Baptism the Antitupon

"For 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: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which 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. The like figure (Greek 'antitupon') 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: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him." (I Peter 3: 18-22 KJV)

How does baptism "save" the Christian? How does Christian baptism relate to Noah's baptism? How do Noah's baptism and Christian baptism relate to Christ's baptism into sufferings, to his death, burial, and resurrection, and to salvation? What is meant by water baptism being called an "antitupon"? Does it mean "antitype" or rather a "corresponding type" or "like figure"?

When there are various and sundry types or figures of a certain thing, they are called "like types," or "corresponding figures," or "similar symbols" because they each depict or otherwise represent the same thing.

Thus, we may say of several biblical baptisms that they are types; so, the baptism of Noah and his family, and of the Israelites when "baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (I Corinthians 10: 2), and other typical Old Testament baptisms (Hebrews 6: 2; 9: 10), may be called similar types, in that they each point to salvation through the work of Christ. It would be incorrect to say of any one of these typical baptisms that they were intended to represent each other rather than each representing the one thing they all point towards.

It is argued by Campbellites and other believers in baptismal remission or regeneration, that Noah's baptism in the flood waters was intended by God to become a figure of Christian baptism. By this interpretation Noah's baptism becomes the type and Christian baptism the antitype. But, this is a grievous error and one that is easily disproved, at least to the honest intelligent mind.

It is quite a different thing to say that these various Old Testament baptisms are like each other versus saying they are symbols of each other. Certainly the baptisms of Noah and the Israelites are like Christian baptism, but it is denied that they were intended to be types of Christian baptism, thus making Christian baptism the "antitype" of those baptisms, rather than the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and of salvation.

The Greek word "antitupon," according to W. E. Vine, in his "New Testament Words," as used in I Peter 3: 21, is "an adjective, used as a noun," and denotes, in the NT, "a corresponding type," being "said of baptism." "The circumstances of the flood, the ark and its occupants, formed a type, and baptism forms "a corresponding type" (not an antitype), each setting forth the spiritual realities of the death, burial, and resurrection of believers in their identification with Christ. It is not a case of type and antitype, but of two types, that in Genesis, the type, and baptism, the corresponding type."

This is exactly correct, both from the Greek and the syntax, but also from the only other place where the same word is used, in Hebrews 9: 24.

"For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures (antitupa) of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." (Hebrews 9: 24 KJV)

Notice how the Greek word "antitupa" (plural form) are the figures or types, not antitypes. If the heavenly temple is the antitype (the thing to which the type points), then the earthly temples can only be types of it. Heaven is the "true," that is, the heavenly temple is the antitype, the real thing, not merely a symbol of it.

If "antitupon" or "antitupa" meant "antitype," then we would have a tautology which says "which are antitypes of the antitype," or "which are true of the true" or "real of the real." Obviously the Greek word "antitupa" is set in opposition to the word "true." Thus, since "true" and "antitype" are synonyms, antitupon cannot mean "antitype."

Here is a tabernacle or earthly temple. It is a copy or figure of the heavenly tabernacle, the "true," "real," or "antitypical" tabernacle. Here is another tabernacle over here that is also a picture or symbol of the heavenly tabernacle. What can we say of both of these earthly tabernacles? Why, simply, that they are "like figures," or "antitupa," but not "antitypes."

When Peter says "the like figure," or "the antitupon," he is referring to Christian baptism, not directly to Noah's baptism! He is not saying that Noah's baptism is, by itself alone, a "tupon," but is saying specifically that Christian baptism also is a "tupon," and thus is an "antitupon," and also by implication, that Noah's baptism also is a figure. Peter is saying that Christian baptism has something in common with Noah's baptism. What is that common feature? They are both types of the same thing! They are both types of salvation through Christ's death and resurrection.

Noah was saved by the ark "through (via) water." Water was not the means of their salvation, but the ark. The ark is what both delivered and preserved them, the two aspects of "salvation." Their "salvation" was typical of the salvation promised to the Christian. It pictured it. So also does Christian baptism picture salvation and reveal, symbolically, the gospel.

Baptism saves the Christian in a "figure" just as the Lord's Supper saves him also in a figure.

What does Peter mean when he says of Christian baptism that it

1) does not remove the filth of the flesh?
2) is the answer of a good conscience towards God?

Reprint from The Baptist Gadfly (see here)

Questions For Antinomians

Integral to the system of antinomianism is a denial of duty and responsibility.

Are all men responsible to obey the moral laws of God?

Are all men responsible to acknowledge their sins and just condemnation?

Are all men responsible to repent of their sins and return to God?

Are all men responsible to believe the Gospel or on Christ?

Are all men responsible for their rejection of the Gospel?

Are all men responsible to pray to God?

Are all men responsible to praise and worship God?

Are all men responsible for whether they are finally saved or lost?

Are all men called to salvation?

Is it a sin to be impenitent? Is it a sin to reject Christ and his word and salvation?

From "Hardshell Antinomianism I" (here)

Regular Baptist Magazine

 

"For the defense of the truth of God and the comfort of his people."

