Baptism Now SAVES You! (1 Peter

NOTES & RESOURCES
AUDIBLE: Souls: How Jesus Saves Sinners - amzn.to/3VT7wN9
(1) MY CHURCH
Gospel Fellowship PCA - / @gospelfellowshippresb...
Gospel Fellowship PCA Website - www.gospelfell...
Gospel Fellowship PCA Podcast - anchor.fm/gosp...
(2) PODCASTS
Listen on Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Listen on Google Podcast: podcasts.googl...
(3) NEWSLETTER SIGNUP FORM share.hsforms....
(4) MY BOOKS:
Souls: How Jesus Saves Sinners - amzn.to/3f233s6
Holy Living: Jonathan Edwards's 70 Resolutions - amzn.to/38fl4vX
Hold Fast the Faith: A Devotional Commentary on the Westminster Confession - amzn.to/3Bco9cI
Unknown: The Extraordinary Influence of Ordinary Christians -
amzn.to/38hiQwg
The Lord and the Rings: Bible Study and Counseling Guide
amzn.to/3DkVtA8
(4) SOCIAL MEDIA
Twitter - @matt_everhard
Instagram - matthew_everhard
Telegram Channel - t.me/MatthewEverhard
Email Me: doctor + everhard (all one word) at gmail dot you know
(5) APPAREL
Be a Radical Shirt - cassidycraftco...
Edwards Homeboy Shirt - cassidycraftco...
Get a Job Shirt - cassidycraftco...
33-Point Calvinist Shirt - cassidycraftco...
Spurgeon Shirt - cassidycraftco...
Sing the Psalms Shirt - cassidycraftco...
Warfield Shirt - cassidycraftco...
Edwards Scholar Shirt - cassidycraftco...
(6) MY STUDIO & BACKGROUND
Panasonic Basic Camcorder - amzn.to/3vR48sV
Logitech Webcam - amzn.to/3ynqRds
Studio Ring Lights - amzn.to/3jgYQjB
Edwards Resolutions Poster - www.missionalw...
Note - this channel contains affiliate links.

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

Hi Pastor Everhard! I thought you might make something responding to our interview haha. This was a very thoughtful and well-articulated video, but I want to clarify what I meant when I said "Baptism saves". I did not mean that water in itself has the power to regenerate. I'm not a Lutheran/Catholic. I meant what Westminster says, that the water itself doesn't save, but because the Sacrament of Baptism is a sacramental UNION of Baptism by water and Baptism of the Spirit, we can just saying "Baptism saves". I'd also like to see how you would respond to virtually all of the Church fathers affirming some sort of Baptismal efficacy / regeneration and also how you'd respond to how the Scots Confession speaks of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Love your videos, God bless!

[@MatthewEverhard]

Blessings to you too sir. And please know I am not responding to you directly, but only indirectly; mostly to comments and commenters. I do not mean to assail your position only to make some clarification about my own. Love your videos too!

[@AmillennialMillenial]

So yes, “getting wet” is required since it is part of the Sacrament, but the water itself without God’s Word and Institution isn’t salvific.

[@CodyBuchanan700]

@@AmillennialMillenial No it is NOT required

[@AmillennialMillenial]

@@CodyBuchanan700 so can you baptize without water?

[@christsavesreadromans1096]

In Acts 2:38 baptism and repentance resulted in the remission of sins. If you take a read of the first volume of the ante-nicene fathers, you will quickly learn that baptismal regeneration was the view of the early church.

[@WillieM3]

You're only saved by your faith and love in your heart that Jesus died on the cross for our sins only through Jesus you're able to get to the Father - God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son and whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life 🙏

[@wyattpruitt6965]

The word works through the water, not the water itself, for it just removes dirt from the body. Scripture says that faith comes from hearing. Through baptism the word of God is applied to you and it is only scripture, baptism, and communion that God promises to work forgiveness. This does not mean that other means will not be used, but it is in baptism that we have a promise to be God's children which is why we baptize infants because they deserve entrance into the kingdom. Baptism is a vehicle that is used to convey salvation just as the scripture is used as a vehicle to convey conviction of sins and salvation. I like to think of it this way: if you were stranded on a deserted Island and you saw a ship coming to pick you up, you could say that the captain of that ship saved you, but you could also say the ship itself saved you. The same is true in baptism. God saves us by giving us faith, but he also did that through Baptism, Communion, and the scriptures.

[@phmoffett]

I learn a lot from you Bro. Matthew. Thanks for taking the time to study this text, make your notes for presentation, record the video and audio and upload to YT. All these things take your time which you graciously give your YT congregation.

[@lemonator9050]

Baptism saves through the resurrection of Christ

[@loblolly42]

A helpful presentation of one position but not overly persuasive. I think those on Team Reformed will cheer the argument but anyone on Team Historic Christian Understanding likely won't. Besides a little too much time spent arguing that the clear statement isn't clear because the tangential material in the middle isn't so clear, the main issue is that the views of baptismal regeneration aren't directly addressed. "Read the next line" isn't helpful in solving the dispute of interpretation because those who favor baptismal regeneration lean heavily on the rest of the passage, too. "What is the efficacy of baptism? Does it have saving potency itself?" was asked at the beginning. But that isn't the correct question to debate baptismal regeneration supporters. Certainly not Lutheran ones. They have never argued that it has such potency by itself. This is seen clearly in Luther's 1529 Small Catechism statement (a confessional document within Lutheran teaching) which says: "How can water do such great things? Certainly not just water, but the word of God in and with the water does these things, along with the faith which trusts this word of God in the water. ..." It's not the water. It's the promise connected to the water which we can trust. Not unlike Naaman and the Jordan. Exactly like the v.21 says in 1 Peter. Not just the washing but with the pledge and through Christ's work. Baptism saves but it doesn't save apart from faith. (Faith, of course, as taught by the bible that is given as a gift and infants can have according to Jesus, not faith as the anabaptists teach that is a human cognitive decision one comes to later in life). Some traditions want to read "the pledge/request of a clear conscience" as our request. It can also be translated as "the guarantee/pledge of a good conscience" with the understanding that God is making the promise that in baptism He connects us to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism saves (1 Pet 3:21, Mk 16:16) because God promises me that it is the washing of renewal (Titus 3:5) that washes my sins away (Acts 22:13), connects me to the forgiveness of Jesus (Acts 2:38) brings the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 9:17), connects me to Jesus' death & resurrection (Rom. 6:3-5), clothes me with the righteousness of Christ (Gal. 3:27), and circumcises my heart (Col. 2:11). The fact that God acts in baptism is a unified teaching throughout the Scriptures. Its power is not in the washing but in the promises of God connected to that washing. Promises which are abundant and clear. Just like 1 Peter 3:21.

[@justinh.5061]

Appreciate this video. I’m wrestling deeply through this doctrine at the moment. I’ve recently been convinced of covenantal baptism from my previously held credobaptist convictions. At the same time I’ve been reading confessional Lutherans deeply and I think they’ve got some validity to what they’re saying. From the reformed perspective I can see this passage being sacramental language in which the sign and the thing it signifies are being used interchangeably. However, I think that Lutherans may have a point. Noah was literally saved through the water, not figuratively. Baptism corresponds to that and now saves you. It appears that Peter is talking about a literal saving taking place. I disagree with “not a removal of dirt from the body” meaning that it’s not effectual in any way. I think that undergirds the fact that baptism is more than mere water, it’s not just a mere washing removing dirt from the body but there’s something more going on there. It’s an injustice to Lutherans to say them and Catholics hold to the same view. They most certainly do not, Lutherans affirm that baptism isn’t just mere water and that it doesn’t have efficacy in and of itself. It’s water wedded with the Word of God, visible Gospel and it’s about the promises of God made within the sacrament. For Lutherans it’s not about baptism itself, but about the promise of God in baptism. I’m still undecided and intend to continue wrestling through this for quite some time. I can get on board with the sacramental language in the reformed camp but I can also see it being a means by which God delivers faith to us. Regardless, baptism is a glorious doctrine and a precious gift from the Lord! Great video!

[@Hyrule4Christ]

Appreciate your fairness to the Lutheran position. As a Lutheran layman, I understand “not as removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God…” as pointing towards us still maintaining a sin nature post baptism, but Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us in the waters of baptism by the promise in His word. Ironically, I would argue trying to deny that anything physical is happening because of the words “not as removal as dirt from the body” is to ignore all the context in the passage. I encourage you to continue in your reading of confessional Lutherans, particularly the confessions found the Book of Concord. They are rich treasures.

[@justinh.5061]

@@Hyrule4Christ Appreciate the response brother! I definitely intend to continue reading Lutherans. I’m going through the Book of Concord and “Spirituality of the Cross” by Gene Edward Veith. I’m intrigued by a lot of what Lutherans have to say. Lutheran theologians are masters at communicating the Gospel and giving assurance through Christ alone, something that I think can get lost in other traditions. It’s really a shame that people don’t listen more to Lutherans, I think they have a lot of helpful things to say.

[@unit2394]

Great to hear you’re reading broadly! Keep it up! It will all profit you. I was in Presbyterian churches for three years and learned a ton there. I eventually came to see Lutheranism as more faithful to the Scriptures and tradition of the church however, and was confirmed in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. While I hope you become Lutheran, I am sure God will use your studies to benefit you no matter what. God bless!

[@justinh.5061]

@@unit2394 Thanks brother! I’m hoping I become Lutheran as well 😂…. I still have some things that are hanging me up but I’m praying and working through them. The more I read Lutherans the more my assurance of salvation goes through the roof! I appreciate that Lutherans are comfortable with and allow certain paradoxes to remain in biblical interpretation. Regardless of whether I take the plunge, I’m certain now that Lutherans will be a heavy part of my reading diet moving forward.

[@Yesica1993]

"I’m wrestling deeply through this doctrine at the moment." Why? Why are we making this so complicated? Baptism is a symbol of the trust in Christ that has already taken place in the person's life. If you need baptism to be saved, then the thief on the cross is not in heaven. He had no opportunity to be baptized. This would make Jesus is a liar, which obviously cannot be correct. Luke 23 says: 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

[@jesusislord2503]

Jesus saves....Baptism is the outward expression of an inward transformation...The Lord looks at the heart. God bless my brothers and sisters keep your hands on the plow.

[@catholictruth102]

All of the early church fathers and Christians believed that baptism saves.

[@jesusislord2503]

@catholictruth102 show me one scripture that says baptism is what saved...I can show you some that don't even mention baptism as a means of salvation. Faith in what Jesus did on the cross with repentance of sin saves. ...Christians and Roman catholicism are 2 very different things..not even slightly similar...the thief on the cross was not baptized yet Jesus said "today you will be with me in paradise" so how was he saved.....he repented of his sin and believed Jesus was who He said he was....Roman's 10:13

[@catholictruth102]

@@jesusislord2503 It’s all over scripture. 1 Peter 3:21 “..baptism now saves you” Acts 2:38 “repent and be baptized..for the forgiveness of your sins” Acts 22:16 “..rise and be baptized and wash away your sins..” Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved..” Titus 3:5 “he saved us…by the washing of regeneration” Ephesians 5:26 “that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word.” 1 Corinthians 6:11 “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified” Galatians 3:27 “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” John 3:5 “Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” And in addition to this all of the early christians believed that baptism saved. A clear case.

[@truthnotlies]

1 Peter 3:21. Jesus saves, through baptism. Similarly the ark saved Noah and his family in water. ​@@jesusislord2503

[@tategarrett3042]

This video was so excellent in explaining this to me. I was wondering about this.

[@rosslewchuk9286]

AMEN! Context, context, and context! 📖 Thank you for this exegesis.🙏

[@mathete9968]

Context is foundational. But mere appeal to context is no guarantee that the text is being expounded correctly. Appeal to context is just as frequently used as the preface to all wrested passages (2 Peter 3:16). And this suggests that we need to apply great discernment and follow ALL the Rules of Scripture Exposition and not merely that Rule which engages the context. But, What exegesis? This man did not expound the text. He wrested it to make it say the very opposite of the Apostolic utterance, contrary to the principle in 1 Peter 4:11 and Jeremiah 23:28

[@catholictruth102]

The exegesis of all the early Christians and fathers was that baptism saves.

[@mathete9968]

​@@catholictruth102Indeed this is absolutely correct and historically factual and easy to prove, being abundantly attested in all the church fathers which refer to this. Notwithstanding, we do not prove doctrine by apoealing to the fathers but by Scripture Alone . And Scripture most certainly teaches this. Thus we turn to primary sources, namely thr Scripture proof texts abd use the fathers as secondary sources inasmuch as they bear witness to the truth of Scripture.

[@manuelpitman]

Baptism saves can be understood as our assurance in an objective reality rather than a subjective reality like motives in works or feelings.

[@mathete9968]

Wonderful statement and very smoothly worded ...but not a shred of Biblical truth in anything you said. "Baptism does now save us: - NOT the washing off of physical dirt - BUT the pledge of a good conscience to God, Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Baptism is nominative case in the Greek, therefore the subject of the present tense verb, "SAVES" You / Us is accusative case in the Greek. It is the object of the verb . Baptism is applied to the body. But it does not save by the washing away of outward filth and dirt. Baptism saves by the washing aways of sins (Acts 22:16; Ezekiel 36:25; Hebrews 10:22; Ephesians 5:25, 26). Baptism washes and purifies / cleanses the church (Ezekiel 36:25; Ephesians 5:26). Thereby, Peter uses the expression: "The answer of a good conscience" As a " periphrasis" for the cleansing / or "purifying" of the conscience. And all this God does through Baptism. But baptism does not operate in isolation. It is founded upon the death and the resurrection of Christ (Romans 4:25; Acts 2:24, 38). The body gets the water but the soul receives the cleansing in Holy Baptism. Consider: - Ezekiel 36:25 - Hebrews 10:22 - 1 Peter 3:21 - Acts 22:16 - John 13:8, 10 - Ephesians 5:25, 26 - Titus 3:5 - 1 Corinthians 6:11 All these texts treat of Baptism and the first three texts are sister texts.

