The ark saves
- Thread starter granpa
- Start date
-
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.
The ark is a picture of the covenant just as that other ark contraption was a picture of. The water which destroys the unsaved merely buoys up and assists the saved who are in Christ's covenant. 1 Peter 3:20 says that the eight ark souls (a parable picture of those saved towards the end of the church age) were saved by water. Water in the Bible is a parable word for the word of God (Eph 5:26). The word of God saves some while the unsaved perish therein.
Your type to anti-type do not match. Again, the world was not flooded with "living water (spirit)" but literal water. So the OT type is Noah saved by water>literal flood water. The NT anti-type is us saved by water>literal water baptism.
So when the OT type is literal water then the mirror reflection anti-type must also be literal and not figurative as you try and make it.
On one hand you say "Nope I am not trying "to make the antitype some kind of spirit baptism"
but then you DO go and try to make the anti-type figurative water and not literal water as in the flood when you post:
antitype - living water (Spirit)
Was the world flooded with" spirit/living" water or literal H20 water?
Last edited:
-
1
- Show all
You posted ".NOAH was set APART by the water as the dividing line" Yes, something we can agree on.
And the NT anti-type to that OT type of water setting Noah apart from the lost is the waters of baptism is what sets apart the saved from the lost, the dividing line between saved and lost.
-
1
- Show all
Peter acts 2:38 baptism for the remission of sins. Remission of sins has to do with final salvation
IN 1 Pet 3:20,21 Peter is talking about this same baptism as he did in Acts 2:38. So the same baptism of Acts 2:38 and 1 Pet 3:21 saves in the sense of remission of sins/final salvation.
-
1
- Show all
antitype - A. something that corresponds to or is foreshadowed in a type B. an opposite type
antitype - A. One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type such as a figure in the OT that has a counterpart in the NT B. An opposite or contrasting type
anti - opposed to: against
Water was the symbol or type of the living water that came when Jesus Christ ascended to the Father. Jesus is the one who baptizes with "living water". Is that not literal to you? Is the new birth not literal to you? When you were born of the Spirit weren't you literally born of the Spirit? The Israelites when they made it through the parting of the Red Sea they passed from an old life to a new life . . . Noah when they were saved from destruction passed from an old life to a new life . . when we are born again, born of the Spirit, baptized with holy Spirit - we pass from an old life to a new life. It is a literal transformation - it is a literal new birth - it is a literal baptism in living water.
antitype - A. One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type such as a figure in the OT that has a counterpart in the NT B. An opposite or contrasting type
anti - opposed to: against
Water was the symbol or type of the living water that came when Jesus Christ ascended to the Father. Jesus is the one who baptizes with "living water". Is that not literal to you? Is the new birth not literal to you? When you were born of the Spirit weren't you literally born of the Spirit? The Israelites when they made it through the parting of the Red Sea they passed from an old life to a new life . . . Noah when they were saved from destruction passed from an old life to a new life . . when we are born again, born of the Spirit, baptized with holy Spirit - we pass from an old life to a new life. It is a literal transformation - it is a literal new birth - it is a literal baptism in living water.
Word Origin and History for antitype:
n.also anti-type, 1610s, from Greek antitypos "corresponding in form,"literally "struck back, responding as an impression to a die, from anti-(see anti- ) + typos "a blow, mark" (see type (n.)).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antitype?s=t
The die is the type and the imprint the die leaves is the anti-type. The imprint left by the die is a mirror reflection of the die, an exact opposite. You are the type, your reflection (anti-type) in the mirror is an exact opposite of you the type. So if the type is literal water then the anti-type must be also literal water.
There are OT types that have a corresponding NT anti-type.
The OT type Peter made is "saved by water". Peter is obviously talking about literal H20 water, flood water. So the NT anti-type must correspond, be a shadow of, be a reflection of the OT type, so the NT anti-type must also be "saved by literal H20 water, water baptism. You are still trying to make thh anti-type symbolic the of something that is literal.
OT type:----------saved by water (flood water)
NT antitype:------saved by water (water baptism)
It was literal water that Phillip baptized the eunuch with. Saul/Paul was literally baptized in water, nothing figurative or symbolic about it.
"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh..."
Peter tells us what water baptism is NOT for, it is not for putting away the filthy of the flesh. What does one use to wash filth from the flesh? Water, literal H20 water giving further proof the NT antitype is talking about literal H20, literal water baptism.
n.also anti-type, 1610s, from Greek antitypos "corresponding in form,"literally "struck back, responding as an impression to a die, from anti-(see anti- ) + typos "a blow, mark" (see type (n.)).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antitype?s=t
The die is the type and the imprint the die leaves is the anti-type. The imprint left by the die is a mirror reflection of the die, an exact opposite. You are the type, your reflection (anti-type) in the mirror is an exact opposite of you the type. So if the type is literal water then the anti-type must be also literal water.
There are OT types that have a corresponding NT anti-type.
The OT type Peter made is "saved by water". Peter is obviously talking about literal H20 water, flood water. So the NT anti-type must correspond, be a shadow of, be a reflection of the OT type, so the NT anti-type must also be "saved by literal H20 water, water baptism. You are still trying to make thh anti-type symbolic the of something that is literal.
