Reformed Baptist and Church of Christ discuss 1 Peter 3:21 :: Part 1

He's using Romans.

1 Peter 3:21 and the Question of Noah’s Salvation

You're on Truth or Proof.

Travis, what's going on man?

What's wrong with your buddy Trey?

Hey, I just, I wanted to know how to preach on Sunday, so we...

I'm talking about 1 Peter 3 .21 tonight.

Okay, let me, so I got the light on in the car, so let me turn there.

Well, if you're driving, you probably don't need to read your Bible. Sup Cameron? Alright, so 1 Peter 3 .21, I asked Trey to explain it. And he wanted to go off on some other subjects. And he invited me on y 'all's program.

And I already kind of talked to you, Jeremiah, and you understood, at least from the Scriptures, that I have came to the point where I have to withdraw from Trey. He's a brother. The Bible says to withdraw, to avoid him.

You know, we've already had our debates. But you're more than welcome to call in any time, okay? Oh, I said, you're more than welcome to call.

What if Trey wasn't...

Are you talking about like a live stream?

Yeah, we're going to do a live stream tomorrow where we can just continue more discussion about the Scripture. And do a respectful dialogue. I was going to say, we could open it up again tomorrow to do something like that also.

Well, what time tomorrow? I got a fishing tournament.

That's a good question. I'll keep in touch with you tomorrow.

Well, before, I would like for you, and I'm not going to cut you off or anything, but I would like for you to explain 1 Peter 3, 20 and 21. And give me what you think on this.

Sure. And we can go back and forth a little bit too, because I have some questions for you that I definitely... I know you're talking about, and just for reference,.

I'd rather you not talk about the Brethren more on a live show, because I love my Brethren.

No, that's fine. I just noticed you didn't mind talking to other people.

Well, Trey called in. I just got off the phone with Trey. You was probably listening to him.

Yeah. No, I understand.

Okay. So what's your... And I asked him before I was... I mean, he had the opportunity. I was really wanting someone to call in and explain this, because I had studied this for about two or three hours today.

Sure.

1 Peter 3, 20 and 21. What's your... If you would have Cameron read that expression.

No, no. I can read it. He's driving. I want him to stay on it.

Yeah.

Wait, wait. What translation?

ESV.

Okay. Let me switch over to that, because I had something different. All right. Go ahead.

It's the elect standard version.

Okay. Go ahead.

Okay.

Okay.

So, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah...

Okay.

Now, this right here, because they formerly did not obey, who's that talking about?

Okay.

And when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, I think the King James says God's longsuffering... Let me look at my Bible.

Yeah.

It says, when once the longsuffering of God... So, patience and longsuffering is right there. Whose part was that? I mean, you would agree that's God's part, right? Can you explain that? Like, was this part right here, was this when God was waiting for Noah to basically get finished with the ark?

Or what's your intake on when God's patience waited in the days of Noah?

So, you'll have to double check. I think Genesis 6 talks about how God's spirit will not always strive with man, like 120 years or something along those. I think that's what it's referring to, that God was longsuffering towards thoughts, as maybe Methuselah, waiting until he died before the judgment came.

Okay.

So, God's patience is part of the salvation, right?

Yes.

And what about us today? Is God's patience part of our salvation today?

I would think 2 Peter 3, 9 does talk about how God is longsuffering, not wanting or desiring that you should come to Him.

Yeah, well, you're close enough. It depends on what translation. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness, but is also longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Okay.

So, we have nothing really on that. While the ark was being prepared, that is, 8 souls were brought safely through water. Now, these 8 souls, that's Noah and his family, right? Okay, they were brought safely through water.

Do you have any objection on changing this to any kind of interpretation that it wouldn't say exactly what it says right here?

Sure.

Actually, I want to ask you a question. This is not a controversial point, but do you mind to read the King James Version after it says 8 persons? I want to illustrate something why I think being familiar with different translations is important.

Yeah.

But two things are always, context will always inform you how those words are being used. Is that okay to read the King James Version?

Yeah, I got it up here.

We're in a few. That is, 8 souls were saved by water. So, the word you want to look at is by or through, right?

Sure.

Now, hear me. I'm saying the King James is fine and the ESVS, any word-for-word translation is fine, but I do think this text is harder to understand because of how the King James is rendering. It's saying that they are literally being saved by water.