[@manuelpitman]

@@mathete9968 the symbol and what is symbolized are not so easily divorced. Sure, we know getting wet doesn’t save you, but if someone thinks the phrase “look to you baptism” means look at getting wet, then they don’t understand Baptism. Baptism is one’s open enternece into the Body of Christ (Viable Church). The Covenant of Grace is what is in view and it is applied to all members of the Covenant Community. Looking to our Baptism is looking to an objective truth that tells us God’s promise to rescue his elect in the person and work of his son, or Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Salvation is only the person and work of Christ to redeem sinners. Baptism is a means of administering that grace to us (aka communicating that truth objectively). Regeneration is what I think you have in view. And yes, that is the most powerful means of grace in which the Holy Spirit unites our spirits to him and changes our wills from sin to obedience by working faith in us

[@mathete9968]

@@manuelpitman Who told you that Baptism is a symbol? You may find such unsupported statements among reformed and sectarian writers. BUT you won't find a shred of evidence in support of your claim in all of Holy Scripture. Do you not know that God forbids us to teach anything beyond Scripture Alone? (1 Peter 4:11; Jeremiah 23:28; James 3:1) God already announced in the giving of the New Covenant in Ezekiel 36:25-27 that in baptism it is God Himself that washes away sins. Now the inspired writer to the Hebrews in chapter 10:22, cites from Ezekiel 36:25 showing us not only that Baptism is indeed in view in the prophecy of Ezekiel 36:25. But by so doing the inspired author of Hebrews shows us that in Baptism our bodies have been WASHED in "PURE WATER" (see Ezekiel 36:25) and our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience. If you go back to Ezekiel 36:25 you will discover the same pattern .. The body gets the water but the soul gets the cleansing. Moreover, we learn from the New Covenant prophecy of Ezekiel 36:25 -27 that the Holy Spirit and the New birth are conferred in baptism. And this is precisely what the Lord teaches us in John 3:5 and what the Apostle Peter teaches in Acts 2:38, 39. Moreover it was the consensus of the unanimous early church including all the church fathers. And when we consider that the entire church continued to use and understand Koine Greek until about 330AD, we might consider that they were better able to grasp the original text of the New Testament better than us. So is it reasonable to state that we have got a better take on these passages than they ? And that Baptism washes away sins is precisely what the sister text, to Hebrews 10:22 in 1 Peter 3:21 teaches . In that Baptism now saves us, not by the washing of the body but the cleansing of the conscience etc . And this truth that God alone must cleanse us in Baptism is what Jesus teaches in John 13:8-10. So that in Ephesians 5:25, 26 we learn that it is Christ himself that washes his church using WATER along with The Word. Now no Baptist or Presbyterian will ever, EVER teach the Apostolic utterance: Arise and be Baptized and WASH AWAY YOUR SINS (Acts 22:16) And yet this is Apostolic doctrine, upon which the true church is founded (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:20) So I re-iterate: Who told you that Baptism is a symbol ? (A mere empty symbol ?). No no, Scripture presents a very different doctrine. And ask yourself this, Why did Jesus rebuke Nicodemus, as the great teacher in Israel, for not knowing from Old Testament Scripture that a person must be Born of WATER and The Spirit? (John 3:5) Are you the teacher of Israel, and you don't know these things? (John 3:10) But in the same spirit of unbelief with Nicodemus you ask: How can these things be? (John 3:9) The answers are everywhere in Scripture. We simply need to hold to Sola Scriptura.

[@mathete9968]

​@@manuelpitman One of the things that disturbs me deeply about reformed theology is that it is full of flowery words but is not an Exposition of Scripture. Scripture teaches the doctrine of Objective Justification. For example we see this in such passages as: Zephaniah 3:15-20 The LORD HATH TAKEN AWAY THY JUDGEMENTS, he hast CAST OUT THINE ENEMY. Psalm 85: 3 THOU HAST TAKEN AWAY ALL THY WRATH ... THOU HAST TURNED THYSELF FROM THE FIERCENESS OF THINE ANGER. Isaiah 12:1 And in that day thou shalt say, O LORD, I will praise thee: THOUGH thou wast angry with me, THINE ANGER IS TURNED AWAY, and thou comfortedst me. Hosea 14:4 I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: FOR MINE ANGER IS TURNED AWAY FROM HIM. Ezekiel 16:63 I AM PACIFIED TOWARD THEE FOR ALL THAT THOU HAST DONE, saith the Lord GOD 2 Corinthians 5:21 God was in Christ, RECONCILING THE WORLD UNTO HIMSELF, not imputing their trespasses unto them 1 Timothy 2:4 Who gave himself A RANSOM FOR ALL, to be testified in due time. 1 John 5:1, 2 Jesus Christ... IS THE PROPITIATION FOR OUR SINS: and NOT for OURS ONLY, BUT ALSO for THE SINS of THE WHOLE WORLD. Sure, objective Justification saves no one. We must be justified, in time, through faith (Habakkuk 2:4). Nevertheless it is a great error to reason EITHER that Christ's death makes men "savable" on condition of faith, OR, that Christ's death actually saved anyone apart from faith. - Christ's death did not make man "savable" , on condition faith, as though faith were something that man, dead in trespasses and sons could produce of himself. - Not did Christ's death save anyone, whether the elect who must still obtain their salvation in due time (2 Timothy 2:10). Nor does Christ's death save beforehand those who later come to faith and are believing for a time but afterwards fall away (Luke 8:13; Hebrews 3:12; Hebrews 10:38) RATHER, The doctrine of Objective Justification in Scripture teaches us that God has reconciled the world to Himself. His anger has been TURNED AWAY in His Son. This is an OBJECTIVE TRUTH which stands completely outside of ourselves. And it is a glorious truth. It is for this reason that God can cause a wicked man like Caisphas to nevertheless prophesy that "One should die for the people that the WHOLE NATION should not perish" (John 11:50). He uses the verb ἀπόληται which takes the subjunctive mood. Christ dies for the sins of the people so that the WHOLE NATION "SHOULD" NOT PERISH. He does not use the indicative mood "WILL NOT PERISH", but rather the subjunctive mood. God was in Christ RECONCILING also the WHOLE NATION OF ISRAEL in order that they SHOULD not perish. We find the use of the subjunc6mood on John 3:16 also For God so loved THE WORLD, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him SHOULD NOT PERISH, but have everlasting life. Many who come to true faith in Christ, later perish in unbelief (Hebrews 3:11, Luke 8:13) But God has reconciled the world unto himself. That stands as an objective truth . And we preach and proclaim the reconciling work of the cross to sinners. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation working faith in the heart through the Holy Spirit (Romans 1:16; 1 Thessalonians 1:5) So why is this important? Because faith is not a condition that we must meet. Faith is rather the creation of God in the heart in order to receive the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8). And faith in the Gospel must be continued in (1 Corinthians 15:1, 2) Even the elect could be lost (Hebrews 10:38) if the Lord did not intervene on their behalf (Matthew 24:22) Even the non elect come to faith wherever the devil does not intervene (Luke 8:12). And this he does by keeping their minds blinded (2 Corinthians 4:4) Now why does the devil actively blind the minds of men and catch away the Words of the Gospel? Because the Gospel itself is the Power of God unto Salvation (Romans 1:16). And man does resist the grace and power of God operating in the preached Word, for he resists the Holy Spirit when he hears both Law and Gospel. (Acts 7:51) So there is nothing intrinsically special in the elect over and above the non elect. 1) The Gospel is founded upon a reconciled God 2) The power to convert lays not in man but in the Gospel 3) Whilst Satan catches away the Word "Lest they believe AND BE SAVED"; Yet many come to faith through that Gospel, believing for a time, only to fall away later (Luke 8:12, 13; Acts 8:13; 1 Timothy 1:19; 1 Timothy 5:12; 2 Timothy 2:12; Hebrews 3:12) 4) The elect persevere unto eternal life by means of the power of God OPERATING through FAITH (1 Peter 1:5; Galatians 3:5). And this necessitates continuing in the (1 Corinthians 15:1, 2; Hebrews 10:38). So where does Baptism come in to this ? What is frequently missed in discussions on Baptism is that God does not merely FORGIVE sins, He CLEANSES and PURIFIES His Church. Consider the words of John 13:8, 10 "If I WASH THEE NOT, thou hast NO PART with me ... He that is WASHED needeth not save to WASH his feet" And again: 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just - TO FORGIVE us our sins, AND - To CLEANSE us from all unrighteousness. And in Ephesians 5:25, 26 we learn that Christ's reconciling and propitiatory death became the foundation of Baptism. Christ also loved the church, and GAVE HIMSELF for it, THAT HE MIGHT - SANCTIFY and - CLEANSE it with the WASHING of WATER along with the Word. Note: "ALONG WITH the Word" εν + dative = instrumental use, Hence: "WATER along with the Word", just like we might say, "The washing of water along with soap" Now Simon believed and was baptized. Christ also washed away his sins (Acts 22:16). And through faith in Christ he was most certainly sanctified (Acts 26:18). But, Simon believed for a while, and having been a holy brother and a partaker of the Holy calling (Heb. 3:1) he later fell away and departed from the living God (Luke 8:13, Hebrews 3:12). In departing after an evil heart of unbelief (Heb. 3:12) he cast away faith and a good conscience (1 Timothy 1:29) and was thereby found in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity once again by the Apostle (Acts 8:23). He had drawn back from saving faith and was in danger of perdition (Hebrews 10:38, 39) So we must conclude that Christ cleanses his church using baptism but only those who continue into the end shall be saved (Matthew 10:22; 2 Timothy 2:12). Many have believed in vain (1 Corinthians 9:24; 1 Corinthians 15:2). Now Jesus uses a Granville Sharp construction in Mark 16:16 It is THE ONE: - Who BELIEVES AND - IS BAPTISED that shall be saved. But it is The ONE Who BELIEVES NOT which shall be damned. Whether baptized or not, all unbelieving and all baptized believers who fall from faith (without Repentance) will be finally lost.

[@mathete9968]

​@@manuelpitmanWho told you that Baptism is a symbol? Sure, you may find that in various reformed writers and confessions. But you will NEVER find such a teaching in Divine Scripture. Speaking of Scripture, your comments were utterly lacking the support of a single Scripture text. The notion of Baptism being a mere symbol goes back to the originator and "spiritual" father of the reformed religon: Ulrich Zwingli. Zwingli refused to be held to the reformation principle, Sola Scriptura. He advocated instead the false principle of "Scripture + Human Reason". And by so doing he replaced one giant human pope with 10 000 little reformed protestant popes. To return to Scripture, let us remember that Scripture hold us to the principle of "Scripture Alone" (1 Peter 4:11; Jeremiah 23:28) And Divine Scripture teaches everywhere TWO DISTINCT TRUTHS about Baptism. 1) In Baptism sins are washed away (Acts 22:16; Ephesians 5:26) 2) Baptism actually and literally and dynamically unites us to Christ Jesus. And why should this surprise us? If you wish to talk "Covenant theology" , then let's look at the promises contained in the great prophecies of the New Covenant: " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." (Ezekiel 36:25-27) So we see that right from the outset, Baptism confers the remission of sins, the promise of the Holy Spirit and the New Birth. And this is precisely the theology of Saint Peter in Acts 2:38, 39. Now God promises in the New Covenant: "ALL THY CHILDREN shall be TAUGHT of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children." (Isaiah 54:13) And the Lord adds ... "For they are THE SEED of the BLESSED of the LORD, and THEIR OFFSPRING WITH THEM. (Isaiah 65:23) So it should come as little surprise that the Holy Spirit is promised in Baptism to the children of believers (Acts 2:38, 39) And why should it seem a great thing with you that God should confer his Spirit upon infants? So we nit have a prime example of the bestowal of this same gift upon John the Baptist? (Luke 1:15) For Jesus himself taught that "Unless ANYONE is born of WATER and The SPIRIT he cannot enter the Kingdom of God " (John 3:5) GREEK: τις = ANYONE . And little Children as well as new borns most certainly need the new birth, just as much as adults and the very elderly. And thus Jesus calls to us: Suffer LITTLE children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for OF SUCH is the kingdom of God (Luke 18:16) Now to imagine to bring little children to Jesus in any other way, rather than the new birth, is to have become a semi pelagian in doctrine and is Arminianism to the core... No, Jesus teaches us that children need the New birth of WATER and the Spirit... (John 3:5, 6) And because the Holy Spirit accompanies Baptism we learn that Baptism effects union with Christ, not into the visible church which is , NOT the body of Christ. Rather , Baptism not only washes away sins (Ezekiel 36:25; John 13:8; Hebrews 10:22; Acts 22:16; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5); but Baptism also effects union with Christ (Romans 6:3-11; Colossians 2:11-13; Galatians 3:26, 27) into the invisble and true body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13) Abd this is in accord with the theology and prophecy of Hosea 6:2, for in being Baptized into Christ we are also raised to new life in him (Romans 6:3-11). No, Scripture teaches no such thing. Baptism is no mere empty symbol, even if all reformed disciples since Zwingle have reiterated this unscriptural idea . The history of this convoluted and unscriptural idea has its genesis and its genealogy in the philosophy of Ulrich Zwingle which may be accurately expressed thus: Zwingle ---> Calvin ---> Beza ---> Westminster Confession ---> All other Reforned sects today. But it cannot be traced to the pages of Bible, nor to the historic Christian church. Today the refomed imagine that outsude of the corrupt Roman church there is either Arminianism or Calvinism. But this is a false dichotomy and utterly ludicrous... Thete is a historic FAITH that is neither Roman nor Arminian nor Zwinglian (---> Calvinist) and it is founded upon that Reformation Principle: SOLA SCRIPTURA (Jeremiah 23:28; 1 Peter 4:11) It is Both Scriptural in all its aspects and it agrees with the writings of the church fathers .

[@Tanacious808]

The thief on the cross did not got baptize waterly. He got baptized by the spirit immediately when he believed in Christ for salvation. Thank you ever!

[@jasonwreden]

Because water baptism wasn’t commanded by Jesus until after the resurrection.

[@ro6ti]

No, he got baptized when Christ personally forgave him and gave His Promise. This is what Baptism is, God forgiving and giving the Promise of Eternal life. Or, do you think the name of Jesus Christ in Baptism is an empty vain thing?

[@Tanacious808]

That is only half-true. I wish you the best. Try to explore the the necessity of baptism unto salvation by first properly define what is baptism in light of entire scripture, not only verse by verse but concept by concept. All the best *heart*

[@jasonwreden]

@@Tanacious808 This (baptism as a means of Grace) happens to be one of the cores of our beliefs. We’ve been defending our position on this since 1517. We’re taught what Scripture says about it, with no additions.

[@scottsprowl7484]

This was before the glory of the Holy Ghost was poured out on the day of Pentecost, this is the beginning of the New Testament church. The thief could have been baptized under John unto repentance.

[@bkr_418]

Lutheran small catechism: How can water do such great things? Certainly not just water, but the word of God in and with the water does these things, along with the faith which trusts this word of God in the water. For without God’s word the water is plain water and no Baptism. But with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a life-giving water, rich in grace, and a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul says in Titus, chapter three: “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying.” (Titus 3:5-8)

[@ro6ti]

Baptism is CHRIST'S appeal for our forgiveness (clear conscience) through His RESURRECTION. The appeal isn't our own. His RESURRECTION is the appeal that saves us. His RESURRECTION justifies us, because with your heart we believe that God raised Him and so we are justified. (Rom 10:9,10) The Bible teaches very clearly that Baptism is the way to be united to His DEATH: "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were BAPTIZED into His DEATH?" (Rom 6:3) So, we are united to His DEATH through Baptism so we can be united by faith to His RESURRECTION. "For if we have been united with him in a DEATH like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a RESURRECTION like His. If we have DIED with Christ, we believe that we will also LIVE with him." (Rom 6:5,8) Beyond these very plain and clear words of Scripture, isn't Baptism done in the Name of the Lord? Doesn't His Name save us? Who would be so backward as to deny that? Baptism also includes God's Promise "for the forgiveness of sin." His Promise saves us. Do you deny the power of the Name of Jesus Christ, the Name in Which we are Baptized? How can one say "Baptism doesn't save" when Baptism is done in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ? It's His work, His Resurrection, not your work that saves. The washing in water is given in His Name which means HE is doing the work - not you! It's not done in your name. The way some churches baptize, it's like it's done in the name of the person being baptized instead of the Name of Jesus Christ. It's like they're just putting on a show in their own name rather than Jesus Christ giving His Promise in His Name to the individual. They have "a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof." (2Timothy 3:5) As Martin Luther taught very simply so that even children can understand: "Baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God’s Command and combined with God’s Word. It works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare."

