Gospel Confusion...

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
LightBearer316 said:
That is a common misunderstanding of 1 Peter 3:21, but Peter actually explains what he means right in the same sentence.
“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 3:21 KJV)​
​
Peter is careful to say what kind of baptism he’s talking about—not the external washing (“not the putting away of the filth of the flesh”), but the inward appeal or “answer of a good conscience toward God.”

That word answer (eperōtēma) in Greek means pledge, request, or appeal—it’s the heart’s response of faith.
So Peter is describing salvation through the reality baptism symbolizes—union with Christ in His death and resurrection (“by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”).

If water itself saved, he wouldn’t have added the clarification that it’s not about washing the flesh.
Just as Noah’s family was saved by being in the ark, not by the water that drowned the world, we are saved by being in Christ, not by the water that represents that union.

Basically....
  • Peter uses baptism as a figure—a symbol of the inner reality of salvation.
  • The saving element is the resurrection of Christ, received by faith, not by the physical act of immersion.
  • The verse explicitly denies that it’s about outward washing.
So 1 Peter 3:21 actually supports your point, not his. It shows baptism is a symbolic appeal of faith, not the instrument of salvation.

Grace and Peace
Click to expand...

Peter plainly says in that verse that water baptism saves us. It is the antitype of Noah being saved by water. He also plainly says that water itself doesn't cleanse a fleshly heart, but it is a petition to God to do so. So it logically follows that spiritual circumcision is contingent upon that petition expressed through water baptism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ouch
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Peter plainly says in that verse that water baptism saves us. It is the antitype of Noah being saved by water. He also plainly says that water itself doesn't cleanse a fleshly heart, but it is a petition to God to do so. So it logically follows that spiritual circumcision is contingent upon that petition expressed through water baptism.
Click to expand...
That response is polished rhetoric — but it’s theologically inconsistent and grammatically flawed in light of Peter’s own wording.
Notice carefully how Peter structures his statement — he’s distinguishing the figure from the reality, not merging them.

“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us — not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God — by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 3:21 KJV)​

If baptism itself were the saving act, Peter wouldn’t have immediately qualified it with “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.”
That phrase rules out the physical water as the saving means.
Instead, the saving reality is “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

The Greek term antitupos (“antitype”) literally means corresponding figure — the thing that represents something greater.
Noah’s family was saved from judgment by being in the ark, not by the water that brought judgment on the world.
Likewise, believers are saved by being in Christ, not by the water that symbolizes that union.

Your statement that spiritual circumcision is “contingent upon” water baptism reverses Paul’s teaching in Colossians 2:11–12.
There, Paul explicitly says this “circumcision made without hands” is the work of God, not of man — and that the saving element is faith in the operation of God, not the act of immersion.

So baptism signifies our appeal to God; it doesn’t cause the new birth.
The saving power rests in Christ’s resurrection, received by faith, not by ritual.

“Ye are complete in Him… buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God.” (Col 2:10-12 KJV)​
​
I can tell you really haven't read 90% of what I've responded to you with.​
​
Grace and peace in Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan and Inquisitor
LightBearer316 said:
That response is polished rhetoric — but it’s theologically inconsistent and grammatically flawed in light of Peter’s own wording.
Notice carefully how Peter structures his statement — he’s distinguishing the figure from the reality, not merging them.

“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us — not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God — by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 3:21 KJV)​

If baptism itself were the saving act, Peter wouldn’t have immediately qualified it with “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.”
That phrase rules out the physical water as the saving means.
Instead, the saving reality is “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

The Greek term antitupos (“antitype”) literally means corresponding figure — the thing that represents something greater.
Noah’s family was saved from judgment by being in the ark, not by the water that brought judgment on the world.
Likewise, believers are saved by being in Christ, not by the water that symbolizes that union.

Your statement that spiritual circumcision is “contingent upon” water baptism reverses Paul’s teaching in Colossians 2:11–12.
There, Paul explicitly says this “circumcision made without hands” is the work of God, not of man — and that the saving element is faith in the operation of God, not the act of immersion.

So baptism signifies our appeal to God; it doesn’t cause the new birth.
The saving power rests in Christ’s resurrection, received by faith, not by ritual.

“Ye are complete in Him… buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God.” (Col 2:10-12 KJV)​
​
I can tell you really haven't read 90% of what I've responded to you with.​
​
Grace and peace in Christ.
Click to expand...

You don't read what I write very carefully. I said water baptism is a petition to God to cleanse the heart, not that water itself does anything. Water was the type in Noah's day, and water baptism is the antitype that Peter clearly says saves us. The water itself doesn't save us, but it used as a symbolic means of petitioning God to cleanse us does save us.
 
Cameron143 said:
How does one lose the Spirit that indwells them? How is someone unborn from above?
Click to expand...

Again, gnostic sentiment. We have been conceived, but not fully born. Full birth happens at the resurrection. Still birth is a possibility as it is written

It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. 2 Timothy 2:11-13​

I don't see delivered from the womb in this word that is often translated born

G1080 γεννάω gennao (ǰen-naō') v.
1. (properly, of the father) to procreate.
2. (by extension, of the mother) to conceive.
3. (figuratively) to regenerate.
 
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
You don't read what I write very carefully. I said water baptism is a petition to God to cleanse the heart, not that water itself does anything. Water was the type in Noah's day, and water baptism is the antitype that Peter clearly says saves us. The water itself doesn't save us, but it used as a symbolic means of petitioning God to cleanse us does save us.
Click to expand...

