?

After those questions have been properly answered, the verse itself is understood. Then it becomes a matter of working out how it fits with the rest of the statements regarding baptism and salvation.

Using the same process - determining what questions the earlier part of the text answers - will lead to a proper understanding of the issues in play when the ark was being constructed, about the time of preaching, and the whereabouts of the spirits in prison.

With that exercise completed, Dr Heiser's exposition can be properly evaluated.

[Adrift]

Re 1 Peter 3:20
Questions that the text answers (unpacking)
Does Peter claim that

1/ baptism saves?
2/ baptism is conducted by water?
3/ baptism saves by cleaning dirt from the body?
4/ baptism saves by/because_of the response/appeal/pledge of a clean conscience toward God?
5/ baptism is the anti-type of the saving of 8 souls through the flood?
6/ are other factors addressed?

After those questions have been properly answered, the verse itself is understood. Then it becomes a matter of working out how it fits with the rest of the statements regarding baptism and salvation.

Using the same process - determining what questions the earlier part of the text answers - will lead to a proper understanding of the issues in play when the ark was being constructed, about the time of preaching, and the whereabouts of the spirits in prison.

With that exercise completed, Dr Heiser's exposition can be properly evaluated.

I mean, you can piece it apart bit by bit if you like. I've never heard of any Biblical scholar using that process, and I don't think it'd be very effective, personally, but you do you.

[tabibito]

I mean, you can piece it apart bit by bit if you like. I've never heard of any Biblical scholar using that process, and I don't think it'd be very effective, personally, but you do you.

No Biblical scholar uses stock standard reading comprehension techniques?

That would explain why there are so many conflicting interpretations of the same passages, right enough.