[@tomtemple69]

a physical work doesn't save u, grace alone through faith alone saves Those who are saved will get baptized as a public display of their commitment to Christ

[@dman7668]

Except when James says not by faith alone.

[@tomtemple69]

@@dman7668 James 2:25 Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness If you think James contradicts Pauls teaching in Romans 4 and Ephesians 2, you don't understand the Bible or salvation

[@dman7668]

@tomtemple69 Yes, Protestants will often try to cite Abraham's belief was credited as righteousness. But what you seem to ignore because it doesn't fit your crazy ideas is that the Bible also says his actions were counted as righteousness. Proving that justification has layers to it. But if you want to tune out anybody but yourself, and not question your protestant overlord R.C Sproul and James White as if they are infallible Popes, go right on ahead!

[@tomtemple69]

@@dman7668 so you think you play a role and contribute to your justification??

[@dman7668]

@@tomtemple69 Well, let me ask you this question, When Saint Paul writes in Romans 6:16 that eternal life is rendered according to your works, does that mean you are not contributing to your own justification?

[@SoldierofChrist9]

Water baptism is simply a seal not a mode of salvation. The only regenerative baptism is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

[@heavenbound7-7-7-7]

There is only one baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit in water baptism. "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" Ephesians 4:5 "And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38

[@bushbladesnbows.2378]

But they are one and the same in sacramental union, so it is still right to say that Baptism saves, even if it doesn't save at the time of the water baptism, because there is only one baptism.

[@dahokage1043]

@@heavenbound7-7-7-7Not everyone receives the holy sprit when baptizes lol

[@truthnotlies]

​@@bushbladesnbows.2378no because that would mean you wouldn't actually need the water at all...

[@bushbladesnbows.2378]

@@truthnotlies L Nestorian sacramentology take

[@reecesimmons3925]

I loved the format of this video

[@bobthrasher8226]

1 Peter 3:21 "...baptism, which now saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Rom 6 and Col 2:12 say that baptism "immerses" you into Jesus' resurrection (in addition to His death) which is the concept Peter is referring to here in 1 Peter 3:21. And to be "resurrected with Christ" is another way of saying "regenerated" or “born again” - and this is caused by baptism. A regenerated person is going to live a righteous life which is attended by a good conscience as Peter mentions here and which will "testify" to God in the final judgement (Rom 2:6-16). Further, baptism washes away past sins (Acts 2:38, 22:16) which also provides for a clean conscience. So, we have complete provision for our conscience - both past sins committed as well as for the future by making the living of an obedient life going forward possible through a new birth patterned after God’s righteous character (Eph 4:24). Paul talks about how baptism saves a person from the power of sin and regeneration to a new, righteous, life while Peter here focuses on the latter part; how baptism "births" a righteous person; which God will deliver into His eternal kingdom just like Jesus was admitted to God's presence, after His resurrection as Peter reminds us here, because He, like Noah, His "anti-type", was righteous (John 16:10).

[@scotthixson111]

Kudos for using the word perspicuity😊😊

[@brianfleming1310]

Hi Matthew, I appreciated listening to your video. I only mean my comment to be taken within the context of Christian charity and pursuing truth. With this in mind, I come to a different and opposite conclusion on 1 Peter 3:21. I do agree with you that (as with all scriptural interpretation) the context of the letter counts, and this context includes who Peter is writing to. Who is Peter's primary audience.? The answer is that the majority of classical interpreters (including John Calvin) understood that Peter was addressing Jewish Christians. This can be ascertained by the introduction of the letter which begins with "Peter... to the chosen sojourners of the dispersion." The word "dispersion" (Greek "diasporas") is a technical term only used in the Old Testament to refer to Jews in exile. Additionally, in 1Peter 2:3 Peter tells his readers to "Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles..." More points about who Peter is writing to could be provided. With the audience in mind, Peter writes to Jews that baptism saves you "not as a removal of dirt from the body..." Peter was a Jew and like the Jews he was writing to, they had lived their life ensuring ritual purity. As Leviticus instructed them, if they should come in contact with a bodily discharge or their body be infected with a skin ailment or if they should touch something unclean they were ritually unclean. Leviticus then instructs them to bath in water to cleanse their body and become ritually unclean once again. This is why he can clarify for them that Christian baptism as opposed to Jewish baptism is "not a removal of dirt from the body." Justin Martyr (writing about 65 years after 1 Peter) in his "Dialog with Trypho the Jew" makes the exact same point regarding baptism. Justin, in comparing Trypho's Jewish baptism / water immersions to the Christian baptism writes, "baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life. But the cisterns (which is a ritual bath) which you have dug for yourselves are broken and profitless to you. For what is the use of that baptism which cleanses the flesh and body alone?" Justin's understanding of Trypho's Jewish ritual immersions, is that it "only cleanses the flesh and body alone." Peter would likewise instruct Jews (who easily could have undergone several ritual immersions each year of their lives) that this Christian baptism is not one that cleanses the flesh and body alone. The Christian baptism purifies the soul not the body. As Justin states, "baptism... is alone able to purify those who have repented." Additionally, repenting from sins is a pledge to discontinue those actions. Hence, Justin (as to do the biblical writers) present repentance (i.e. pledge to turn from sin) and baptism together. This is why Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic and some Protestant churches still have the candidate recite a baptismal vow. The vow is the pledge or repentance and is a part of the baptism Also, in the order of typology, 1 Peter 3:20 states that Noah and the other seven were "saved through water." And it was "through water" that they were saved. The water rained down upon them (Genesis 7 states that the heavens were opened and the rain fell). But the eight in the ark rose up through and out of the water and were saved. This corresponds with baptism in which the person goes down into the water and rises up out of it (they go through the water). This makes the Genesis flood and baptism correlate perfectly. If it is simply the pledge, by itself, that is the antitype that fulfills the type of saving Noah, then Peter could have written, "God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, this corresponds to the pledge." Such a statement fails to be coherent. I wrote too much. I welcome your response if time allows. In full disclosure I am Catholic. Brian

[@robertnieten7259]

I believe that it is important to note in Peter ch.3 that it says that Noah and those with him were saved through the water ,not by the water. All believers would agree that John the baptist set the prototype for what would be, in time, christian baptism As John stood in the Jordan river and was looking at those repenting on its banks. He then said," Bring forth fruit meet for repentance"(Matt.3:8) The Word " meet", in the new testaments original Greek, means," that which accompanies". So repentance is incomplete unless demonstrated by water baptism. The Word also says that Johns' baptism was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Repentance of sins and the cleansing of the temple with water and blood is the type of what would be repentance followed by water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins in Acts ch.2 which is the antitype. The writer of Hebrews wrote that the blood of bulls and goats was ineffective in dealing with " consciousness of sins", which is guilt, but only cover it. Thus ,the Spirit of God would only temporarily occupy the Holy Of Holies resulting in the rites having to be repeated each year The shed blood of Christ changed that. Now, during water baptism and because of the shed blood of Christ, the Holy Spirit circumcises the conscience, removing the guilt from past sins, and restoring the conscience to its original childlike abscence from the resulting guilt of wilful sin. This is the " washing of regeneration" of Titus 3:5. The word "regeneration" defined means to return something to its original state. The original state of our conscience is that of an innocent child . As a result, the Holy Spirit can enter the " temple", body, of a believer and stay on a permanent basis. This is " the anointing that abideth" of ( 1John 2:27).

[@Sarah3944]

Hi Pastor Everhard, what do you think about John 3:5. “Unless one is born of the WATER and of the spirit he cannot ENTER the kingdom of God”. In verse 3 it says you cannot SEE the kingdom of God. Mark 16:16 says “ whoever believes, and is baptize will be saved…”. What is your take one these? There are many more scriptures about baptism being essential for salvation. I’d love to heard your take. ☺️

[@mathete9968]

Absolutely, and Mark 16:16 is a Granville Sharp construction. Therefore the two stand together in a unitary manner according to the Lord. Furthermore they are substantives. In plain language: "The ONE: - Believing AND - Baptized Shall be saved.' (Mark 16:16) Grammatically, John 3:5 follows the same pattern. ONE BIRTH of two elements: - Water And - The Spirit And the ENTIRE early church held this exposition unanimously to refer to Christian Baptism. Which is indeed consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture.

[@paulahre382]

The Baptism in Mark 16:16 is Baptism by the Holy Spirit providing for the believers transformation.

[@mathete9968]

​@@paulahre382W😳W ..... I am astonished you would say that ! Don't you know that God condemns every person that comes in His name falsely claiming that "He says ....."? (Jeremiah 23:31) But James repeats this warning saying "Don't be many TEACHERS, seeing that WE shall receive a GREATER Judgement" (James 3:1) But who told you that Baptism in Mark 16:16 was a Spirit Baptism? But as Jeremiah writes of such as you: "Yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart" (Jeremiah 23:26) You certainly did not get that from the text! But don't you realise that Matthew 28:19, 20 and Mark 16:16 are synoptic accounts? And Acts 1: 10 is directly synoptic with Mark 16:19. These three texts follow part of a larger discourse prior to and including the ascension of the Lord. But in Matthew 28:19 the command is given by the Lord: To Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Every Baptism done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is only a valid Baptism of it is carried out using the Tri-une name that Christ authorised. But immediately in the days following ascension, what Baptism does Peter preach ? "Be Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ FOR remission of sins AND you shall receive the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38) So the gift of the Holy Spirit is promised in conjunction with the Baptism for remission of sins performed with man. God connects the promise of the spirit to Baptism. For man must be born of WATER and The SPIRIT (John 3:5). Moreover, Paul points this out when he recounts Ananias instruction: Have yourself BAPTIZED and allow your sins to be WASHED AWAY (Acts 22:16) Baptism in water effects washing away of sins. But the Greek grammar is definitive! ἀναστὰς βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου Look at the two controlling verbs! - βάπτισαι (verb, middle voice, imperative, 2nd person, singular) - ἀπόλουσαι (verb, middle voice, imperative, 2nd person, singular) The Greek grammar makes it DRAMATICALLY CLEAR that to "Be Baptised" IS "To Wash Away sins" In English this kind of construction is called "a Hendiadys". Where two words or expressions are used to refer to one and the same thing. Moreover the Apostle picks up the thread in 1 Corinthians 6:11 where he uses exactly the same verb, this time in the plural, to address the entire church in Corinth. "But you allowed yourselves to be WASHED ... in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. ..." The verb WASHED differs only in number and in mood. ἀπελούσασθε (verb, middle voice, indicative mood, 2nd person, plural) In 1 Corinthians 6:11, Paul uses WASHING as periphrasis for BAPTISM. And why not? He has shown in Acts 22:16 that to be Baptized is to be washed of sins. But he uses the middle voice for the washing because we must allow others to baptize. He does not, however, use the middle voice but rather the passive voice for "Justification" and "Sanctification" (by the Spirit of God) because man is entirely the passive recipient of these blessings. Your strange doctrines (Hebrews 13:9) are not original. Various enthusiastic sects that like the Quakers which arose within the Anabaptists also taught such things, as do the salvation army. But if you are not Baptized with water and continue to refuse baptism with water you will not have the Holy Spirit. And you shall perish in your sins. Repent therefore and be baptized in the name of Jesus FOR remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit also .

[@Rio_Seco]

​@@paulahre382 Doesn't say that. Doesn't even infer it.

[@mathete9968]

John the Baptist confessed and taught most clearly that Baptism is NECESSARY when he said : "I HAVE NEED to be BAPTIZED of thee, and comest thou to me?" (Matthew 3:14) And why did John Need to be baptized of Jesus? Why did John state that Baptism was so NECESSARY for himself? John himself confesses the true reason as to why: 'John ... said ... "Behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I AM NOT WORTHY to loose." ' (Acts 13:25) So John confessed that he was an unworthy sinner. Unworthy even to loose Jesus sandal. And John confessed that he too NEEDED to be Baptized. Because: There is none righteous , no NOT ONE (Romans 3:10) And All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 6:23) And Baptism is for the Remission of Sins (Acts 2:38) And 'Unless ANYONE (Greek: τις ), is born of WATER and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.' (John 3:5) Now 'Flesh and blood CANNOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.' (1 Corinthians 15:50) 'And there shall IN NO WISE ENTER into it ANY THING that DEFILETH ' (Revelation 21:27) And John's Baptism , like that of Jesus was A Baptism of Repentance FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS - Mark 1:4 - Luke 3:3 - Acts 2:38 And John, being unworthy , NEEDED remission of sins. So John like us, NEEDED BAPTISM for the Remission of his sins. But all Pharisees ... Then as now, reject the counsel of God AGAINST THEMSELVES. They may well go through the motions of baptism as a self chosen and self appointed "act of obedience" that they think they have done. But, like the Pharisees of old they reject Baptism for the Remission of sins and will not justify God, because Baptism for the Remission of Sins is the very counsel of God for unworthy sinners. (Luke 7:29, 30) "But the Pharisees ... rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." (Luke 7:30) Those who were baptized were not baptised "as an outward sign of an inward grace". Nor were they baptized as an empty "sign of obedience". Those baptized needed baptism (Matt 3:14) because they needed the Remission of their sins (Luke 3:3) and they justified God (Luke 7:29) in that they acknowledged, like John the Baptist, that they were unworthy sinners who needed baptism for the Remission of their sins. (Matt 3:14; Luke 7:29) And Now Why Tarriest thou? ARISE, and be BAPTIZED, and WASH AWAY THY SINS (Acts 22:16)

[@KB-gd6fc]

@@mathete9968 your position is confusing to me. I’d like to ask you simply, do you believe that a person with full faith and confidence in Christ, who dies without water Baptism, goes to hell?