This is the image for the periodical edited by Elder E. H. Burnham (many have his name as Burnam but I have seen where he signed his name as Burnham, with the "h" as well as without it, as below) and which began in 1875 if we are to believe the following record:

"The Regular Baptist Magazine was a forty-page monthly, the organ of the "primitive" Baptists. It was published in 1875 by E.H. Burnam. (From the Encyclopedia of the History of Missouri by Alexander N. De Menil, 1901). "For the defense of the truth of God and the comfort of his people." 

Fifth Volume of the Magazine (published September, 1880)

"The Prospectus for this volume was sent forth with, as we trust, a prayerful endeavor to commit its disposal to the direction of the All-Wise One, and to be reconciled to that decision, whatever it might be. Relying on the encouragement of old and new friends, and their promises to continue their exertions on behalf of this work, we continue it hopefully, and if the Lord will, as a lifetime labor. We earnestly trust our brethren and friends will labor and pray for our success in spreading and defending Bible Truth. In return we promise them, by God's help, to use our best exertions to render the visits of this publication pleasant and profitable to the household of faith, to inquiring souls, and to those who are out of the way. 

We hope to receive contributions on all subjects relating to the prosperity of the Church and the welfare of men generally, such as the Experience of the Christian Life, the Active Ministry, Practice and Support of the Gospel, News of the World, and the Second Personal Coming of our Lord from Heaven. According as articles shall seem to us profitable or not, we shall exercise, impartially, the editor's right to accept or reject them."

"All letters and communications should be addressed to E.H. BURNAM, St. Louis, MO"

Burnam was a well known leader of the Hardshells, particularly of those in the tradition of men like Elders John Watson ("Old Baptist Test") and John Clark (editor of "Zion's Advocate"), of those who believed that the gospel was God's ordained means of giving new birth to sinners. In the mid to late 1870s I find where Burnam wrote in Elder Fain's (and Stephens, et als) paper "The Baptist Watchman" and described his tour through several of the southern states over several weeks and his widespread acceptance. In the late 1870s, even perhaps up till the time of Elder Clark's death in 1882, he was an associate editor of "Zion's Advocate."

Burnam and many other elders, holding to the means view, the original view of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists, and of the Baptists in general, became opponents of men, like Elder Lemuel Potter, who took a new position, the anti means position. 

I have been looking for many years now for a library that would have copies of the "Regular Baptist Magazine." I believe in it will be many articles of great interest to historians of the "Primitive Baptist Church" in relation to the issue of means.

Spurgeon on Hyper Calvinist Soil Testers

1834 - 1892 

"It is God's work to direct the saving Word into the chosen hearts which He has prepared to receive it. But as for us, we are to preach the Gospel to every creature—and going out into the streets and lanes of the city—as many as we find we are to bid to the supper. Many are called but few are chosen! It was never intended that the external call should be as narrow as the election, yet there are some ministers whose preaching consists far more of an analysis of soils than of a sowing of seed." 

This is true in regard to the Hyper Calvinists and Hardshell Baptists. Their preaching "consists far more of an analysis of soils than of sowing of seed." 

Spurgeon also said:

"Leaving the analyzing of the soil to God, I take my commission from His hands and desire to fulfill it. Stony-ground Hearer, there is a handful of seed for you. You who are hard like the trodden road, there is a handful for you. And even among the thorns, which are plentiful enough in this age, shall the good seed fall like a heavenly shower. And if God shall graciously direct it to His own chosen, and they, like the good ground, shall receive it, it will be His doing! It will never be effected by any skill of mine. It is mine to sow beside all waters and His to give the increase. The best shot that was ever made with bow and arrow was taken at a venture as Ahab the king was pierced between the joints of his harness. So also, while drawing my bow to preach the Gospel to every creature, my faith feels confident that the Lord will direct the arrow and effect His purposes of Divine Grace."

(The Seed Upon Stony Ground - here)

Spirit Reveals "Things To Come"

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." (John 16: 13 kjv)

 All scripture is given by the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit. (II Tim. 3: 16) No one can receive the things of the Spirit of God apart from the Spirit's work. (II Cor. 2: 10-12) No man can know religious or spiritual truth apart from the revelation of the Spirit. He reveals things that are past and present, giving a proper interpretation for the reason of things. But, he also reveals "things to come," via prophets and their prophecies, things about future events and destinies. 

Jesus did guide the disciples into truth and showed them "things to come." But, after his ascension, this work would continue by Christ's vicar, the Holy Spirit. He gave further details concerning "things to come" to the writers of the new testament. The new testament contains much teaching about "things to come," about "eschatology," about end time events, about the ages to come.

How thankful I am for this revelation of things to come! We are not, as Christians, in the dark about the future! It is the Lord who knows the end from the beginning. (Isa. 46: 10) And, praise God, he "reveals his secrets to his servants the prophets." (Amos 3: 7)

Which Hardshell Historian Can Disprove It?