That's where the ESV kind of qualifies a little bit more.

Di.

Or brought safely through water. But they're saying the same thing. I just wanted to point that out.

That's the Greek word. Di, I guess, is how you say it.

Di.

Sure.

By, through.

Okay.

Do you think one translation really pushes something and one translation doesn't? Is that kind of what I'm getting?

No, I'm saying the King James is a good translation. How you can understand saved by water is really knowing the story of Noah to understand that he's really being saved. You would agree with me. It's the ark.

Water was being used as an instrument of judgment.

Do you also think how it says, though, it says 8 souls were saved by water. It doesn't say 8 souls were saved by the ark.

Right. That's what I think. If you understand, and I'm not saying you don't understand the story. I'm saying that if people understand the story that God was about to bring judgment on the whole world and faith.

You'll never hear me have a problem with saying obedient faith. But he was saved by the ark. That's what was salvific in that story.

Okay.

I think you would agree with me at that point. To me, I'm not trying to be shifty or anything.

Yeah, but let me ask you some questions about that. Would the ark have done any good if it didn't have no water? It would have floated up without water?

No, but God told it to build up.

Okay.

We all know who sent the water, right?

Yep.

So we can say that God saved Noah by sending the water. So he was saved by water.

People would just disagree at this point. Not to be contrary. But the way that I understand the story is the water was not salvific. It was an instrument of judgment. Most people agree with me. The ark is what God used to save Noah.

That's why God shut the door.

So you think that the ark is the anti-type?

Correct.

Okay.

Alright. Yeah, I'll look at that here in a minute when I get off the phone. But with the type of what the text is saying, you don't think that we could even say the gopher would save Noah?

Sure, the gopher would. And the construction of the ark, I see that as going together and Noah was being obedient.

What about the wind?

Go ahead.

What about the wind?

No, I don't think the wind was salvific.

In Genesis 8, 1 and 2, I'm talking about this was after the water starts subsiding, residing, whatever, and the wind was from God and it delivered the ark where it needed to go and it had part of them actually getting out of the ark, the exit.

I don't see the wind being salvific. Did God use that to guide the ark, I think, looking at it?

Well, this right here, let me ask you this. So you do believe the ark saved them. You just said that saved them.

Yeah.

Now, understand, I'm saying.

Okay, well, what I'm getting at is earlier when Trey called in, he said we were talking about what saves and he said that God alone saves, but you said the ark saves, and I'm fine with that because I think the Bible saves.

A couple things. If you don't want me to talk about it, but agree with me that we're talking about two different things. Noah is talking about salvation, meaning justification for our souls eternally.

So if he actually wouldn't have built the ark, would he have been saved, justified, like you're saying, with his soul?

So, good question. If we go back, and I can put the phone down and turn back to Genesis 6, because if we look, and I think it depends on the translation, it's saying the same thing, evil continually. I think it's around verse 5 and chapter 6.

And then later, I think around verse 9, it says that Noah—this answers your question, I think, directly. But Noah was just as sinful. He was a preacher of righteousness. He believed in the promises of God.

That's why he was being obedient in terms of his works because he had to change his heart by the grace of God. Is there any initial objections you have with that?

Yeah, there's a couple things, but I'm not going to go off on a rabbit trail.

No problem.

So, sometimes I feel like—and I can do that too— we say a lot, and we don't say nothing.

Okay, sorry. Go ahead.

Do you think he would have been saved, salvific, justified, if he would not have built the ark?

I think on one hand, in this hypothetical, if God said, hey, I want you to go build an ark, and then he kind of spit God, then I'm going to do my own thing, that would show that his heart isn't trusting in the promises of God.

Is that fair?

Okay.

I think that's all I'm going to get out of you.

Well, I had some questions for you since you've asked me a handful of times to join on your show. I really think maybe tomorrow we could do something in the studio, and I understand you not wanting to have a lot of interaction with Trey, but over time maybe that can change a little bit, and we can be flexible both ways.

Well, I've had other brethren do the same exact thing that he does, and it wouldn't be fair for me to continue to talk with him when they don't get to talk.

Gotcha. So, one question I have, and a lot of these I'll just try to think off the top of my head, but I've made some notes over time. Do you think the word baptism always means water, immersion?