[@mathete9968]

​​@@KB-gd6fcNo, by no means no! For Holy Scripture is very clear that every person who truly believes in Christ is made righteous through Faith. And every person believing in Jesus Christ "with full faith and confidence in Christ" has the Holy Spirit living and dwelling in their hearts. It must be so for every believer. Indeed Faith is impossible without the work of the Spirit creating Faith in the Saviour by the Gospel and every such person is certainly a child of God, born of God. The question naturally arises, therefore: If man is justified through Faith, (and indeed he is) why should he need Baptism? The answer is given by the words of Jesus, John chapter 3:5, 6 Except anyone be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Notice the difference in wording between verses 5 and 6. The Koine Greek grammar in verse 5 uses a single "of" (ἐξ). It is ONE birth of two elements WATER and SPIRIT. However verse 6 uses only the substantive participle "The Spirit born one is spirit" Grammatically this is very interesting. This includes the one birth of "Water and the Spirit" from verse 5. But it also reveals the obvious, that it is the Spirit that is active in regeneration. And we well know that the Spirit is operating through the preaching of the Gospel. "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the HEARING OF FAITH? ... He therefore that ministers to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, does he it by the works of the law, or by the HEARING OF FAITH? Even as Abraham BELIEVED God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." (Galatians 3:2-6) So rhe Spirit is operating through the Gospel and all true Christians acknowledge this. But this does not preclude the clear testimony of Scripture regarding Baptism. The author to the Hebrews reveals why most Christians from a gentile background find Baptism so difficult to grasp. Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection ... Of the doctrine of BAPTISMS (Hebrews 6:1, 2) The Doctrine of BAPTISMS βαπτισμός - BAPTISMOS (Inflected as: βαπτισμῶν) was the Old Testament teaching on the ceremonial washings. These washings were always not mere washings, but rather purifications. They always had the connotation of purification and were typical of the washing away of sins. We know that the author refers to these here for two reasons: 1) The Holy Spirit introduced a new word never used in many Greek source prior to the Baptism of John and of Christian Baptism: βάπτισμα - BAPTISMA (Eph. 4:5) These nouns share the same verb: βαπτίζω - BAPTIZO But the noun used prior to the Baptism for the remission of sins (Luke 3:3; Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38) was BAPTISMOS. And all of the BAPTISMOS under the Old Covenant were ceremonial. They pointed to the washing away of sins. But they were not explicit. However, John, by the word of God (Luke 3:2, 3) and he preached for the very first time a different Baptism. A Baptism of repentance FOR the remission of sins. John preached openly what the had merely pointed to (Psalm 51:2, 7; Isaiah 1:16, 18) John preached openly what the prophets had foretold under the New Covenant (Ezekiel 36:25; Zechariah 13:1) It is for this reason the Jews disputed with the disciples of John about "The purifications" (John 3:25) Prior to John's baptism there has only ever been baptisms amount the Jews that were ceremonial in nature. Some of these were of the Old Covenant Law (Hebrews 6:2; and 9:10) but many were self chosen traditions of men (Mark 7:2-9) These passages use the Greek words BAPTISMOS interchangeably with Washings. And they always refer to purifications. But John's Baptism came by the Word of God (Luke 3:2) and was "For the Remission of sins" (Luke 3:3) It was not merely a ceremonial washing. Nor was it a work of the Law. It was an altogether different PURIFICATION. It was the counsel of God for sinners (Luke 7:30). It was needed by sinners such as us (Matthew 3:14). Moreover, Jesus Christ has willed that all men be Baptized (Mark 16:16) In Mark 16 the Lord uses the classic Granville Sharp Rule where he ties the two substantives together into a single declaration: The one: "BELIEVING and BAPTISED" shall be saved. In Greek this idea is obvious and inescapable. The items cannot be separated. But why would Jesus say this if we are already justified through faith ? The answer is that He has willed it to be so. Indeed He has willed this not for His sake but for ours. He does not merely FORGIVE sons but He, Himself, literally WASHES and thereby CLEANSES us also (John 13:8; 1 John 1:9) Having been once washed we do not need Baptism again (John 13:10; but we do need continual cleansing (1 John 1:9) and so we read: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, AND TO CLEANSE us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9) He does not merely FORGIVE but rather he ALSO CLEANSES us. And in Baptism it is Jesus Christ, the Son of God Himself who washes away our sins: If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with ME. (John 13:8) Then will I sprinkle PURE WATER upon you, and ye shall be CLEAN: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, I will CLEANSE you. (Ezekiel 36:25) Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, HAVING our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and OUR bodies WASHED with PURE WATER. (Hebrews 10:22 - alluding to the LXX of Ezekiel 36:25 where the same Koine Greek words are used) And so Zechariah prophesied: In that day there shall be a FOUNTAIN opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem FOR SIN and FOR UNCLEANNESS" (Zechariah 13:1) But it is not just the Old Testament prophets that described the washing away of the sins of the Church. Paul describes the Sanctifying CLEANSING of the Church using both WATER along with the WORD Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That HE might SANCTIFY and CLEANSE it with the WASHING OF WATER with the WORD. (Ephesians 5:25, 26) For Paul there is no ambiguity of language..he described his own Baptism as a washing away of sins: Arise, and BE BAPTIZED, and WASH AWAY THY SINS ... (Acts 22:16) The point made by Hebrews 6:2 is that knowledge of the old testament washings (Baptisms) were foundational. Even Nicodemus, as " The Teacher of Israel" failed to grasp the idea that the ceremonial purifications pointed to. And he failed to understand the new birth spoken of in Ezekiel 36:25-27 which describes BOTH Baptism using water and the new birth. So we teach the necessity of Baptism because Jesus taught it. The ancient church also understood this important distinction. At the time of the Reformation it was clarified. BAPTISM IS NECESSARY BUT NOT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. It is NOT "ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY" in that God certainly works TRUE SAVING FAITH prior to Baptism in many individuals. But it is "NECESSARY" because it is part of the counsel of God (Luke 7:30) and Jesus has willed it (Mark 16:16; Matthew 28:19, 20). Not every person may be baptized after to coming to faith. Sometimes it is impossible to be baptized for a long time following conversion, especially where there is no local church to baptize the new believer. Such a person does not reflect the counsel of God (Luke 7:30) But all who reject Baptism, reject the counsel of God against themselves and exhibit that they are not truly converted believers (John 15:2-6). Truly believing Christians follow Jesus and they hear his voice and continue in His words (John 8:31; 10:27) This brings a different question into focus: If a person truly born anew through Faith ultimately rejects Baptism, were they truly converted ? The answer is that every person truly believing is born of God. But many are believing for a time who later fall away (Luke 8:13; Hebrews 3:12). We should therefore fear less a promise of entering His Rest, any of us should seen to come short of it (Hebrews 4:1). Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. (Hebrews 10:35-39)

[@KB-gd6fc]

@@mathete9968 I’m really interested in trying to understand your perspective better. I assume you are Lutheran. I’m having a really hard time understanding how Sola Fide and Baptismal Regeneration are reconciled. I cannot and will not place my faith in anything other than what Jesus did on the cross. But I’m so so confused on baptism and what its role is in the life of a believer

[@mathete9968]

​​@@KB-gd6fcYour questions and comments are really good and I appreciate your thinking. I was a Baptist for 17 years of my adult life from age 18-35. And I was determined to prove Baptist doctrine using the Greek New Testament. But the more I studied the "proof texts" the more I saw every single Baptist argument unravel. The reason why I am not a Baptist is because I put my trust in Scripture Alone and I simply could not be silent in such a teaching. You are right not to put your trust in anything other than Christ Crucified. But even Baptism is founded upon the reconciling death of Christ in the cross. Paul makes this the basis of Baptism in Ephesians 5:25, 26 Christ loved the Church and GAVE HIMSELF FOR IT [Shedding His blood upon the Cross] In order THAT He might SANCTIFY and CLEANSE IT ... In the Old Testament typical baptisms the priest would add blood to the water. And the water was then applied to the people. It was NEVER apart from the sacrificial blood that the these washings had any significance. Consider the baptism performed using the ashes of the heifer. They took the blood and the rest of the heifer and they BURNED it in FIRE (a picture of the wrath of God's judgement). Then this blood , now in ash form was added to water. And hyssop was used them to sprinkle the ceremonially defiled person. Outwardly there was nothing about their sins that it related to. Yet it was called a PURIFICATION FOR SIN (Numbers 19:9) Yet it was always by the Holy Spirit that Old Testament saints saw Remission of Sins typified in the Law. And more than that, they understood that GOD HIMSELF MUST WASH AWAY OUR SINS (Psalm 51:2, 7; John 13:8) We are bit trusting in Baptism. We are trusting in Christ alone. If we don't have a crucified and risen Saviour, we have no Saviour at all (1 Corinthians 15:1, 2) So in the preaching of the cross it is the Holy Spirit creating saving Faith in our hearts. And we cling to Jesus Christ by means of that glorious Gospel. In Baptism we see that God himself has does what he has promised to do. And he does it upon the basis of the shed blood of Christ. When God commanded the Israelites to post blood over the door posts at the Passover, the Angel of the Lord saw that blood and passed over each household. And in baptism, God sees that it is founded upon the blood that Christ shed at Calvary and he sees us washed even as he himself has washed us clean in baptism. If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. (John 13:8) In baptism Christ truly washes us clean and he views us washed by the blood in Baptism. For this reason John explains: This is he that came by WATER and BLOOD, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by WATER and BLOOD (1 John 5:6)

[@KB-gd6fc]

@@mathete9968 I think I’m starting to see your point. But then how do you then say someone who dies without water baptism is still saved? If baptism brings forgiveness of sins then how is someone forgiven who’s not baptized?

[@Rio_Seco]

Baptism corresponds to the ark. Their obedience to God, their faith and obedience shown by building and boarding the Ark literally saved their lives. The ark was the mechanism of their salvation just like Baptism is the mechanism of our salvation where we (like Noah) in faith submit and are immersed into the death and resurrections of Christ being washed of our sins. This does not remove Faith, rather it comes from faith keeping faith at the center of our salvation.

[@bobthrasher8226]

1 Peter 3:21 "...baptism, which now saves you…by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Rom 6 and Col 2:12 say that baptism "immerses" you into Jesus' resurrection which is the concept Peter has limited his discussion to here in 1 Peter 3:21. And to be "resurrected with Christ" is another way of saying "regenerated" or “born again” - and this occurs in baptism as cited previously. A regenerated person is going to live a righteous life which is attended by a good conscience as Peter mentions here and which will "testify" to God in the final judgement (Rom 2:6-16). Further, baptism washes away past sins (Acts 2:38, 22:16) which also provides for a clean conscience. So, we have complete provision for our conscience - both past sins committed as well as for the future by making possible the living of an obedient life going forward through a new birth patterned after God’s righteous character (Eph 4:24). Paul covers the whole spectrum of what baptism does; saving a person from the power of sin and regeneration to a new, righteous, life while Peter here focuses on the latter part; how baptism "births" a righteous person which God will deliver into His eternal kingdom just like Jesus was admitted to God's presence, after His resurrection as Peter reminds us here, because He, like Noah, was righteous (John 16:10).

[@mathete9968]

I had a great breakthrough on this verse after realising that Hebrews 10:22 is in fact a sister text to 1 Peter 3:21 and very much parallel. This allows us to apply the inspired Scriptural Rule of Exposition: "Compare Scripture with Scripture" (1 Corinthians 2:13). The other inspired Scripture Rule of Exposition which applies here is 1 Peter 4:11 which holds us to the principle of "Scripture Alone" , and therefore especially to the grammar of the text (See also Nehemiah 8:8). The other truly wonderful thing about the parallel sister text to 1 Peter 3:21 in Hebrews 10:22 is the fact that the writer to the Hebrews in chapter 10:22 makes a direct allusion to the New Covenant promise in Ezekiel 36:25 which happens to be a clear reference to Baptism. Then will I sprinkle CLEAN WATER upon you, and YOU SHALL BE CLEAN. From all your filthiness, and from all your idols, WILL I CLEANSE YOU (Ezekiel 36:25) "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies WASHED with PURE WATER." (Hebrews 10:22) Let us observe then the common thread to all three texts: 1) The Hebrew and Greek words translated "CLEAN / PURE" are interchangeably translated. Therefore we find that in the LXX, in Ezekiel 36:25, the same root words are used as in Hebrews 10:22 ὕδωρ καθαρός - PURE WATER Only the case endings are changed to suit the grammatical purposes of each passage (The LXX uses the accusative case and the NT uses the dative case). But the expression: ὕδωρ καθαρός - PURE WATER Is a clear example of the Apostolic principle: "We speak ... IN THE WORDS ... which the Holy Spirit teaches" 2) All three texts teach that the body gets the water, but the soul / conscience gets the cleansing - In Ezekiel 36:25 God himself cleanses the sinner of his filthiness, exactly as David teaches in Psalm 51:2, 7 - In Hebrews 10:22 the body has been WASHED (same root Greek word used of Baptism in Acts 22:16) but the conscience has been sprinkled (Cleansed / Purified) - In 1 Peter 3:21 Baptism is the subject of the verb which is active and imperfective. The body receives the water, yet it is not the defilement of physical dirt which is bathed away in baptism but rather sin. For this reason the Apostle uses ἀλλὰ concerning Baptism's relationship to the resurrection of Christ in securing a good conscience for the sinner. Recall that Paul teaches the same thing concerning the resurrection of Christ. The KJV has: Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again FOR our justification. (Romans 4:25) But this is not correct. The Greek preposition διὰ is used in conjunction with the accusative case δικαίωσιν Such that: διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν Means: "On account of our justification" Objective Justification is taught everywhere in Scripture (Zephaniah 3:15; Psalm 85:2, 3; Isaiah 12:1, 2; Ezekiel 16:63; and 2 Corinthians 5:19) But that we are justified in Christ's resurrection is also taught in Hosea 6:2. For God accepted his Son and by raising him declares that he accepted his perfect righteousness. Christian Baptism is not Baptism without content. It is founded upon Jesus Christ. And it is for this reason that Peter , preached Baptism. Having stated that God RAISED Jesus Christ from dead (Acts 2:24) Peter preached BAPTISM in the name of this RISEN Lord, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. Indeed Baptism now saves us. It saves us on account of Christ and is founded upon his propitiatory death on the cross and his resurrection. Peter can state that Baptism saves in that it is the answer if a good conscience. For Baptism is the work of God, not man and is done for the sake of man. Notice that in Baptism, our sins are WASHED AWAY: "...Arise, and be baptized, and WASH away thy sins ..." (Acts 22:16) The same root word ἀπολούω is used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:11 where he uses "WASHED" as a peririphrasis for "BAPTISM" And it is the cognate noun of the verbs: ἀπολούω and λούω namely , λελουσμένοι That is used in Hebrews 10:22. Moreover the related cognate noun forms λουτρόν and λελουμένος That are used in Ephesians 5:26 of and John 13:10 . Can you see the picture emerging now? In - Ezekiel 36:25 - John 13:8, 10 - Ephesians 5:25, 26 It is the Lord who MUST BATHE / WASH the church clean of her sins. And this he does in Holy Baptism. But notice that in the sister texts of 1 Peter 3:21 and Hebrews 10:22 it is the body that gets the water BUT it is the conscience that receives the cleansing. This explains that curious expression: PURE WATER (ὕδωρ καθαρός) It is not the water that is CLEAN or PURE. Rather it is BY means of WATER that Christ has willed to PURIFY / CLEANSE His church, on the basis of His sacrificial death upon the cross. Christ also loved the church, and GAVE HIMSELF for it; That he might sanctify and CLEANSE IT WITH the WASHING OF WATER along with The Word" (Ephesians 5:25, 26) Note: ἐν ῥήματι Is in the dative case. It is used instrumental here. It would be precisely the same construction if an ancient Greek were to say "He washed his hands using water along with soap" The natural sense of the text is that Christ gave himself (upon a cross at Calvary) in order to sanctiify and CLEANSE his church using Baptism in conjunction with his Word. And in Baptism we place the triune name of God upon all those Baptized. God truly operates in all places where his name is recorded and he blesses those upon whom his name is placed (Numbers 6:23-27, Exodus 20:24) For this reason Jesus willed that the new birth be a single birth of both WATER and The SPIRIT.

