1 Peter 3:21 and Infant Baptism

satz · #1 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 08:19 AM

This is a sincere question I have been wondering about for sometime.

1 Peter 3:21 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:

How is infant baptism consistent with this verse since the verse seems to be saying that baptism is the 'answer of a good conscience toward God', which would seem to me to support the believers baptism position, since only believers can comprehend enough of the gospel to answer God specifically though baptism?

Any thoughts?

AV1611 · #2 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 09:47 AM

That baptism is the answer of a good conscience towards God does not rule out the baptism of infants.

satz · #3 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 10:47 AM

But can infants answer God with a good conscience?

BertMulder · #4 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 11:02 AM

The context is here also certainly of import. And how can we, as adults, answer God with a good conscience? The same as infants (although they are probably not able to express it), by the blood of Christ. That does not take away the fact that God is certainly able to work in the heart of infants with his quickening Spirit. As concerning infants hearing the Word, having had 7 children, it is amazing at what age understanding (in general now) children have of what they hear. Under 1 year of age they certainly know what NO means! So my thesis there is that the understanding is far greater than the ability to express their understanding.

Quote:

18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21The 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:

22Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

reformedman · #5 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 01:37 PM

repent and be baptized.

similary

good conscience and be baptized.

Repentance(given or revealed by God), is the recognition of our not doing the will of God, turning from our way and desiring God's way.

Infants can't recognize their sinfulness, therefore they cannot repent and be baptized.

Contra_Mundum · #6 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 04:03 PM

Well, you know I think that infant faith is demonstrable from Scripture. No need to rehash that. Don't bring it in; its not germane to the question.

My argument here is much simpler. You apply the text according to its intent. This is not a text that is speaking particularly of infants, but of the "us" vv 18 & 21. Peter is speaking to his readers. So, figure out who his readers are, and apply the text. Case closed. You aren't going to learn anything positive or negative from this text about infant baptism per se.

Calvin:

Quote:

Peter here did not mean to teach that Christ's institution is vain an ineffecatious, but only to exclude hypocrites from the hope of salvation, since, as far as they can, they deprave and corrupt baptism. Moreover, when we speak of sacraments, two things are to be considered, the sign and the thing itself. In baptism the sign is water, but the thing is the washing of the soul by the blood of Christ, and the mortifying of the flesh. The institution of Christ includes these two things. The fact that the sign often appears ineffecatious and fruitless happens through the abuse of men, but it does not take away the nature of the sacrament. Let us learn then to not to divorce the thing signified from the sign....

... Doubtless when Peter, having mentioned baptism, immediately made this exception, that it is not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, he gives sufficient indication that baptism to some is only the literal act, and the outward sign of itself avails nothing.

Since we do not even tie baptism's efficacy to the moment of water baptism, we would apply this verse to the believer with a good conscience, whenever he was baptized. The verse has nothing to say to me regarding the timing of placing the sign.

BertMulder · #7 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Well, you know I think that infant faith is demonstrable from Scripture. No need to rehash that. Don't bring it in; its not germane to the question.

My argument here is much simpler. You apply the text according to its intent. This is not a text that is speaking particularly of infants, but of the "us" vv 18 & 21. Peter is speaking to his readers. So, figure out who his readers are, and apply the text. Case closed. You aren't going to learn anything positive or negative from this text about infant baptism per se.

Calvin: quote/unquote

Since we do not even tie baptism's efficacy to the moment of water baptism, we would apply this verse to the believer with a good conscience, whenever he was baptized. The verse has nothing to say to me regarding the timing of placing the sign.

reformedman · #8 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contramundum

Well, you know I think that infant faith is demonstrable from Scripture. No need to rehash that. Don't bring it in; its not germane to the question

It is germane to the question because that was his question. Did you instead mean, it wasn't germane to the verse?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contramundum

]This is not a text that is speaking particularly of infants, but of the "us" vv 18 & 21

He implies he knows this but his question was "How is infant baptism consistent with this verse"
Although the verse is not referring to infants directly, you are right, regardless he wants to know how it would be consistent if applied to infants. Similarly, this verse does not point specifically to 90 year olds, but 'how is elder baptism consistent with this verse' would also be a legitamate question, and I believe he is being sincere.