 "My friends, there never was a separate and distinct people such as the Hardshells of this country are until 1832. Never! They then took a new stand. They then took a new name. They then took a new position. They then adopted new tests of fellowship. They are the innovators; not we. Our people are Apostolic." (Potter-Throgmorton Debate - 1887 - see here)

These are powerful and truthful words by Elder Throgmorton! He proved such to be true in his debate with Potter. Any Hardshell want to come and prove otherwise? Want to answer the argumentation and proofs offered by Throgmorton? By me? By many others?

In another posting I wrote this:

From my years of research into the history of the "Primitive Baptist" denomination, I have discovered that Elder E H. Burnam, a "Primitive Baptist" preacher in the latter half of the 19th century, and who was an associate editor with Elder John Clark on the Hardshell paper "Zion's Advocate," was correct when he stated the following in the "Mt. Carmel Church Trial."

"It was left to the last quarter of the 19th century to give birth among the Old Order of Baptists to the notion of regeneration without faith, or that it is not necessary that one should exercise repentance, faith, or any spiritual gift, in order to be saved, a heresy than which none more pernicious was ever put forth by any professing to be followers of Christ." (here)

Any Hardshell want to come and prove Elder Burnam's statement to be false?

Hardshells and their History

 As I have stated before, I do not know another man living who has studied the history of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists more than I have. This blog and my other writings on the Hardshells demonstrate this fact. With this fact in mind, let me take this opportunity to make some observations about today's Hardshells relative to their lack of knowledge about their history and about the history of the Baptists in general. 

1. Very few, if any, of today's "Primitive Baptists," know much about their history.

2. Most preachers today who teach others about their history give false information about their history, a "wish history" as one informed historian called it, and this is because they themselves are ignorant of their real history or else know it and willingly falsify it, what we also style a "revisionist history."

3. Having read all their leading histories, published by their most well informed historians, I can say that most of them have not been honest historians (a fact well substantiated in my writings). Many of them also were not so learned in Baptist history as they thought themselves to be (this fact has been proven many times by better historians debating with them and overthrowing their historical misrepresentations).

These observations make it necessary for me (and others before I) to openly rebuke the leaders of the Hardshell church who teach falsely about their history. They should know their history! Especially in view of the fantastic claims they make about themselves and their history! They need to come clean and be honest with themselves and with those they teach in regard to their history.

Thoughts On Acts 17: 18

"Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seems to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached to them Jesus, and the resurrection." (Acts 17: 18)

Babbler 

(σπερμολόγος) Lit., seed-picker: a bird which picks up seeds in the streets and markets; hence one who picks up and retails scraps of news. (Vincent)

"the word came to be used for an idle good for nothing fellow, and for one that picked up tales and fables, and carried them about for a livelihood. So Demosthenes, in a way of reproach, called Aeschincs by this name; and such an one was the apostle reckoned: or the metaphor is taken from little birds, as the sparrow, &c. that pick up seeds, and live upon them, and are of no value and use. Harpocratian says (d), there is a certain little bird, of the jay or jackdaw kind, which is called "Spermologos" (the word here used), from its picking up of seeds, of which Aristophanes makes mention; and that from this a base and contemptible man, and one that lives by others, is called by this name: from whence we may learn in what a contemptuous manner the apostle was used in this polite city, by these men of learning." (Gill)

Paul was no babbler. This was a false accusation. The Sophists, they were generally the babblers, and were hired for their skill in babbling! I have run into preachers in the church who seemed to be mere babblers.

Setter Forth

"He seemeth to be a setter forth." "Setter forth" is from the Greek word καταγγελεὺς (katangeleus) (1 Occurrence) and means a "proclaimer." 

That is what good teachers of the bible should be! Setter forths! Proclaimers and explainers. Exegetes.

Strange Gods

"A setter forth of strange gods"

On this statement Adam Clark wrote:

"Strange gods - Ξενων δαιμονιων, Of strange or foreign demons. That this was strictly forbidden, both at Rome and Athens, see on Acts 16:21; (note). There was a difference, in the heathen theology, between θεος, god, and δαιμων, demon: the θεοι, were such as were gods by nature: the δαιμονια, were men who were deified. This distinction seems to be in the mind of these philosophers when they said that the apostles seemed to be setters forth of strange demons, because they preached unto them Jesus, whom they showed to be a man, suffering and dying, but afterwards raised to the throne of God. This would appear to them tantamount with the deification of heroes, etc., who had been thus honored for their especial services to mankind." (Commentary)

"Strange demons" is a more correct translation than "strange gods." Who were the demons? They were, as I have shown in other postings (See Who Are The Demons?, and here), summarily described by Campbell when he said: 

"...the term demon, from simply indicating a knowing one, became the title of a human spirit when divested of the appendages of its clay tenement, because of its supposed initiation into the secrets of another world. Thus a separated spirit became a genius, a demigod, a mediator, a divinity of the ancient superstition according to its acquirements in this state of probation." (Campbell, in the second posting above)

In ancient Greek thinking there were beings called "hemitheoi" beings who were "half-gods" or demigods.

Jesus was human and was God and to the pagan Greek mind this would make Jesus a "demon god," a being who was once only human but became immortal and godlike.