[@nicholascapece]

This is excellent. So much for perspicuity. But you did make it very clear. As paul said how shall they hear without a preacher. Revelation,Bible, Proclamation (Barth)

[@mathete9968]

@@nicholascapece Thank you, I appreciate your encouraging words. Clarity is a necessity. I am a trained teacher of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. And one thing is certain, that students struggle with these difficult concepts unless absolute laborious clarity is utilised in teaching. For this reason I take time to elucidate concepts. The same holds true for those: "THINGS HARD TO BE UNDERSTOOD, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.' (2 Peter 3:16) In conceits like Baptism, it is truly difficult for those conditioned by Baptist type teaching to grasp. I know this because I was one of them once. But a knowledge of the Old Testament uses of ceremonial baptisms (Hebrews 6:2; Hebrews 9:10) along with a knowledge of Koine Greek completely change these wrong perceptions. Seeing in Greek is like seeing in 3D. It is truly stunning and forever changes the way we see these concepts discussed by the Apostles. There is no question that the Spirit of God inspired the writers of Scripture to teach that by Baptism God washes aways sins, confers the Holy Spirit and unites us with Christ. It is a far cry from the dead dry, and utterly bankrupt, theology that would reduce baptism to a mere "act of obedience" that we would do after conversion. Rather Baptism is the very work of God from start to finish. We see this in the "voice" of the Greek verbs employed for Baptizing. These which are passives and middle voice verbs which show that the actions are not at all construed of the one being baptized but of the baptizer. Both washing and Baptizing are middle voice verbs in Acts 22:16 and 1 Corinthians 6:11. But God alone washes away sins. And God, in the person of Christ is really the one washing His church. We simply allow this washing, hence the middle voice verbs. In Scts 2:38 the verb is entirely passive, because Baptism is not a work that we do. Luke the remission of sins, it is something done for us. But we also see it in the clear Bible statements which ascribe every aspect of Baptism to the various works of God. And all this is perhaps the most comprehensively understood by the words of prophetic text, Ezekiel 36:25-27. It is one of the texts which announces the New Covenant blessings for the church of God, from which virtually all New Testament expositions of Baptism arise.

[@bobthrasher8226]

This is excellent. The only thing I disagreed with was what you think "gave himself for the Church" means in Eph 5. Here is another take on Eph 5:25-27. It is often thought that Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross is what is in Paul’s mind in verse 25. However, consider the tense of the verb “cleanse” in verse 26. If you check this passage in an interlinear you will see “cleanse” is past tense. When does this cleansing occur? It occurs in the past relative to what event? I suggest the language here says that the cleansing occurs before what has been stated previously; namely Christ giving himself for the Church. So what does this mean? If this cleansing occurs before Christ “gave himself” in death, then what cleansing of the Church occurs before Christ died? I thought cleansing depended on Christ’s death and so could only occur after his death? Furthermore, there was no Church before Christ died that this cleansing could apply to. Finally, if we take “sacrifice” as Paul’s meaning, then does this imply “that he might sanctify” is referring to a cleansing? Presumably this is what His blood is for. So, we now have a cleansing happening before another cleansing? That seems redundant. Alternatively, perhaps the “gave himself” doesn’t refer to the Cross? What other ways does Jesus give himself? What if he is giving himself in marriage for the Church? That would fit the theme of this passage nicely. And what about the cleansing? Well, the Church needs to be cleansed before marriage and so the past tense of “cleanse” would fit. Furthermore, this cleansing must come after the Cross because cleansing depends on the Cross. Perhaps this cleansing refers to baptism? Baptism is a cleansing (Acts 22:16) which depends on the Cross. Verse 26 says this cleansing is accomplished by “washing of water by the word” and scripture says that baptism “washes away sins.” “By the word,” is a little obscure to me, but might be referring to instruction in kingdom living - ("...baptizing them and teaching them..."). This washing and instruction make the Church “glorious” in verse 27 which would be appropriate since it is the glorified Christ who is getting married to a glorified Church. So, what about “that he might sanctify” mentioned above? Well, I think this is what happens when you “give yourself” in marriage. You sanctify, or “set apart,” another for yourself while at the same time you “set apart” yourself for the other. In this context, it is simply a selecting. Sanctification is a process which begins with a “setting apart” and continues with preparation which may include cleansing and renovation. I think this “selecting” aspect of sanctify may give us a clue to Jesus’ meaning in John 17:19. Note that the cleansing and renovation aspect of sanctification only apply to the Church and not Jesus. There are also issues, logically, with the view that Christ “gave himself” in sacrifice. In marriage, two people offer their whole lives in exchange for the other so that they may become a union with two members each having an undivided interest in the whole. This is a key aspect of “becoming one” that probably deserves periodic discussion. We see this in the Godhead in John 17 where Jesus says, in prayer, “everything I have is yours and everything you have is mine.” He can say this because “I and the Father are one.” Problems with “oneness” arise when one party views something as exclusively theirs and so puts it off-limits. This is why Paul expects men to “give themselves” - just as wives were expected to give themselves. So, the logical problem is: how can you be sacrificing something to another that already belongs to the other? Another way to look at this logical problem is that sacrifice is a unilateral transaction whereas marriage is a bilateral transaction. So, logically, sacrifice doesn’t seem to fit as an interpretation.

[@mathete9968]

​@@bobthrasher8226 Its really very simple in fact. The controlling verb is ἁγιάσῃ (hagiase) "SHOULD SANCTIFY", which is in the subjunctive mood. Whatever some English texts might say, the aspect of the verb IS MOST DEFINITELY NOT past tense in the original Greek text! But in Koine Greek the Subjunctive mood has the general meaning of what is possible or potential and has the aspect of what is future, (not past), firmly in mind. It has everything to do with PURPOSE and INTENTION - See John 3:16 where the subjunctive mood is used, for example. "SHOULD NOT PERISH" (Wallace, D., 1996, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, USA). Similarly, the adverbial PARTICIPLE of means "SHOULD .. CLEANSE" , which follows also takes its mood from the verb, according to the rules of Greek grammar. It thereby takes the same somewhat future aspect from the verb. "That he SHOULD...CLEANSE it by the WASHING (Literally: "BATHING") of WATER along with the Word" (Wallace, 1996). However: There is a "past tense" verb used in verse 25 in fact, the word "GAVE". It is literally: "GAVE - UP" παρα-δίδωμι (para-didomi). Now the Greek "past" tense emerges from the combination of the aorist tense + the indicative mood, as is the case with the verb παρα-δίδωμι. Here the Greek past tense emerges from the combination of the aorist tense + the indicative mood, as in this case. And παρα-δίδωμι is drawn from δίδωμι (didomai), exactly as in Matthew 20:28 where Jesus "GAVE His life a ransom for many". So Paul most certainly is pointing to past facts in Ephesians 5:25, namely Christ's willingly having given up his life into death for our sins (Hebrews 7:27) - The giving of Himself is a clear reference to the cross (See Matthew 20:28 where the root form δίδωμι "gave", of the same word as in Eph 5:25 is used). So Christ Jesus GAVE UP himself (past tense - aorist / indicative) - That he SHOULD (subjunctive mood / future aspect) SANCTIFY by means of CLEANSING the Church by the use of the WASHING (BATHING) of water along with the Word. For further reading I suggest you search out Dr A.L Graebner's excellent 1902 paper on Baptism. A number of Greek scholars have worked on these verses to show that the meaning is indeed baptism. Scripture indeed uses "WASHING" = literally "BATHING" as Periphrasis for BAPTISM. Clearly in Acts 22:16 where a direct 1:1 parallel is given "Arise and be BAPTISED and WASH (BATHE) AWAY your sins" And by Periphrasis in 1 Corinthians 6:11 Hebrews 10:22 Ephesians 5:26 Titus 3:5 In these verses WASH / BATHE points to Baptism by Periphrasis. So in summary: "Christ gave himself and became obedient to the death of the cross (Ephesians 5:25; Philippians 2:8) IN ORDER THAT HE SHOULD - Sanctify by means of Cleansing It [the church] - By the bathing of WATER (along with the Word) This is the clear grammatical construction of the text . Here the entire church is viewed abstractly in advance, for he actually washes (bathes) her in time as the Apostle teaches (1 Corinthians 6:12) and (Titus 3:5) and (Ezekiel 36:25) and (Hebrews 10:22) Now there are two more problems which need addressing. - The Church DID EXIST in the Old Testament (Acts 7:38). However the New Testament church Began at Pentecost. The Church in the Old Testament was called "The Congregation". But when we see the Hebrew word appear in the Septuagint (LXX), it is the same word as the "Church" in the New Testament. Moreover, when Psalm 22:22 is quoted in Hebrews 2:12 the Hebrew word "Congregation" becomes "Church" . So both the LXX and the New Testament teach that "the Congregation of the LORD" = "The Church of God" (Acts 20:28) I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of THE CONGREGATION will I praise thee. (Psalm 22:22) Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of THE CHURCH will I sing praise unto thee. (Hebrews 2:12) - The other major point which must be addressed is the cleansing before Christ's death. On the one hand, cleansing most definitely does depend upon Christ's death. And for this reason Paul builds upon the past objective doubt of Christ having given up himself for the Church (= Both Old and New Testament Saints) But remember this: God viewed Jesus Christ as: "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelation 13:8) And this makes perfect sense being consistent with the many Bible passages which teach "Objective Justification" Consider Psalm 85 Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all their sin. Selah. Thou hast taken away ALL thy wrath THOU HAST TURNED THYSELF FROM THE FIERCENESS OF THINE ANGER. (Psalm 85:2, 3) See also: Zephaniah 3:15 Isaiah 12:1 Hosea 14:4 Ezekiel 16:63 Micah 7:18, 19 2 Corinthians 5:19 The Old Testament prophecies were written in past tense as though they had already happened, and indeed they were so sure and certain that God viewed man as already reconciled to God. And God was forgiving sins on the basis of Christ's death already in the days from Adam to Christ , and from Christ until now and on to the last Day. - The WASHING away of sins was already being done in the Old Testament. We find David referring to this in Psalm 51:2,7 WASH me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and CLEANSE me from my sin ... PURGE me with hyssop, and I shall be CLEAN: WASH me, and I shall be whiter than snow." NOTE: 1) David takes the ceremonial washings which used blood added to water, and shows that they pointed to the washing away of sins on account of Christ's shed blood. And David truly received the washing away of his own sins also. 2) David uses similar language to that of Paul in Ephesians and he grasps by the Spirit that the true washing is that of the washing away of sins. 3) David shows that God must wash away his sins. And this he does in the person of the Son of God . Isaiah 1:16 uses identical language to that of Paul WASH you, make you CLEAN; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil Here the Lord invites sinners to do what only He can do, namely to wash themselves and be clean of their sins. (cf Psalm 51:2,7) He is in fact inviting them to repent and believe on their Saviour and receive the washing away of their sins. In the New Testament, all these Old Testament typical baptisms (Hebrews 6:2; Hebrews 9:10) find their fulfillment in Christian Baptism. Here the Lord, who certainly forgives sins, has willed that in Baptism He Himself should WASH away our sins. And so BAPTISM is the visible Word, and it is a means of grace in which Christ is really operating. For Jesus said Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:20) And Christ is truly present when two are gathered in his name, one baptizing and the other receiving Baptism. Christ himself is present and Christ Himself is washing away the sins of those Baptized today, JUST as much as ever he was present when He WASHED David clean of all his sins. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever (Hebrews 13:8)

[@NickMelville-ny2xu]

Does infant baptism count?

[@davidsandrock7826]

As the grandson of faithful Lutherans, here is my speech: baptism saves, is means is *mic drop*

[@randallsmith5157]

Not the removal of dirt from the body = Not the physical act of water baptism. No explanation, just the note that this is very clearly what Peter, speaking through the Holy Spirit, said. Is might mean is or it might not mean is after percolating through the filter of Reformed theory. Lol

[@mathete9968]

​​@@randallsmith5157Quite the opposite in fact. The grammatical construction is really easy in fact. Consider the conceptually correct paraphrase: Baptism does now save you - Not in that it washes the body of physical dirt - But rather by the washing away of sins - Acts 22:16 - (ie Baptism in cleansing the soul answers to a cleansed conscience) , through the resurrection of Christ (see also Romans 4:25) Consider the sister text to 1 Peter 3:21 , namely Hebrews 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith: - HAVING OUR HEARTS SPRINKLED FROM AN EVIL CONSCIENCE, and - OUR BODIES WASHED WITH PURE WATER. Notice THREE distinct things. 1) Both passages involve a defiled / cleansed conscience 2) In both passes the body gets the water but the heart/ soul gets the cleansing 3) Hebrews 10:22 actually makes a direct allusion to Ezekiel 36:25 by the words "PURE WATER". Then will I sprinkle PURE WATER upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. (Ezekiel 36:25) Whilst some translations say "CLEAN WATER" in Ezekiel 36:25, we should note that Both the Hebrew and Greek words are equally translated "CLEAN / PURE". Moreover the Septuagint (LXX) uses the same words in both texts. Hebrews 10:22 is most definitely an allusion to Ezekiel 36:25 AND it also is a periphrasis for Baptism. For our bodies were "WASHED" using water in Baptism. But ... Ezekiel 36:25 is also a third text that speaks of the body getting the water but the soul getting the cleansing. So we have 3 clear texts . And there are several others in fact which deal with this theme (See: Zechariah 13:1; John 3:5; John 13:8-10; Acts 22:16; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 5:25, 26; Titus 3:5) But Ezekiel 36:25-27 goes on to describe not only Baptism but also the New Birth and the gift of the Holy Spirit, exactly as described in Acts 2:38, 39

[@truthnotlies]

​@@randallsmith5157the physical act of baptism does also a spiritual act. The baptism is not about physical dirt but spiritual dirt. The physical act serves a spiritual purpose.

[@randallsmith5157]

@truthnotlies Amen! Baptism now saves you. I wasn't clear in my comment, sorry. I wasn't saying "Not the removal of dirt from the body = Not the physical act of baptism" but was quoting what the preacher made up out of thin air.

[@truthnotlies]

@@randallsmith5157 yes exactly!

[@pravond]

Have to listen to this a few times to digest. This verse has always stumped me.

[@JosephClay]

No matter how many times you listen to it you’ll only be able to understand if you just accept the reformed presuppositions. Peter said baptism is for forgiveness of sins in Acts 2:38. That contradicts modern theology. Here he says baptism saves us and that contradicts modern theology. Best to just believe the Bible rather than the people who just defend their positions.

[@catholictruth102]

It’d only stump you if you come at it from Protestant presuppositions. If you accept what Christians have universally believed in the early church, this verse would be no stumbling block.

[@pravond]

@@JosephClay what presupposition do you come at it with? I will check acts 2 now.

[@unit2394]

The latter part of the verse does not change the meaning here. It describes how Baptism is our means of putting on Christ. We are united to Him and the benefits of salvation He has brought us through Baptism. Romans 6:1-4, Galatians 3:24-27, and Colossians 2:11-15 also describe this. Baptismal regeneration doesn’t hinge on this verse. With the Calvin quote, I would want to square it with his other writings. He does call Baptism the “laver of regeneration” in his Ezekiel commentary and I have heard Calvin cited by Anglicans as teaching a form of Baptismal regeneration (albeit different from Lutherans or Catholics). I do not know what Turretin believed. I do know that John Knox in chapter 21 of the Scots Confession says that “in baptism we are ingrafted into Christ to be made partakers of his justice, by the which all our sins are covered and remitted.” But to be fair, I am a Lutheran, so of course I have a different view of all of this. Thanks anyways for the video!

[@PaulSwansonIdAu]

Hello brother! Glad you showed up, I've another question for you: If I understood you correctly last time, the Lutheran view is that baptism regenerates, but that the regenerate are not necessarily elect and therefore can be lost, in the end (if they abandon the faith). But (having probably already misrepresented you 😅) wouldn't it necessarily follow then that “baptism saves” until it doesn't? I realize that's a somewhat pointy way of putting it, but genuinely am curious, as I can see that we Presbos have different categories to that of yours. Thanks in advance, Paul.