Now to answer I would say look specifically at the words:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acts

but the answer of a good conscience

the answer, the response, the result, because of, etc...

You are saved (or converted) first, and then you are baptized in answer or result of that conversion (good conscience).

satz · #9 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 10:52 AM

Thank you for the replies so far.

To clarify what I was asking: When I read 1 Peter 3:21 and ask myself 'What is this verse telling me about baptism?' the answer seems to be that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. Now it seems as well to me that only a believer (and a believer can be a very young child) can truely have a good conscience of the type referred to in this verse, that is a conscience that has been made clean by knowledge of what Christ has done to put away his or her sins.

Quote:

My argument here is much simpler. You apply the text according to its intent. This is not a text that is speaking particularly of infants, but of the "us" vv 18 & 21. Peter is speaking to his readers. So, figure out who his readers are, and apply the text. Case closed. You aren't going to learn anything positive or negative from this text about infant baptism per se.

Pastor Bruce,

I think I know what you are saying and I agree that infant baptism is not what is under consideration in the verse. I guess where I am coming from is that this verse implies to me that baptism requires a response toward God that would require at least a certain amount of understanding and knowledge. And yes, this does seem to me inconsistent with infant baptism.

This verse was one of the primary ones that convinced me of believer's baptism, so I was just curious what was the paedo interpretation of it.

R. Scott Clark · #10 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 11:32 AM

Mark,

Are there any passages in the Hebrew Scriptures that indicate that circumcision requires a "response toward God that would require at least a certain amount of understanding and knowledge"? If so, then it doesn't follow that if circ. can be said to require a "response toward God that would require at least a certain amount of understanding and knowledge" that therefore it cannot ever be applied to children since we know that is contrary to fact. If that reasoning doesn't work in re circ. then why should we think that it works in re baptism?

rsc

reformedman · #11 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 11:45 AM

Seems like two different ideas there in your illustration.

1. The first is circumcision of which Abraham was told to do to his children and that all his lineage were told to do to their children and so onregardless of their response.

2. The second is baptism, of which we are told to believe and be baptized.

Two different commands should not be mixed.

So yes, circumcision does not require a response.
but baptism does. look at acts 3:21, and others.

R. Scott Clark · #12 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 02:47 PM

Frank,

The argument seems to be:

1. x requires a response
2. x presupposes cognitive/affective/voluntative faculties
3. these faculties are insufficiently developed in infants
4. ergo x cannot be applied to infants.

As a paedobaptist I think one can supply either circ or baptism for x. I understand that Baptists can't won't do this. Okay.

The problem with this argument is that it excludes infant circumcision and any argument that excludes infant circumcision is contrary to God's revealed will.

Therefore this argument works ONLY on the assumption, which has yet to be demonstrated, that baptism and circumcision are utterly unrelated, but it doesn't work in the way in which it was being used.

It would seem not to be a promising argument by which to exclude infants from initiation into the visible covenant community.

One has to argue that God initiated infants into the visible covenant community for 2000 years from Abraham to Christ but then he stopped doing that due to the radically different nature of the New Covenant. Now infants bear no relation to the covenant of grace until they exercise their faculties and are eligible to be admitted visibly to the covenant of grace.

In that case we're back to square one and at logger heads again.

Any NT text, however, that calls for the exercise of faculties prior to baptism can be answered on the basis that I've supplied. The same was true under the administration of types and shadows and that fact did not prevent God from ordaining the initiation of covenant children.

It does not follow therefore that if God ever requires the exercise of faculties in connection with the administration of sacrament x that such a requirement excludes the administration of that sacrament to infants.

So Baptists need a different argument because this one proves too much.

rsc

rsc

Quote:

Originally Posted by reformedman

Seems like two different ideas there in your illustration.

1. The first is circumcision of which Abraham was told to do to his children and that all his lineage were told to do to their children and so onregardless of their response.

2. The second is baptism, of which we are told to believe and be baptized.

Two different commands should not be mixed.

So yes, circumcision does not require a response.
but baptism does. look at acts 3:21, and others.

Poimen · #13 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 03:57 PM

Two thoughts here:

1) To branch off what Dr. Clark has been saying one must consider the fact that circumcision, to believing Abraham, was a sign and seal of the righteousness he had by faith (Romans 4:11) and yet he was commanded to apply that same sign to those who did not. (Genesis 17:10-13) So to say that baptism is an answer of a good conscience to God does not exclude infants per se.