That response shows ChristRoseFromTheDead is now changing terms to sound closer to my view while still smuggling in the same false premise — that the act of baptism “saves” as a necessary channel of grace.

You've just shifted the wording, but the claim remains the same — that salvation occurs through the act of baptism.
Peter never says that. He says baptism “saves” only in a figurative sense, and then immediately defines how: “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”


The “petition of a good conscience” is an appeal made in faith, not a ritual performed to earn cleansing.
If salvation requires an act, it’s no longer by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9).
The moment we turn a symbol of faith into a requirement for faith, we’ve replaced the gospel with a ceremony.


Noah’s family wasn’t saved by the water that drowned the world — they were saved from it, because they were in the ark.
And likewise, only those who are in Christ—by faith—are saved.


Grace and peace in Him alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Again, gnostic sentiment. We have been conceived, but not fully born. Full birth happens at the resurrection. Still birth is a possibility as it is written

It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. 2 Timothy 2:11-13​

I don't see delivered from the womb in this word that is often translated born

G1080 γεννάω gennao (ǰen-naō') v.
1. (properly, of the father) to procreate.
2. (by extension, of the mother) to conceive.
3. (figuratively) to regenerate.
Click to expand...
You are either born or you are not. You are either born again or you are not. No one spends their lifetime being born. Nature tells us this.
 
LightBearer316 said:
That response shows ChristRoseFromTheDead is now changing terms to sound closer to my view while still smuggling in the same false premise — that the act of baptism “saves” as a necessary channel of grace.

You've just shifted the wording, but the claim remains the same — that salvation occurs through the act of baptism.
Peter never says that. He says baptism “saves” only in a figurative sense, and then immediately defines how: “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to clarify, you perpetual critic, Stop attributing bad intentions to everyone that disagrees with you. It comes across that you don't read carefully, and then say I'm shifting my position or wording when I try to correct your misunderstanding
 
LightBearer316 said:
Noah’s family wasn’t saved by the water that drowned the world — they were saved from it, because they were in the ark.
Click to expand...

It can be viewed that the water lifted Noah and family above God's wrath just as the antitype of baptism lifts believers above God's wrath through the resurrection of Christ.
 
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
I'm trying to clarify, you perpetual critic, Stop attributing bad intentions to everyone that disagrees with you. It comes across that you don't read carefully, and then say I'm shifting my position or wording when I try to correct your misunderstanding
Click to expand...
That’s righteous judgment—just testing claims by Scripture.
Let’s keep it there.

Peter’s wording is precise:

“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us—not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God—by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Pet 3:21)​
Three textual points:
  1. Figure (antitupos). Peter calls it a figure/correspondence, not the saving substance.
  2. Not the flesh. He explicitly rules out the external act as the saving means.
  3. By the resurrection. He states the saving cause: Christ’s resurrection, received by faith (cf. Col 2:12: “through the faith of the operation of God”).
Calling water baptism a petition doesn’t change that the text grounds salvation not in the rite but in Christ’s resurrection. The petition is the heart’s appeal of faith, which baptism signifies, not causes.

I’m content to let these verses speak for themselves.

Grace and peace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan
LightBearer316 said:
Peter’s wording is precise:

“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us—not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God—by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Pet 3:21)Three textual points:
Click to expand...

That's not a good translation. Look at the one I posted earlier. It says that the antitype, water baptism, or immersion, now also saves us as the type saved Noah.
 
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
It can be viewed that the water lifted Noah and family above God's wrath just as the antitype of baptism lifts believers above God's wrath through the resurrection of Christ.
Click to expand...

That sounds beautiful, but it’s not what Peter actually says.
In 1 Peter 3:20-21, the water was the agent of judgment, not of salvation — it destroyed “the world of the ungodly.” Noah’s family was saved through the water only because they were in the ark, the place of safety God provided.

The antitype Peter identifies isn’t “water lifting us,” but baptism as a figure of being in Christ, whose resurrection delivers us from wrath. The saving power is “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” not by the water itself.

So even in Peter’s own imagery, the water represents judgment overcome, while **the ark—and for us, Christ—**is what truly saves.

Grace and peace in Him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Again, gnostic sentiment. We have been conceived, but not fully born. Full birth happens at the resurrection. Still birth is a possibility as it is written

It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. 2 Timothy 2:11-13​

I don't see delivered from the womb in this word that is often translated born

G1080 γεννάω gennao (ǰen-naō') v.
1. (properly, of the father) to procreate.
2. (by extension, of the mother) to conceive.
3. (figuratively) to regenerate.
Click to expand...
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Human babies spend 9 months being born
Click to expand...
First you say full birth happens at the resurrection. Then birth is in 9 months. You go back and forth between natural and spiritual birth without making any connections.
 
Cameron143 said:
First you say full birth happens at the resurrection. Then birth is in 9 months. You go back and forth between natural and spiritual birth without making any connections.
Click to expand...

I was trying to counter your point that being born doesn't extend over a period of time. In human babies it takes 9 months from conception to full birth. In us that time period lasts from the moment we are conceived by the spirit until we are fully born into eternal life at the resurrection.
 
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
I was trying to counter your point that being born doesn't extend over a period of time. In human babies it takes 9 months from conception to full birth. In us that time period lasts from the moment we are conceived by the spirit until we are resurrected and fully born into eternal life.
Click to expand...
I said it doesn't extend until the resurrection which is at the end. Thus, being born physically doesn't extend to the end. Neither does spiritual birth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back