[@unit2394]

@@PaulSwansonIdAu hey Paul, great to see you again! You have indeed accurately represented our view in your second paragraph there. My answer is maybe a yes and no (I hesitate to agree with the statement out of care and respect for what our Lord does in Baptism; not that you’re trying to be disrespectful, you are looking for truth). Baptism does objectively save, even if someone rejects that later. The saving act has still objectively happened, its prior validity has not been nullified, but has been rejected and cut off from a person. But in that rejection and cutting off someone’s Baptism is no longer salvific because they have chosen to sever that Union. Hopefully that’s a decent answer and isn’t dodging the question. I wonder if a useful category here would be this. I was having a conversation with a good friend of mine yesterday who is Presbyterian (about Baptism in fact). One thing that came up is I said I thought our view of justification is different. Some Lutherans I have run into, including myself (though I have run into some Presbyterians who think this way as well) do not view justification as a one time event. What I would say is this. I was justified (I was justified at the Cross and when I became regenerate), I am being justified continually (God continues to forgive me as I pray for forgiveness as He has taught us to pray, when absolution is pronounced over me in divine service, and when I take the sacrament of Holy Communion), and I will be forgiven (at the Last Day when I stand before Him in judgement and Christ, my Merciful Savior, has covered my sin). A verse of scripture I brought us to is this. Philippians 3:10-16 says, “that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained.” Paul is pushing us to persevere unto the end, unto salvation, and this appears other places in the New Testament. In a sense we have been saved, but in a sense we have not yet been saved and are looking forward being saved at the Resurrection and are pushing ahead towards salvation (the already/not yet theme within Scripture). By now this reply is quite long, apologies for that. Hopefully the answer is at least somewhat useful.

[@PaulSwansonIdAu]

@@unit2394 thanks for that, very helpful as always! I can see what you're saying, and it makes sense within the broader framework of what you've outlined. Obviously, the Presbyterian position is different, but we'd need to tackle some fairly broad topics to go much further there. What's funny though is that I agree with a lot of what you say, just for different reasons at times, e.g.: the saints genuinely persevere to ultimate salvation because of election, baptism saves the elect because they're baptised into Christ etc.. It's seems like both positions have a high degree of specificity but it's employed in differing ways. I've heard some Lutherans (Jordan Cooper etc.) explain these concepts, and the explanations bordered on elliptical mysticism, but maybe that was because I don't speak Lutheran 😅I think what triggers Reformed folks is decontextualized statements like, “Baptism saves.”, probably much in the same way Reformed folks trigger everyone else by saying, “Freewill doesn't exist”. Both statements are basically counterproductive without a good explanation. Thanks again, even when they conflict, it's helpful to understand differing biblical views of scripture.

[@unit2394]

@@PaulSwansonIdAu I would also want to make sure to say that we also believe that someone persevering in the faith is a work of God. We just view it differently in that someone who is regenerate may not always persevere. I will also say that Dr. Cooper is heavily influential on my thinking here, and was one of my main influences in converting to Lutheranism. I think you’re right that our language jars one another. It’s an issue I’ve run into when talking to many people. Most modern evangelicals do not have categories for sacramental efficacy and have a very difficult time understanding these statements (even if they are explicitly in Scripture). The same goes with Calvinism. Modern evangelicals have always been taught that salvation is a free will choice and that they need to “make a decision for Jesus.” The Calvinist view that this is all a work of God and is His decision rather than ours is alien to them (and by extension the same monergistic belief of the Lutherans is also alien to them). I really do think that the biggest problems here are often linguistic and conceptual. Glad my comment helped you brother, likewise, yours are always thought provoking to me as well!

[@raykidder906]

This is from chapter 28 of the Westminster Confession: 1. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world. You have to read the rest of this chapter for further Presbyterian beliefs about this sacrament, and the limitations on what baptism necessarily accomplishes. Even when considering these limitations, it is still apparent that the Presbyterian denomination connects this sacrament to the promotion of baptismal regeneration.

[@kac0404]

AS IN NOAH’S FLOOD, BAPTISM IS A RESCUE EXPERIENCE. IT IS AN APPEAL FOR A CLEAR CONSCIENCE. And baptism, which this prefigured, 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. (1 Peter 3:21)

[@jimmu2008]

While I appreciate your tone, I think there is a subtle misunderstanding of the Lutheran position. It has nothing to do with the removal of dirt from the body, but a washing away of sin as in Titus 3:5. I think you are reading something into the passage if you think "not as a removal of dirt" is contrary to baptismal regeneration. As Luther says in his Small Catechism, "It is not the water that does these things, but the Word of God which is in and with the water, and faith which trusts this Word of God in the water." The fact that regeneration does not always manifests itself at the moment of baptism does not mean that regeneration did not happen.

[@patanthony9286]

James 4:7-10 The answer of a good conscience toward God for me and washing of water by the word sanctifies and cleanses

[@reformedcatholic457]

Baptism saves as the reformers, fathers and Holy Scripture teaches.

[@loganhoopes7877]

Speaking of types, the Gettys, Matt Boswell & Matt Papa have a great song, “Christ the True and Better,” that is worth checking out! I’ve been greatly blessed playing it during my devotional time.

[@exploringscripturewithluke1623]

This was very helpful and informative

[@leslietascoff9784]

Excellent! Thank you.This was new to me.

[@joncollins7129]

17:52 "not as a removal of the body" is not rejecting the physical act of baptism. Peter is saying that no one is saved because they have become physically clean. Baptism is the appeal/request for a good conscience, because it is how we obtain it. We receive God's grace via the water. Its rather disingenuous that you keep saying that the "water doesnt save you." Luthers small catechism says the exact same thing.

[@steverentfrow2415]

Thank you. I have added a reply a couple of months before you; please see it. We are being ignored because they can't defend their position with scripture.

[@joncollins7129]

@steverentfrow2415 ultimately they fear the idea that baptism saves because it destroys the "LIP" of their precious flower

[@yoel1737]

Some folks may be struggling with this : Well I'm not quite conformable with the sign/things signified thing because it sometimes can get confusing. I prefer the distinction promise/operation as I find it way less confusing and close to the biblical way of speaking Lutherans prefer to talk in terms of baptism strictrly water and word/promise adressed in the triune name which seem to fit better the biblical categories. Because for them what washes you is actually the promise of salvation grasped by faith. Actually John Calvin wouldn't have any problem with that. Baptism yes is a sign of god goodness and promises what saves you is the content of what's promised to us = Christ for us. I was baptised in a reformed church and to a certain extent I even use the sign/thing signified terminology but when I sometimes see it used... it undermines what the plain text actually says. Like every text about baptism are tied to new covenant salvation languages. (Like some reformed baptists I know use the language of sign and seal in a waaaay different ways than Knox and Calvin would speak of) If someone ask me how I know I am baptised with the spirit I gladly respond that I was baptised in the name of Father Son and Holy spirit. To say that baptism saves (which the bible says) or to say that preaching saves (which the bible says) is to say that the Christ that is delivered to you through preaching or sacrament saves Just like when I say that I drink a bottle I mean the water it deliver me

[@mathete9968]

You are on the right track. The historic church taught that in Baptism, God himself is working, saving us etc . This is the Lutheran teaching also, consistent with Sola Scriptura. There are many passages which teach us that it is God himself , in the person if Christ, that both washes away our sins and regenerates us in Baptism . (Ezekiel 36:25 / Hebrews 10:22; John 3:5; John 13:8, 10; Acts 2:16; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 5:25, 26; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:21) In so doing Baptism thereby effects union with Christ (Hosea 6:2; Romans 6:3-11; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12)

[@contendingforthefaithradio5188]

He said at marker 15:58 > Baptism "washes away our sins". I agree. What happens if your not baptized in water? Answer > You will NOT have your sins "washed away". It's very interesting to watch men try to convince you that the text does not mean what it says. "Not as a removal of dirt from the body" Peter is simply saying, it's not the physical effect, your not taking a bath. Then he goes to say exactly what baptism is >> Answer to a good conscience. Why? Because your sins are "washed away" (Acts 22:16). Because baptism is "for the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 2:38). Because he who believes and is baptized "shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). Do not be fooled friends.

[@mattdcampos]

Hey Matt, thanks for the exposition and insight! Reading through 1 Peter this morning and needed some help chewing on these verses!

[@bobthrasher8226]

To say "not the removal of dirt from the body" refers to physical baptism is quite a stretch. There are other interpretations like the fact that baptism is not mere removal of dirt but it really does something on the inside.

[@DrewMery]

I appreciate your videos, brother. I do think you're overlooking important aspects of this passage, though. Also, some of the quotes you provide near the end articulate a view different than what you articulated when going through the passage. When it says, "not as a removal of dirt from the flesh," he is not saying, as you said, "not the physical act of baptism." Rather, this should trigger in our minds ceremonial washings (as your Henry quote gets right), as under the Mosaic Covenant. In fact, this passage has a very strong resemblance to Hebrews 9:11-14, which also speaks of the conscience being cleansed. In other words, when Peter says, "not as the removal of dirt from the flesh," Peter is in essence saying, not as a ceremonial washing that is merely outward; but the physical act of baptism is still in view. He follows it up by saying that it has an inward effect, "an appeal to God for a clean conscience." There is also a strong resemblance to Paul's teaching on baptism in Romans 6, wherein he relates baptism to our union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection, as Peter also attests to when he says, "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Lastly, it is not an accurate representation of the Lutheran position to say that it's simply the water that saves. Simply reading Luther's Small Catechism makes that abundantly clear: "Certainly not just water, but the word of God in and with the water does these things, along with the faith which trusts this word of God in the water. For without God's word the water is plain water and no Baptism. But with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a life-giving water, rich in grace, and a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit...." Even the WCF quote you provided admits of the grace in baptism being conferred to the baptizee according to God's will and timing, but you initially present it as simply a picture. There's just some noticeable inconsistencies between your exegesis and some of the quotes you provide. Which is it?

[@craigsherman4480]

With all this back and forth in the comments about whether baptism saves or not, why don’t we just take it to the Church, the pillar and bulwark of truth? Whatever the Church says, is the correct answer. It would make this a whole lot easier and give us a definitive answer.

[@JonathanMeyer84]

I am a subscriber and greatly respect your knowledge and humble attitude. You are right in that as a Lutheran I disagree with your interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21b. That doesn't mean we can't be friends, though :)

[@mathete9968]

As a former Baptist who tried to prove the Baptist doctrine from the Greek, I came to utterly reject both Baptist and reformed theology . I became a convinced lutheran through learning the Scripture Rules of Exposition. The handling of the text in this talk is utterly woeful and pure poison. It robs the Scripture of its power and meaning and comfort

[@musicdrafter]

"Pinch those cheeks, Matthew Henry" haha

[@criticalthinkingwjake]

I appreciate that I’m not the only pastor with multiple desks in my office.😂

[@ReformedGibberish5881]

I think it means we are being made alive in the spirit by his resurrection

[@alanhales1123]

Matthew Everhard, the true meaning of 1 Pet 3: 18--19, is. Jesus was put to death in His body but was Made alive, ( Born again) in His Spirit, Then Jesus came out of Hell as in Hades, and went to Hell as in Tartarus to proclaim His victory over Spiritual death and Hell to the fallen angels who are in prison. 2 Pet 2: 4. Jude 6. Then Jesus went to Abraham's bosom to preach the gospel to those who were in there. 1 Pet 4: 6. It wasn't in the days of Noah like you say.

[@andrewhuffman1905]

Hey Matthew, I have a few questions about your exegesis. I'm currently working through this issue, and would love it if you could answer them! Love your videos! 1. Why did you take the relative pronoun, ὅ, in v. 21 the way you did? The way you translated it, which does seem to carry in to the rest of your explanation ("baptism now saves you as an antitype"), makes ο ... αντιτυπον adverbial so as to modify the meaning of σωζει. Can you substantiate this? I'm unaware of an adverbial use of the relative pronoun. The reading, "baptism, which is an antitype [to salvation through the flood] , now saves you" (the relative pronoun phrase restricting the meaning of "baptism" rather than the meaning of "saves") seems like a much more natural way to take the text. 2. Perhaps I misunderstood, but could you clarify how you took the third phrase in v. 21 (συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν)? Because, grammatically, it seems to me like this clause should be taken as modifying σωζει, such that Peter is saying "Baptism saves, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but baptism does save you as an appeal to God for a good conscience." Checking with translations, this is how the NIV takes it at least. But, if it is to be taken like this, it certainly seems exegetically viable (and, I think, correct), to make baptism the means by which the "appeal to God for a good conscience" is made; i.e., baptism, much more than a removal of dirt from the body, is an appeal, etc. That seems to respect the adverbial force which the clause undoubtedly has. But that certainly seems to support a view of baptismal regeneration. Could you critique my exegesis? There's definitely room in here for me just misunderstanding, so I'd love to hear your thoughts!

[@mathete9968]

If you understand Greek then you should immediately see that "Baptism" is in the nominative case and "us" is accusative case. Baptism is CLEARLY the subject of the verb. Baptism is clearly doing the action and we are passive recipients. We see the same pattern consistently in all baptism texts. Compare the Greek grammar of Act's 2:38; Acts 22:16 and 1 Corinthians 6:11 for example. In each of these man is passive and the verbs indicate that in baptism God is working not man.

[@andrewhuffman1905]

@@mathete9968 Of course, I'm aware of that. That's why every translation takes it "baptism ... saves you." The exgetical question then is how do the adverbial clauses restrict the sense of σωζει. Clearly Peter is correcting some misunderstanding (hence the corrective conjunction αλλα), but what is the view which he is correcting? I don't see any exegetical issue with taking the text as I did above, so I was asking another opinion.