As the element? I think it does mean immersion, but I don't think it's always the element of water.

Well, I appreciate you saying that because I talk to, and I'm not going to name anybody by name, but I talk to a ton. They're under the impression that baptism always means water. The context actually depends what you're being immersed into.

It could be immersed into one's authority. It could be immersed into a type of suffering, and those would be dry immersions, right?

Are you talking about preachers said this or members?

I don't really know their status, but they would just identify of the Church of Christ brand, and that's one of their arguments. And I've tried to say, look, I can help you make a better argument than what you're giving me because literally the definition for baptizmos, baptizo, doesn't always entail a wet immersion like you're getting it.

Okay, look.

Matthew 3 .11 says...

That's a wet immersion. I would agree that that's a wet one.

Well, I don't think all of it's wet.

Right. No, I'm agreeing with you. I'm glad to hear you say that because...

I'm talking about in that verse. I'm talking about in Matthew 3 .11 it says, But he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.

So you have two different elements, I guess you could say, right there.

I'm glad because I want to point these people back to a Church of Christ preacher saying, look, he's even pointing out that not all baptisms are water baptisms.

Well, right here is fire. It's the very opposite of water, and that's hail.

That's good. The water and the person's being saved in the ark, and the water is being used as an instrument of judgment. I want us to keep in mind, like you rightly pointed out, baptism does not always entail wet immersion.

Epistles versus the book. Epistles are meant to give us theology and doctrine. And so one way to show that baptism, I would say every time in the epistles is not referring to water baptism. It's clearly how Paul uses it in 1 Corinthians 10.

I think it's verse 2. You may have to double-check me on that. But we see that the people of Israel were baptized into Moses as the sea was being parted. So they weren't being immersed into the water of the sea.

They were baptized into the authority. What we see here is we kind of see that baptism, I disagree. He qualifies even further and says, hey, guys, not as a removal of I believe Peter is saying, guys, I'm not saying the water is salvific in any way, shape, or form.

In fact, it was the immersion of Jesus Christ. So a couple more things here. I would say Jesus is the ark of our salvation. When we look to him in saving faith, I would say a faith that realizes that you cannot do anything in order in terms of the works that we can do and we accomplish, whether that be works of law or whether that be a cleansing.

But I feel to God for a good I would say faith. Listen to me here in this text. But if you look with me earlier in this chapter 15, because he mentions a good conscience earlier and explains what that is.

So verse 15 of the ESV says, But in your heart the Lord is holy, always being prepared to make a defense for anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is in you. Yet do this with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ, you understand that as the divine name.

So in summary,.

Well, what's appeal? What's appeal mean?

So appeal is acknowledging who Christ is.

This says, but as an appeal, something, whatever this appeal is, is up here somewhere.

I have no problem with that. So let me say this summary sentence or two. So maybe we can tie it all together. You got the story of Noah. They were condemned along by God's grace by the ark. And that ark is a picture found in Jesus Christ alone.

And we have a good conscience. We have an appeal of a good conscience when we sanctify the Lord in our hearts. And we would understand that to be

All right, that's pretty much it as far as I'm going to go through it. And may play your explanation next week.

I'm curious before we hop off. What would be your immediate objection to say that baptism requires

Oh, the element. Actually, let me see here. So do you think that this is water baptism?

I think it's I don't. I think he's actually saying that it's not water baptism when he says not the removal of dirt from the flesh because a ceremonial bath would accomplish that.

Okay.

I think he's saying when he says not the removal of the filth of the flesh or the dirt, he's saying baptism is much more than just getting physically clean with soap and water.

Something else I appreciate about you, Travis, is you understand that interpretation means using our common vernacular that explains something by appealing to the context. And then all I hear back in return, I won't name names, is the Bible doesn't say that.

And I actually think you're setting a better model for people how to engage in reason and dialogue with one another.

Baptism, Immersion, and the Meaning of 1 Peter 3:21

Okay, let me go through these three right here. These are some objections, answering, and I think some of your arguments are in here. So do you want to hang on or

Sure.

We're not to Trey's neck of the woods yet, so lay it on me.

Okay.

So these are some arguments for the viewers that people would come up with, and I think Jeremiah has some of those. So let's say someone says, you cannot rightly state that water saved Noah just like baptism saves us.