OT type:----------saved by water (flood water)
NT antitype:------saved by water (water baptism)
It was literal water that Phillip baptized the eunuch with. Saul/Paul was literally baptized in water, nothing figurative or symbolic about it.
"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh..."
Peter tells us what water baptism is NOT for, it is not for putting away the filthy of the flesh. What does one use to wash filth from the flesh? Water, literal H20 water giving further proof the NT antitype is talking about literal H20, literal water baptism.
Last edited:
-
1
- Show all
K
granpa,
You said that the bible verse said, "immersing not flesh yet putting away filth"- but the bible verse does not say that. Which translation are you using? What it says is, "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God." Why would He have to make it clear that it is not about removing dirt from your physical body if they weren't being baptized by immersion?
Peter says in Acts 2:38 that when you get baptized THEN you will receive the Holy Spirit- he did not say get baptized by the Holy Spirit- he said get baptized to receive the Holy Spirit.
You said, "the ark represents the Holy Spirit"- but that is not what the bible says the ark represents. The bible says that just as those in the ark were saved through water, BAPTISM also does now save us.
You said that the bible verse said, "immersing not flesh yet putting away filth"- but the bible verse does not say that. Which translation are you using? What it says is, "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God." Why would He have to make it clear that it is not about removing dirt from your physical body if they weren't being baptized by immersion?
Peter says in Acts 2:38 that when you get baptized THEN you will receive the Holy Spirit- he did not say get baptized by the Holy Spirit- he said get baptized to receive the Holy Spirit.
You said, "the ark represents the Holy Spirit"- but that is not what the bible says the ark represents. The bible says that just as those in the ark were saved through water, BAPTISM also does now save us.
Amen! Unfortunately, certain people have taken parts of these verses out of context and therefore misled their listeners. The words, "saved by water," are an example. The context reveals that the subjects, the eight souls "saved," were those in NOAH'S ARK. Also, other translations (NKJV, NASB, ESV etc.) read "saved THROUGH water," since the Greek work (di) "by" is also translated as "THROUGH." The eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were in the ark (a type of Christ). THEY WERE NOT LITERALLY SAVED BY THE WATER, AS THE CONTEXT REVEALS. Hebrews 11:7 is very clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household).
*NOTE: The context of 1 Pet. 3:20,21 reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED!
*NOTE: The context of 1 Pet. 3:20,21 reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED!
Exactly! Noah had already "found grace" (Genesis 6:8), was "a preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5), and "walked with God" BEFORE he built the ark. Building the ark was a DEMONSTRATION of his faith, not the origin of it. If Noah had refused to build the ark, then he would have demonstrated a lack of faith, but of course, that was not the case.
Totally agree....what is funny is how the water NEVER touched Noah and his family...they were SEALED in BY GOD before it began to rain and never came out until after it had quit raining.....People who believe in water salvation over blood salvation will always take these verses out of Peter and twist them to their own watered down theology......tragic as the end of those who trust water are trusting into a gospel of a different kind which has no power to save.....!
When I see the BLOOD, I will pass over you........WATER found no where in that statement for sure.......!
When I see the BLOOD, I will pass over you........WATER found no where in that statement for sure.......!
Amen! Romans 3:24 - being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
People who trust in water to save them would walk around mountains of grace in order to find water!
People who trust in water to save them would walk around mountains of grace in order to find water!
You couldn't find a biblical definition from the Greek? Your definition - your reflection (anti-type) in the mirror is an exact opposite of you the type - You need to follow your own definition - exact opposite
literal water - OT
spiritual water - NT
flood water and water as in water baptism is not the exact opposite [water is water] . . . . remember your definition
There is ONE baptism - I go with what John said - there come one mightier than I . . . . HE will baptize you with Holy Spirit . . and with what Jesus said . . . if thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldnest have asked of him and he would have given thee living water . . . . . but whosoever drinketh of the water that I sahll give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
literal water - OT
spiritual water - NT
flood water and water as in water baptism is not the exact opposite [water is water] . . . . remember your definition
There is ONE baptism - I go with what John said - there come one mightier than I . . . . HE will baptize you with Holy Spirit . . and with what Jesus said . . . if thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldnest have asked of him and he would have given thee living water . . . . . but whosoever drinketh of the water that I sahll give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
If a die had the letter "a" on it, then the imprint that die leaves will be a mirror reflection of the "a" that is upon the die. The imprint the "a" die leaves will not be a '5' or 'c' or '8' for that is completely different from the imprint from what is upon the die.
You're trying to change literal flood water to figurative water...you're trying to change the imprint. Nothing in the context suggests the type and anti-type are anything other than literal water, it is a bias of yours that you are bringing to the text in trying to change the type to anti-type connection.
When I say an anti-type is an "exact opposite" of the type, that does not mean it is completely different. When you look into a mirror, the reflection of what you see is not completely different from what you look like. If you are blonde haired then your reflection is not the exact opposite with black hair. What you see in the mirror is an exact opposite reflection from the real you. It's like flipping a picture negative over.