[@mathete9968]

​@@andrewhuffman1905 BAPTISM NOW SAVES US I had a great breakthrough on this verse after realising that Hebrews 10:22 is in fact a sister text to 1 Peter 3:21 and very much parallel. This allows us to apply the Scriptural Rules of Exposition Compare Scripture with Scripture. (1 Corinthians 2:13). The other Scripture Rule of Exposition which applies here is 1 Peter 4:11 which holds us to Scripture Alone , and therefore to the grammar of the text (See also Nehemiah 8:8). The other truly wonderful thing about the parallel sister text to 1 Peter 3:21 in Hebrews 10:22 is the fact that the writer to the Hebrews in chapter 10:22 makes a direct allusion to the New Covenant promise in Ezekiel 36:25 which happens to be a clear reference to Baptism. Then will I sprinkle CLEAN WATER upon you, and YOU SHALL BE CLEAN. From all your filthiness, and from all your idols, WILL I CLEANSE YOU (Ezekiel 36:25) "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies WASHED with PURE WATER." (Hebrews 10:22) Let us observe then the common thread to all three texts: 1) The Hebrew and Greek words translated "CLEAN / PURE" are interchangeably translated. Therefore we find that in the LXX, in Ezekiel 36:25, the same root words are used as in Hebrews 10:22 ὕδωρ καθαρός - PURE WATER Only the case endings are changed to suit the grammatical purposes of each passage (The LXX uses the accusative case and the NT uses the dative case). But the expression: ὕδωρ καθαρός - PURE WATER Is a clear example of the Apostolic principle: "We speak ... IN THE WORDS ... which the Holy Spirit teaches" 2) All three texts teach that the body gets the water, but the soul / conscience gets the cleansing - In Ezekiel 36:25 God himself cleanses the sinner of his filthiness, exactly as David teaches in Psalm 51:2, 7 - In Hebrews 10:22 the body has been WASHED (same root Greek word used of Baptism in Acts 22:16) but the conscience has been sprinkled (Cleansed / Purified) - In 1 Peter 3:21 Baptism is the subject of the verb which is active and imperfective. The body receives the water, yet it is not the defilement of physical dirt which is bathed away in baptism but rather sin. For this reason the Apostle uses ἀλλὰ concerning Baptism's relationship to the resurrection of Christ in securing a good conscience for the sinner. Recall that Paul teaches the same thing concerning the resurrection of Christ. The KJV has: Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again FOR our justification. (Romans 4:25) But this is not correct. The Greek preposition διὰ is used in conjunction with the accusative case δικαίωσιν Such that: διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν Means: "On account of our justification" Objective Justification is taught everywhere in Scripture (Zephaniah 3:15; Psalm 85:2, 3; Isaiah 12:1, 2; Ezekiel 16:63; and 2 Corinthians 5:19) But that we are justified in Christ's resurrection is also taught in Hosea 6:2. For God accepted his Son and by raising him declares that he accepted his perfect righteousness. Christian Baptism is not Baptism without content. It is founded upon Jesus Christ. And it is for this reason that Peter , preached Baptism. Having stated that God RAISED Jesus Christ from dead (Acts 2:24) Peter preached BAPTISM in the name of this RISEN Lord, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. Indeed Baptism now saves us. It saves us on account of Christ and is founded upon his propitiatory death on the cross and his resurrection. Peter can state that Baptism saves in that it is the answer if a good conscience. For Baptism is the work of God, not man and is done for the sake of man. Notice that in Baptism, our sins are WASHED AWAY: "...Arise, and be baptized, and WASH away thy sins ..." (Acts 22:16) The same root word ἀπολούω is used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:11 where he uses "WASHED" as a peririphrasis for "BAPTISM" And it is the cognate noun of the verbs: ἀπολούω and λούω namely , λελουσμένοι That is used in Hebrews 10:22. Moreover the related cognate noun forms λουτρόν and λελουμένος That are used in Ephesians 5:26 of and John 13:10 . Can you see the picture emerging now? In - Ezekiel 36:25 - John 13:8, 10 - Ephesians 5:25, 26 It is the Lord who MUST BATHE / WASH the church clean of her sins. And this he does in Holy Baptism. But notice that in the sister texts of 1 Peter 3:21 and Hebrews 10:22 it is the body that gets the water BUT it is the conscience that receives the cleansing. This explains that curious expression: PURE WATER (ὕδωρ καθαρός) It is not the water that is CLEAN or PURE. Rather it is BY means of WATER that Christ has willed to PURIFY / CLEANSE His church, on the basis of His sacrificial death upon the cross. Christ also loved the church, and GAVE HIMSELF for it; That he might sanctify and CLEANSE IT WITH the WASHING OF WATER along with The Word" (Ephesians 5:25, 26) Note: ἐν ῥήματι Is in the dative case. It is used instrumental here. It would be precisely the same construction if an ancient Greek were to say "He washed his hands using water along with soap" The natural sense of the text is that Christ gave himself (upon a cross at Calvary) in order to sanctiify and CLEANSE his church using Baptism in conjunction with his Word. And in Baptism we place the triune name of God upon all those Baptized. God truly operates in all places where his name is recorded and he blesses those upon whom his name is placed (Numbers 6:23-27, Exodus 20:24) For this reason Jesus willed that the new birth be a single birth of both WATER and The SPIRIT.

[@manuelpitman]

Lol 😂 a conversation. Redeemed Zoomer ✝️ is awesome 😎

[@distaff2935]

It seems to me, that the reason why people are so quick to take verses out of context is that when the greater passage is so murky, the reader grabs the one part they can clearly understand, and will hang onto it like a life line. Even with meticulously tedious explanations, it is still a confusing book. Praying for clarity.

[@l.c.4618]

Churches of Christ would contend that people are saved through faith and not by the water. The water has no salvific efficacy. However, ones faith is activated, so to speak, during the time of baptism. In other words, you are saved through faith alone, however, the time of salvation happens in baptism. Baptism by itself, has no power if divorced from faith. How would you respond to that in light of 1 peter 3 21.

[@acaswell84]

Watching the redeemed zoomed video, and now you video here makes a lot more sense, I think it is a great response, let the scriptures be clear.

[@zachsmith8916]

Yeah I appreciate this video. I’m not Presbyterian but I appreciate that he’s actually going to the Bible to make his case rather than just stating that”This is the reformed view of Baptism” as laid out by a confession. I’m not against confessions but I feel like redeemed zoomer’s case was largely based on his interpretation of the historic confessions not the Bible.

[@acaswell84]

Yeah, I think weakness in RZ argument is the way he uses the confessions. They were set up to interpret each other, and you can tell that is how he readings them he uses the Scott’s as the lens to read the Westminster. Now it could be argued if that was the intent of the confessions but I don’t think that is there intent.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

​@@zachsmith8916He did use Scripture in his video but yeah the main focus was on the confessions and the Reformes (Tradition) but that should not be a bad thing if it is in harmony with Scripture since we are not restauracionists.

[@zachsmith8916]

@@pedroguimaraes6094 To be honest I’ve never found Zoomer’s biblical arguments to be very convincing when I hear him. But even when he does get into scripture I mostly hear a confirmation bias towards his high church interpretation of those creeds. Even though I as a Baptist fundamentally disagree with Everhard on the doctrine of Baptism I really have never gotten that impression from him. Everhard always seems to engage with the text first then with the confession.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

@@zachsmith8916 I see, we need to have in mind that , in the end of the day, RZ is not a pastor and did not go to a seminary. However, in his defense, Confessions are just documents that provide a interpretations of the Scripture and if they are align with It (and as a Presbyterian i think that the WCF is) It is ok to used them. I think that it is good that he is faithful to the reformed tradition and i don't see any contradiction between his video and the Bible but i understand that there a lot of great people who hold a different view.

[@blchamblisscscp8476]

Pastor, since you were talking about the Westminster Confession editions...I have an 1861 edition, authorized at the Augusta, GA General Assemby. It does contain proofs (a great many). I had to have it rebound in order to keep it in use. Also has the longer and shorter catechisms.

[@bonniemoerdyk9809]

How cool!

[@blchamblisscscp8476]

@@bonniemoerdyk9809 Thanks. I'm not sure how many people get the inference that the authorization was in 1861, in Augusta. In Confederate States of America, Georgia. I think my printing is 1963, but it's the same 1861 authorization. As a historical item, I think it's cool.

[@Jordan-1999]

Interesting, the NKJV reads.. *18* _For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, _*_19_*_ by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, _*_20_*_ who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water._ *21* _There is also an antitype which now saves us-baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, _*_22_*_ who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him._

[@volmania5329]

What software are you using with the Greek translation and dictionary?

[@steverentfrow2415]

Thanks for your video! The places where you used the word "Clearly" were disingenuous; because if it were "clearly..." then Luther and the church fathers wouldn't have held to baptismal regeneration. I mean try to find one that didn't! You seem to missuse the word baptism at times. Baptism is not water, it is with water. So when you saywater doesn't wash away sin, you are correct! Water can't do such things; but baptism can and does. Baptism is the word (of promise) with the water. Can the pool of siloam give sight to the blind? Can saliva give the ability to speak to the one who is mute? Can the Jordon wash away leprosy? Of course not; but what if God put His promise, His word, in those places? Then it is the word in the water. It is baptism that saves, not water by itself that Peter is affirming. This same Peter who told the people on the day of Pentecost "Repent and be baptized and you shall receive the Holy Spirit..." In "Clear words", you will be saved! Peter says baptism is NOT washing away the filth of the body. But you said it is only washing the body; But Peter says it doesn't. Why? Because that's what water does, not baptism, baptism gives you a good conscience because it washes away sin, that which water cannot wash away. Now Peter's point here, I believe, is greater than just saying it doesn't take dirt from the body. He is saying that baptism doesn't remove our inclination toward sin; it doesn't remove our sin nature. (But this isn't a needed discussion here until you see the efficacy of baptism as Peter, as well as Paul, and Jesus teach. "HE who believes and is baptized shall be saved." Saying the sane thing isn't He? Don't you know all who have been baptized died with Christ, buried with him in baptism. And too clothed yourselves with Christ in baptism. Noah and his family were truly saved by the judgment waters; and this was but a type of an eternal salvation by which we are saved in our baptism. "But the thief wasn't baptized!", one objects. This is true, he wasn't; and yet he was saved by the word of Christ, the living water. How does that disagree with Jesus and his disciples like Peter and Paul, that baptism saves, unites you to Christ and clothes you with His righteousness? Jesus spoke to that thief, His promise. Jesus said to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven." In Baptism the word is being spoken directly to us. God is putting His Name on us. The Apostle John says "I write on to you children because your sins are forgiven (You are saved) for his Names sake." Clearly a baptismal expression! "But we aren't saved by baptism, but by Christ", one objects. That's like saying faith didn't save you but Christ saved you. Noah wasn't saved by the water but the Ark... it is because it is by Christ alone that it is by grace through faith. It is because of the gospel, the word of promise, that it is by the water of baptism. The antetype is greater than the type. Baptism is a grater flood and washes away sin and lifts us up to God in Christ. Just as the scriptures teach. Let no one beguile you, like the serpent did Eve, from the simplicity that is in Christ! Baptism now saves you!

[@JosephClay]

Definitely took too long to explain and used a lot of presuppositions. Maybe we should just believe what it says. Peter said baptism was for remission of sins although most contradict him saying it’s a public confession of our faith in Christ. Can’t find that anywhere in the Bible. Perfect way to explain truth into oblivion.

[@mathete9968]

Baptism DOES NOW save (1 Peter 3:21) Baptism DOES NOT save (2 Opinions 12:33) WHICH POSITION DO YOU HOLD?

[@WC3isBetterThanReforged]

You can be saved outside of baptism but it's like if a doctor prescribes advil and you take aspirin. You might cure the sickness but it's not the prescribed way.

[@jerseyjim9092]

The simplicity of the gospel 😢

[@bobthrasher8226]

Why mention Noah's faith but not his work - building that thing took like 100 years? Building that Ark literally saved him from death. His faith led him to obey and build the Ark patterned after God's instruction (Heb 11). Both faith and work were involved in his "salvation."

[@robertwheeler1158]

I think that the text makes sense only if you presuppose believer's baptism. Baptism is the conscious, outward step one takes in faith to declare publicly one's allegiance to Christ. As such the person being baptized is asking God to give him a clean conscience.

[@zachsmith8916]

As a Baptist I agree but I’m glad he doesn’t take redeemed zoomer’s view.

[@_JazmynB]

Awesome breakdown, Dr. Matthew!

[@ablospaul1011]

How about Cornelius n his family. Why did Peter command him n his family to be baptized with water after they received the Holy Spirit?

[@raykidder906]

I believe no teaching of water baptism is complete unless reference is made to the verses in Romans 7 where it is mentioned how the death and resurrection experience of Romans 6 sets up the marriage unto Christ. This has to do with baptismal regeneration, or the baptismal death and resurrection promises through faith and hope for those who have received water baptism. Also, I commend some Lutherans for commenting on the connection between the baptism of John the Baptist and the recognition of the authority of Jesus in the temple.

[@SilentHistoryTx]

I disagree with your explanation of the verses. It goes against the clear reading of the text. The way you explained it doesn't make sense to me at all.

[@caleb7494]

Calvin believed in baptismal regeneration of the elect though. That quote was speaking of water itself, not the sacrament’s effectiveness and the quote by itself misrepresents his position

[@bobthrasher8226]

Your "third option" looks compelling except for the language which appears to suggest that Christ preached to "spirits in prison" which seems to indicate they had already suffered mortal death when Christ preached to them. In other words, Christ's preaching would not have made a difference in the final judgement for them whereas if he had preached before they died they could have repented - but this doesn't seem to be what the text is saying.

[@anthonypassalacqua3330]

I'm with you on this one as far as the meaning of Baptism, but I don't think I can agree with the when and where of your argument. There seems to me to be some interpretive license here, after all you know that this is not the only verse that speaks about this subject. So when Jesus died where did his Spirit go? Paul says Christ "Also descended first into the lower parts of the earth." Peter also says in 3:18,19, speaking of Christ, "Being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached to the spirits in prison ." This passage clearly teaches that Christ's Spirit went to the lower parts of the earth and preached to the spirits in prison. Also it was the Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead. Rom. 8:11. and it's by this same Spirit he descended into the lower parts of the earth. I guess if you relegate this to Noah's preaching it does take the mystery out of it

[@caedmonnoeske3931]

Discussed this in my Bible study last night.

[@alastairhopkins245]

Jesus said to the man on the cross next to him "today you will be with me in paradise". (Luke Chapter 23 Verse 43). Had this man been water baptized??? Water baptism happens because someone has been saved. Water baptism doesn't save. The recent coronation happened because Charles is now the King. The coronation didn't make Charles the King. Charles became the King when his mother - Queen Elizabeth the Second - died. A coronation for William or George would be nonsense as neither of them are King.

[@bluegorillacookies]

He literally says, "baptism saves you." You say "baptism doesn't save you." Peter clearly thought the water was important...not that just getting wet is enough, but the water and the appeal to God happen at the same time in biblical baptism.

[@contendingforthefaithradio5188]

True or False: > "Baptism now saves you?" Simple.

[@curtisjackson5567]

Excellent doctrine and interpretation brother!!!! Context is EVERYTHING❤️✝️💪🏻

[@mathete9968]

Woeful wresting of the text to Make it say the very opposite of the clear words

[@anselman3156]

Scripture is clear in teaching that baptism is the washing of regeneration, and that being born again is by water and the Spirit in baptism. Your doctrine, as exemplified in the quote given from the Westminster Confession at 23:02, makes a mockery of the sacrament of baptism, by the belief that some (or many?) who receive it are not given the grace which it is ostensibly offering, exhibiting and conferring. It must mar the sacrament for you when you solemnly baptize your infants but have at the back of your mind that for some of them this is an empty thing and a heart breaking mockery because God is choosing to withhold from them the grace it represents.

[@apracity7672]

The problem with this interpretation is that it is downstream from Sola Fide. Since Sola Fide is contrary to the clear teachings of Jesus and of the Apostles, lots of other doctrines, which are created through the lenses of Sola Fide, are also incorrect

[@wessbess]

Thank you for an excellent treatment of this passage, Pastor Matt. Another text to treat is Acts 2:38. Also It seems that Holy Spirit Baptism is neglected in this discussion. I Corinthians 12:13. How does this apply to the baptismal regeneration discussion?

[@mathete9968]

This talk is a woeful treatment of the passage. It wrest the text to Mahe it say the very opposite of the clear apostolic statement. It's ridiculous also to comment on word order, because Greek does not rely on word order but on case grammar. Here "BAPTISM" is in the nominative case and "US" is in the accusative case. The verb "SAVE" is present tense (imperfective, ongoing). This makes it very clear grammatically. - Baptism is the subject of the verb. (ie Baptism is most definitely carrying out the action of the verb) - We are the object of the verb. Baptism is operating actively on us. We are passive in baptism which is perfectly Consistent with grammar also of Act's 2:38; Acts 22:16 and 1 Corinthians 6:11. In each case Baptism is in view and the person baptized is passive according to the Greek text. Baptism is active in the Greek verbal usage. Baptism really saves because it is the Lord working in Baptism (Ezekiel 36:25/ Hebrews 10:22; John 13:8; Ephesians 5:25, 26)

[@andriesquinton1555]

Do you love the Covenanters, Matthew?