For Noah was never in the water. He was in the ark. Since Noah stayed out of the water and was saved, how can salvation be compared with salvation by baptism? That's what some people would say. And I'm not talking I'm just talking to the viewers.

I'm teaching right now. Let me get through these three slides. Okay, number one, the answer is to argue against water saving Noah and to dismiss the parallel is to argue against God's Word God against God and His Word, because we're going to bring it up and read it again in a minute.

God made the argument, the parallel. The parallel is the flood, the water, and baptism. Now, Jeremiah says the ark and baptism is the parallel, but we're going to look at that. Is it God? It is God who stated that Noah was saved through water.

Now that is a direct statement from God's Word. God stated that Noah was saved through water. So here's another argument some people would say. Let me get through these two slides. Okay, someone says, You cannot prove that baptism in 1 Peter 3 .21 is water baptism.

Now, did you say it was or wasn't?

My position is it's clearly not talking about water baptism.

It's not, okay. So this one would kind of go with him.

So it says,.

Is water baptism Oh, you guys must be listening.

It's okay.

It's water baptism and not a kind of spirit baptism that man experienced. So do you believe it's Holy Spirit baptism or what kind of baptism?

Yeah, no, I think that's an excellent question. I would say Peter is trying to show, look, baptism, being immersed into Christ, is what is being talked about here. He's not talking about the water, the wet immersion, but it's being united together in Christ because he is the art that ties into Christ.

Now, you know, if you have Church of Christ audience, they say, Oh, you see, he disagreed with us. Well, I'm not talking about immersed in the wet sense. I'm talking about in the spiritual sense. We are united together.

Well, if this was water baptism, is that a pretty strong verse to promote water baptism?

Now, please don't take offense to this. I would say only if you read, baptism saves you. I think that's the only thing you could say. That sounds right until you read the verse before it and you read all of verse 21, which I believe gives the context of saying, Oh, it's not talking about a ceremonial bath that would wash away dirt from skin.

Okay, but see, if Peter says it's not a bath that removes dirt, what does that have anything to do? When you're talking about dirt, are you talking about like mud and grass? Are you talking about sin?

I think he's saying, look, this is my understanding of Peter. He is explaining, don't misunderstand what I'm teaching you with the story of Noah being a type of our salvation with God. Don't look to something like literal water that would literally wash away dirt from skin.

That's not what I'm talking about. Being immersed into Christ is the art of our salvation. I think that's his point here in this passage.

Now, if you was a Jew, do you think that you would have some kind of baggage about washings and Jewish rituals that involve water?

Yes, so there's a number of texts in the Old Testament.

You would, right?

Yeah, you would, I mean, right?

Right.

Let me say something.

If Peter told you that this baptism saves you, but it's not about the removal of the filth of the flesh because, see, you had a baggage that you thought all the time that you had these washing rituals, and so now this comes on the scene that you have to be immersed in water and you're confused, and Peter says, no, it's not that.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, I think there's probably been confusion about water being salvific even from the time of Pentecost, and so it seems like it'd be a really good time in a doctoral didactic epistle to show, look, that's not the thing that saves you, and so Peter's being crystal clear that nothing in your water baptism is the thing that's salvific, but it's having a good conscience in Jesus Christ, which we know is setting the Lord apart in our hearts, looking to Him and saving Him.

So you just kind of said, would you say then that there was some 1st century Christians that must have been teaching that baptism was required?

I think that that's probably been a confusing issue in general. That's going to give me a right.

So some people in the 1st century must have been teaching it, right?

Oh, yeah, I have no doubt that there's been false teaching ever since the dawn of time, and especially in the 1st century you had Gnosticism being taught. So this would have fell in their purview of teaching things, you know, secret knowledge or the faith.

I would say this is probably being more of Longs of Pharisee.

That's fine. That's fine. So let me get through this slide real quick. It says Peter's purpose as he ties the events in Noah's salvation to the events of one salvation today. So like you said, if you know the history of the story of Noah, and the flood, and the baptism, and the element of flood and water, we would only conclude that water is the prominent in the context, and it is what links baptism with the flood.

Again, the burden of proof is upon someone to prove that Peter is not talking about water baptism, and I don't think you're going to be able to do it in the context.