2) It is interesting to think about the fact that Peter is using the analogy of Noah's Flood to relate to baptism. The only person we ever read about having believed is Noah (Genesis 6:8). And yet God makes covenant with Noah and his family (Genesis 6:18).

Now perhaps for some this will not hold water (pun intended!) but it seems clear that: i. Noah was a believer ii. on the basis of his faith God saved ('baptized') his family (even though all were old enough to make a profession of faith) iii. Peter compares this flood to the baptism of today. iv. baptism is not given based upon anything we have done but because of God's promise as the rest of the Bible teaches.

Anyways, you may find holes in my logic and proceeding but this is intended to provoke thought and debate...

reformedman · #14 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Frank,

The argument seems to be:

1. x requires a response
2. x presupposes cognitive/affective/voluntative faculties
3. these faculties are insufficiently developed in infants
4. ergo x cannot be applied to infants.

More specifically, the argument seems to be:

[b] sacrament(ordinance) of baptism
[s] saved
[r] repentance
-> leads to

1. the sacrament [b] applies to a group [s] : [s] -> [b]
2. [r] is a required need before [b] : [r] = [b]
3. group [s] is not defined
4. the poster would like to know if infants are part of group [s] while [s] -> [b]
5. [s] has only been revealed so far as being adults, never as infants.
6. [b] has only been applied to adults, never as infants.
6. [s] is defined as people able to repent
7. [s] is defined as people "answering" or performing(or desiring to perform) [b] because of a concious reaction.

Quote:

The problem with this argument is that it excludes infant circumcision and any argument that excludes infant circumcision is contrary to God's revealed will.

Only if you presuppose that circumcision is directly correlated to baptism.

Quote:

Therefore this argument works ONLY on the assumption, which has yet to be demonstrated, that baptism and circumcision are utterly unrelated...

The burden of proof would be on the person claiming that it ever changed.

Quote:

Any NT text, however, that calls for the exercise of faculties prior to baptism can be answered on the basis that I've supplied. The same was true under the administration of types and shadows and that fact did not prevent God from ordaining the initiation of covenant children.

It does not follow therefore that if God ever requires the exercise of faculties in connection with the administration of sacrament x that such a requirement excludes the administration of that sacrament to infants.

This seems just a rewording of the above, of which I remain on my initial 2 cents.

Quote:

So Baptists need a different argument because this one proves too much.

As a baptist, I won't use a different argument, I'll stand instead on the word of God:

Quote:

not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God

Me Died Blue · #15 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poimen

Two thoughts here:

1) To branch off what Dr. Clark has been saying one must consider the fact that circumcision, to believing Abraham, was a sign and seal of the righteousness he had by faith (Romans 4:11) and yet he was commanded to apply that same sign to those who did not. (Genesis 17:10-13) So to say that baptism is an answer of a good conscience to God does not exclude infants per se.

This is a key point, indeed. Often all of the Old Covenant spiritual ties to, and meanings of, circumcision seem to be ignored. Circumcision signified the inward reality of repentance (Deut. 10:16; Lev. 26:41; Jer. 4:4; 9:25-26). It signified the inward reality of the cleansing of the heart (Deutt 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Is. 52:1). It signified the inward reality of mortification of the flesh (Col. 2:11-13; Jer. 4:4 cf. Ex. 6:12, 30; Acts 7:51).

-Exodus 6:12 "But Moses said to the LORD, 'Behold, the people of Israel have not listened to me. How then shall Pharaoh listen to me, for I am of uncircumcised lips?'" (see also verse 30)

-Leviticus 26:40-42 (emphasis mine) "But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies—if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land."

-Deuteronomy 10:16 "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn."

-Deuteronomy 30:6 "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live."

-Isaiah 52:1 "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion; put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city; for there shall no more come into you the uncircumcised and the unclean."

-Jeremiah 4:3-4 (emphasis mine) "For thus says the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem: 'Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds.'"

-Jeremiah 9:25-26 (emphasis mine) "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh—Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart."

-Acts 7:51 "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you."

-Romans 2:25-29 "For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God."