[@bluegorillacookies]

Well, when I was baptized in water, I didn't take a bar of Dove soap...in fact, the baptistry water was kinda dirty. I wasn't thinking, boy I gotta wash my skin off. But I WAS focused on being washed, buried and resurrected with Christ. I was making an appeal to God for a clean conscience. And, guess what? It was through FAITH in the working of God Colossians 2:11-12, Galatians 3:26 You started going wrong when you assumed "not the removal of dirt from the body" means "not actual water..." Peter is saying that it's not just getting wet. The efficacy isn't in the water, it is in the blood. But he is nevertheless saying that baptism saves you and making a direct connection to WATER.

[@JTHill-ed7qe]

Jesus says whosoever believes in me shall have everlasting life! Jesus also says, if you love me, you'll keep my commandments! Well what does he mean to believe in him? That he exists? That he is Lord? Well we know even Satan believes in Jesus divinity! So what does he mean by keep his commandments? Well, he tells you! It also says your not saved through your works but through grace alone so no one shall boast! This makes clear that you can't do anything to be saved but God knows the heart, and if you love Jesus naturally you'll want to keep his commandments! Baptism is very clear about what it is and what it means. I scratch my head at why people will do anything to explain away baptism like it's so difficult to get wet for a few minutes when he shed his blood for you! There is no secret code with it! It is exactly how it explains! I'd challenge you to read the story of the Eunoch from Ethiopia ( ACTS 8:26-40 ) And please explain how water baptism is not important or how I am missing some hidden message? God bless

[@mathete9968]

Who told you that being "immersed" in water is symbol of true baptism? - Neither immersion, NOR - NT Baptism using water = "a symbol" Are anywhere taught in Scripture. But do you not know that God forbids us to tell lies in his name ? (Deuteronomy 18:20; Proverbs 30:6; Jeremiah 23:31) You said: "Remember, Jesus was baptized, and the words DOWN INTO THE WATER, are right there for us all to see" [sic] Well, I would like to see them. Because none of the Gospels say any such thing regarding Jesus. But even if they did, that would not prove "immersion". Let's see why: The one Baptism in which men "went down into the water" occured in which BOTH Philip and the Ethiopian Went down into the water. (Acts 8:38) But then we read, following them both going down into the water: " AND HE BAPTIZED HIM" (Acts 8:38) So clearly the "going down into the water" together and the "coming up out of the water" (see verse 39) together WAS NOT THE BAPTISM. Do your argument proves too much. The one place where they both went down and both came up out of the water , preceded and followed the actual BAPTIZING. Now Greek is a picture language and all I can see here is two men making their way down into some water in order to carry out a Baptism and then two men ascending up out of that water on the side of the road.. In this respect I see exactly what is depicted frequently by those earliest of Christians in the catacombs: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Baptism_-_Saint_Calixte.jpg So in proving too much, in that the baptism was an independent event, the language of going down into the water and cominng up out of the water proves nothing at all.. Moreover, this is further attested in that both the baptized and baptizer went down into the water PRIOR to the BAPTISM and both men came up out of the water AFTER the BAPTISM. But it gets even better... In the Gospels of Matthew 3:16 , Mark 1:10 we read in our English versions of Jesus coming up out of the water. However there are two problems for your Baptist assumptions here. 1) We have already proved that a mere coming up out of water in no way is part of the baptism and no way proves the MODE of the verb BAPTIZE. But the Greek preposition is not "εκ" - "OUT" as the KJV suggests but rather "από" - "FROM" in both Gospel accounts. And the Greek grammarian Lenski is quick to point out that "απο" most definitely is used to signify the object which has already left the water. Greek is a picture language and the imagery conveyed here is that the Lord had already walked OUT of the water in which he was Baptized and was walking UP the river bank away FROM the water, when the Spirit descended upon him.. Jesus walked up, away from the water in the Greek New Testament text text. Period. And this means that in a blink of an eye, all those Hollywood depictions of the Spirit descending on Jesus in the water are simply WRONG. But ... IF in one instance BAPTISM may be shown to be carried out in any other mode in Scripture, THEN we have no basis whatsover for insisting that Baptism must be by immersion anymore. And we do have such a clear definite description given to us in Scripture. Now John said: I indeed - BAPTIZE you WITH WATER; but ... He shall - BAPTIZE you WITH the HOLY SPIRIT (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; Acts 11:16) So here John gives us a 1:1 parallel between - Baptizing WITH Water and - Baptizing WITH The Spirit But when Jesus quoted John in.Acts 1:5 he said: For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost NOT MANY DAYS HENCE. And when we're they all baptized WITH the Spirit ? Answer: In Acts chapter 2:2-4 "And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" But what did Peter say about this Baptism? THIS is THAT which was spoken by the prophet Joel; "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will POUR out of my Spirit upon all flesh" (Acts 2:17) And again in verse 33 Therefore being by the right hand .of God exalted, and having received of the Father THE PROMISE OF THE HOLY GHOST, he hath POURED FORTH THIS. So by this we learn that the MODE of Baptism in the day of Pentecost was by POURING and not by "Immersion" But it gets worse. Where do the Baptists get their imaginary Immersions from ? Certainly not the Greek New Testament! Dr James Dale spent 20 years in the latter part of the 19th century researching every single use of the verbs βαπτιχω and βαπτω (ie Baptizo and Bapto). What he found was that IN ALL GREEK LITERATURE βαπτιχω and βαπτω are never conflated, they are never confused and they are never used interchangeably. What Baptists practise is not immersion. It is dipping. So called "immersion" and "submersion" was the classical Greek meaning of Baptizo. It was and IMMODAL verb And it had NO reference to coming up again out of being submerged..indeed the classical Greeks used Baptizo if ships lost at sea. But what Baptists falsely insist upon is actually "Dipping" not "immersion". And the Greek verb for that is βαπτω ... Bapto. But the New Testament NEVER uses Bapto for any Baptism. Dr James Dale shows in his four vine series that the newly formed Baptist sects invented the concept that "Dipping is immersion" somewhere in the 1730s to 1740s. The respected Baptist historian Leon McBeth indeed proves that the Baptist religion did not exist until 1641. And by 1642, they were printing Baptist propaganda im.their tracts promoting not immersion but DIPPING. And by 1642, KJV translator, Dr Daniel Featley was openly debating the new sect and refuting their tracts . Clearly the Baptists of the following century obscured the difference between dipping and immersion in order to defend their sectarian ideas of baptism. But what do we see in the ancient art of the catacombs ? We see other modes of baptism including pouring . But it gets even better.. There is a Rule of Exposition known as "usus loquendi" which simply means that the common use of a word AND not it's etymology, which defines it's meaning. Now in Ecclesiasticus, (Ch 31/34) which was a Jewish book written in KOINE Greek along with the Old Testament we find the Jews using the Greek word βαπτιχω - Baptizo for the SPRINKLING of the Ash - Blood WATER of the heifer upon the people, described in Numbers 19. In Jewish use, all modes of purification using water were called BAPTISMS (Hebrews 6:2; Hebrews 9:10) It is for this reason therefore that Hebrews 10:22 alludes directly to Ezekiel 36:25 to show us that the sprinkling of water spoken of by Ezekiel is indeed a prophecy of Christian BAPTISM. So whilst we CAN absolutely prove that Sprinkling and Pouring were used in Baptism in New Testament usage, we are in the peculiar positition of bring unable to prove "Dipping" in the New Testament. Not that dipping in itself is wrong to use as a possible mode.. Moreover, the Lord shows us that the word "Baptism" really refers to Washings or Purifications. We see ample evidence of this in Mark chapter 7 where the Greek words νιπτο and βαπτιχω are used interchangeably and in Hebrews 6:2 and 9:10. Moreover we find more evidence that water purifications, called BAPTISMS, were carried out in Luke 11:38 Of Jesus we read: And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first WASHED before dinner. But there are three problems. - The word washed is ἐβαπτίσθη (Baptized) - The word ἐβαπτίσθη is the passive form of the verb βαπτιχω - The servants were the ones who washed the hands of guests, and they did this by POURING in all middle eastern lands. It is still done today in places like Afghanistan... The servant, or the host would POUR water over the hands and it would be collected into a bowl underneath. And we have such an example in the Bible: Here is Elisha the son of Shaphat, which POURED WATER on THE HANDS of Elijah. (2 Kings 3:11) Now the verb is passive, because the servants would have POURED the water over Jesus' hands. But he would not allow it because it would have involved agreement with the doctrines and traditions of men. The Pharisees had made their traditions binding upon consciences. (Mark 7) and Jesus would not go along with these . But now we find the same passive verb for Baptism (ἐβαπτίσθη), associated with POURING, used of the Baptism of Paul in Acts 9:18) And when Paul describes that same BAPTISM in Acts 22:16 he recalls the words used: Arise and be BAPTIZED and WASH AWAY THY SINS So in this we see that Baptism by Pouring is not only valid , it was used for WASHING and may well have been the mode of Paul's own Baptism. A

[@craigime]

9:25 just because it's the "reformed" interpretation, doesn't necessarily make it the correct one

[@ric_gatewood]

Ok Peter is mistaken. Baptism doesn't save.

[@steverentfrow2415]

I hope you read my reply to this video; and I hope it helps. Peter meant what he said 😊

[@jehiii5761]

Can you do also a video about the Holy Communion?

[@Yesica1993]

I'll finish hearing this later. But good grief, all people need to do is read even just the full sentence. This sort of thing happens all the time. People use the Bible in a way that they don't use any other book. We don't grab a book off the shelf, read a sentence or even just part of a sentence, and then expect to correctly understand what is being said. Why do we do that with the Bible? It drives me nuts. 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.

[@mrr7870]

So how does an infant, as Calvin stated "perceive the knowledge and certainty of such gifts in that sacrament"?

[@hewziheng]

The infant can perceive that when he grows up

[@mrr7870]

@@hewziheng Seems extraBiblical to me.

[@Yesica1993]

They can't. Which is why you don't baptize babies!

[@unit2394]

Because God Can and does work faith in infants, as the Psalmist said was done to him (Psalm 22:9) and as was done to John the Baptist in Elizabeth’s womb in the presence pf the unborn Christ in Mary’s womb (Luke 1:41-43). And they can have a greater appreciation and understanding of this faith as they grow older in the Faith.

[@mrr7870]

@@unit2394 So you spiritualize two verses, that aren't referring to baptism.....to refer and justify infant baptism. There's a word called "extrabiblical". You should research it.

[@manuelpitman]

Possibly #4 Messiah announced his victory over the Sons of God of Genesis 6.

[@sbs8331]

Agreed. This also aligns with and explains Jude 7.

[@sarahsucupira3238]

Interesting how i’ve never heard of this seen that our bible in portuguese uses the anti type figure 😅 surely good translations avoid a lot of discussions

[@tomtemple69]

the "not as a removal of dirt from the body" denotes a baptism of the Holy Spirit by Jesus, not water baptism

[@PizzaDisguise]

There seems to be other things going on in this passage. For example, there’s that interesting part where spiritual beings have been subjected to Jesus at the end of verse 22. I don’t think that’s a throwaway, it must relate somehow to the analogy.

[@PizzaDisguise]

Another example, my brothers & sisters… look farther down in chapter 4. 1 Peter 4:4 [4] With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you; Noah didn’t go to heaven after the end of the flood, but he did live the rest of his life on earth separated from the way things were before the flood. The water saved him from the sinfulness of the fallen Watchers and the men who were corrupted by them. Peter could also be thinking that Jesus wants us to be respectful to people trapped under the spiritual dark powers of today. Even the “appeal to God” could be an appeal made to unbelievers (see Paul). 2 Corinthians 5:11 [11] Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience.

[@PizzaDisguise]

1 Peter 3:18 [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, It seems the point of our suffering is to bring other people to God, just as Jesus did. Baptism is a kind of death to the world in order to do the will of God. 1 Peter 4:1-2 [1] Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same way of thinking, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, [2] so as to live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for human passions but for the will of God.

[@JTHill-ed7qe]

19:30. You just proved the point! Maybe not in the way you were expecting. Jesus says repent the kingdom is near! So what do you do when you become saved? First you CONFESS you believe Jesus is Lord, he died for our sins, rose on the third day and concured sin so we. Could be saved through him. And we do what? REPENT of our sins? You can't just simply say I believe in Jesus. We also have to turn from our sins? So how do we do so? We baptize in the life, burial and resurrection of Jesus with repentance so we can become a new ( born again like Jesus told Nicodemus ). Now imagine our Lord suffering on that cross for you but people wanting to just say a quick little prayer once and move on!

[@GraceGiftedMercyGranted]

If you believe water baptism saves you then you most certainly aren’t saved. Sola Fide

[@heavenbound7-7-7-7]

Water baptism doesn't save ex opere operato, baptism is a work of God and it's received by faith.

[@heavenbound7-7-7-7]

@@GraceGiftedMercyGranted "The Holy Spirit in no way enters us because of this obedience." "And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38

[@heavenbound7-7-7-7]

@@GraceGiftedMercyGranted "The Gospel is being perverted holding to this false teaching." Was the gospel perverted by the reformation?

[@heavenbound7-7-7-7]

@@GraceGiftedMercyGranted "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." John 3:5

[@davidhiramreyes6490]

@@GraceGiftedMercyGrantedThe reformation is much more than the 5 sola’s, friend. Plus the sola’s are not in any of the creed.

[@luisperez3979]

"Being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly didn't obey". This is clear, its meaning is clear, the sintaxis of the verses is straight and your interpretation doesn't agree with the plain and only meaning of this passage. It clearly says that Jesus died on the Cross but His spirit was made alive and didnt suffer the punishment in Hell but went and proclaimed to spirits in prisons in Hell. These spirits belonged to people that didn't obey in Noah's days. Yes, these people were given another chance, being the only ones that received it, because in their days, there were angels on earth living among humans as gods as it is made known to us in Genesis 6. They were exposed to a different type of society than any other human beings have experienced. Myths and stories of gods in the whole planet come from this time. God had mercy on them and sent them His son in spirit after the death on the Cross.

[@carmensiekierke3579]

The podcaster you are referring to just posted a video against conspiracy theories. He believes in evolution. He thinks 24 hour-days and seven day creationism comes from SDA and Ellen G. White. Sigh. Answers In Genesis deals with the misleading of using Ellen G. White.

[@wmarkfish]

What’s wrong with giving honor to the sacrament, water in and of itself does not save you any more the Welch’s grape juice is Jesus’ blood but we honor it as such and so baptism is salvific. What’s with you people, are you cats afraid of water?

[@frednaumann992]

Matt I would have to respectfully disagree with you. Noah was not saved via then Ark the verse says through water. Please stop changing scripture. Please also note what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10 1-2 that supports the Peter verse. You are missing that baptism is with water and God's command that is efficacious. Ask yourself why did God send the flood? Maybe expand on what the history of Baptism is and why we don't have disputes in the Bible or later of what does until the 1600 century.

[@Fred_the_Head]

Someone better inform the thief on the cross.

[@catholictruth102]

You should inform me on the verse which says he wasn’t baptized.

[@joshuacherian6718]

There is a spirit baptism...and it involves speaking in tongues and prophecy etc.. which is claimed by many ...but i have never seen one. Charismatics say their baptism is spirit one...but the sounds they make r earthly and fraud. Traditional churches say their water baptism involves spirit baptism automatically.. but i have seen no signs of it either..