You may respond to that.

Let me get through one more. You already referred to the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not even mentioned in there.

Right. I would say this is a spiritual reality of having a good conscience in Jesus Christ through the resurrection.

Let me ask you this. Is water baptism spiritual?

No. I'd say it's a physical ceremonial act that points to a spiritual reality.

Water baptism is not spiritual from heaven.

Let me ask you this. Would this be a good time to put me on your highlight reel. If I say, no, water baptism is a ceremonial action to a spiritual reality, even of the Church of Christ's persuasion? They would say, oh, this is a ceremony.

Can I ask you what Jesus asked the Jews?

Sure.

He said, the baptism of John, whence was it? Was it from heaven or from men?

Hm?

What would you say? Was it from heaven or from men?

Are you asking me what that means when Jesus asked the Pharisees, or are you asking me about water baptism?

I'm asking you, if you were there, and I'm Jesus, and I asked you, and you was a Jew, and I said, the baptism of John, where was it from? Was it from heaven or men, Jeremiah?

So, John the Baptist was fulfilling Old Testament Scripture, right? He came in the spirit and power of Elijah in his mother's womb. So, the physical acts that John did would point to the spiritual reality.

So, it is from heaven. So, is water baptism in Jesus' name from heaven?

So, it depends what you mean. If you're talking about doing the ceremonial act, well, that's a physical act here on earth, but it points to a spiritual reality.

I'm talking about the command. I'm talking about the teaching of it. The teaching of it.

So, you know my response at this point, right?

You've got to say heaven.

Why? It points to the spiritual reality. Is that not a fair summation?

So, if it points to the spiritual reality, that means it's actually taking place at that moment that you do it.

So, when you ask if it's a spiritual reality, you would agree, I think, that spiritual things are not tangible and seen by the human eye, right? Like, when the Holy Spirit moves, we're not able to see that, but we can see the effects of it.

So, we're talking about things that are spiritual and things that are earthly. The earthly points to the spiritual. John chapter 3 to prove that's Jesus' point.

Well, we would have some different views eventually on how the spirit is working today.

You know what we would agree on in John 3, though? It's talking about ambiotic fluid.

Yeah, you believe it is spirit?

I believe, if you want, we can turn there, because I was actually hoping to talk to you about it a little bit.

Oh, that's okay.

In short, I think Jesus is repeating Nicodemus.

We can set up a debate on John 3.

Me and you, we'll set up a debate.

So, I'm definitely interested in that. I also asked you about doing a debate on the sovereignty of God on the gospel truth. You said you would think about it.

Yeah.

Still thinking about it?

I'm not really concerned about that particular topic. I don't know what it would do. I'm wanting to do a textual context debate where we stay in John 3, 5.

Let me say this. I'm definitely interested in that, because I think all the context of Jesus with Nicodemus, I do think he is being very clear with what he's saying. I know me and you would disagree with that.

So, I'm interested in that. We don't have to make any conclusions now, but I'm interested in something like that. But, this is something else I want you to think about, too. I wanted to come on you to return the same favor to me.

It doesn't have to be tomorrow. I would love for you to continue to talk, but I just wanted to go both ways. Do you think that's fair to ask?

Yeah, I mean, it's fair.

I mean, you can ask that, but it wouldn't be bad of me not to come on your YouTube.

No, just showing respect towards one another, I think that would be something kind of you. You don't have to. You can reject it with your free will.

Well, I gave you a lot of time to talk. I mean, you have plenty of time to talk tonight.

Yeah, and you've actually been super kind, so I do appreciate that.

But, I'll probably review some of the stuff you said.

Yes, I want to make the highlight reel.

And with that, if I take anything out of context, I want you to call in and point it out. Don't just say I do it.

Well, this is the thing. I don't mind to call in occasionally, but I want you to come on to my platform because I do a YouTube ministry and apologetics, and eventually, if it's only coming to your platform, I'm going to eventually stop because it would seem to be selfish and you don't reciprocate the kindness back and forth.

But, we can set up something on mine, too, and then you can use that content and use that video to do reviews on your channel.

Okay.

All right.

All right, I appreciate you calling.

I'm going to wrap this lesson up.

I'm going to get into the lesson, I mean.

All right, see you.

All right, see you, Jeremiah.