-Colossians 2:11-13 "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses."

Contra_Mundum · #16 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 05:44 PM

See this post:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthre...192#post220192
for my new insights into the difference between a CB and a PB understanding of covenant-perception as explained to me from a couple different sources. I've tried to break it down in parallel. It has taken me some time to acquire this understanding. But now JW makes perfect sense to me. I could not have comprehended him previously nearly so well. I think he's mistaken, obviously.

So, Chris, until he makes one basic CoG, with an external administration out of the Old Testament, the CB will not read the above references as expressive of one reality. In the CB view, the prophets are only making sermon illustrations, they are trying to get the Israelites into the other covenant by utilizing providential/coincidental analogies between the two covenants (or parts). He doesn't acknowlege that those in the second part are claiming the first part and are apostates from it, not possessing the promise by faith. He says they have ZERO relation to the spiritual covenant. They could apostatize from the external covenant, but they were fully enmeshed in their own covenant, CBs believe.

R. Scott Clark · #17 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reformedman

but the answer of a good conscience

Okay, but didn't circumcision require this too?

rsc

reformedman · #18 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Okay, but didn't circumcision require this too?

rsc

No, the servant didn't want to be circumcised. The male servants and the slaves didn't want circumcision unless they were converted. Physical or spiritual they didn't want it. And I'm quite sure the infants didn't want it either since they couldn't comprehend why they needed to suffer so much even with all the theological explaining you could give them.

No one wanted circumcision unless they wanted God's will in his life. Abraham circumcised them because he was told to. I'm sure Abraham being the believer that he was, in love with God, would gladly do it and feel its the least he could do. He probably did it in answer of a good conscience toward God. Anyone who did it rightly did it as we today do believers baptism=with a good conscience.

In short to be direct to an answer for you; no infant has ever (as a result of good conscience) desired to either be circumcised nor baptized. The verse speaks of people who "do it" with a good conscience. In other words they take the action upon themselves and request it done on themselves.

A question to you:
Would you be circumcised if God wanted you to be?
Would you be baptized if God wanted you to be?

I have no doubt you would in both cases. It is your answer with a good conscience toward God.
An infant can't.

Scott Bushey · #19 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reformedman

No, the servant didn't want to be circumcised. The male servants and the slaves didn't want circumcision. Physical or spiritual they didn't want it. And I'm quite sure the children didn't want it either since they couldn't comprehend why they needed to suffer so much even with all the theological explaining you could give them.

No one wanted circumcision unless they wanted God's will in his life. Abraham circumcised them because he was told to. I'm sure Abraham being the believer that he was, in love with God, would gladly do it and feel its the least he could do. He probably did it in answer of a good concious toward God.

In short to be direct to an answer for you; no infant has ever (as a result of good concious) desired to either be circumcised nor baptized. The verse speaks of people who "do it" with a good conscience.

A question to you:
Would you be circumcised if God wanted you to be?
Would you be baptized if God wanted you to be?

I have no doubt you would. It is your answer with a good conscience toward God.
An infant can't.

Those whom are able to mentally exercise the conscience in baptism should. This does not exclude infants. This rationale would exclude all imbeciles.

reformedman · #20 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 08:16 PM

Scott,

Please define the word answer in:
"not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God"

Would you say like me, that it means; 'in active response to' ?

satz · #21 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 08:25 PM

Again, thanks for all the replies.

Some of the stuff posted is pretty deep and I'll need some time to think it over. However, I think Dr Clark is spot on in saying that this controversy has its roots to a large extent in your understanding of how baptism and circumcision are related.

However, even if we were to grant that baptism and circumcision are related, that does not mean they must be similar in their specifics. The outward acts of getting wet in water or cutting of a part of your body are totally meaningless spiritually. They only have as much meaning as God gives them, so he is the one who sets the specifics for the acts. As an example female israelites were not circumcised, but female christians are. So there is an obvious sense in which the specifics of the ordinance have changed. And since baptism only appears in the new testament, we should look primarily to the new testament for what are God's new 'rules' regarding it.

Also, I am not sure it necessarily follows that if infants are not baptised then they are outside of Gods community. As I mentioned above, female israelites were not circumcised, yet they were no less a part of the covenant community of israel. Why wouldn't the same apply to the children of believers?