Gill on Gospel Means in Rebirth

Doctrinal Divinity, Book 4, Chapter 7: "Of the Gospel"

"The gospel is called, the gospel of salvation, the word of salvation, and salvation itself (Eph 1: 13; Ac 13: 26; 28: 28), because it gives an account of Christ, the author of salvation...and because it is, not only the means of revealing, but of applying salvation; for it is to them that believe "the power of God unto salvation" (Ro 1:16)."

Gill also wrote:

"Thirdly, The effects of the gospel when attended with the power and Spirit of God.

3a. The regeneration of men, who are said to be born again by the word of God, and to be begotten again with the word of truth, (1 Pe 1: 23; Jas 1: 18) hence ministers of the gospel are represented as spiritual fathers, (1Co 4:15).

Gill also wrote:

"3b. As in regeneration souls are quickened by the Spirit and grace of God, this is ascribed to the gospel as an instrument, hence it is called the Spirit which giveth life, and said to be the savour of life unto life, (2 Co 2:16 3:6)."

Gill also wrote:

"3d. By it faith in Christ comes, and is ingenerated in the heart by the Spirit of God attending it..."

The Hardshells, since the days of John R. Daily, have affirmed that John Gill, though he taught gospel means in regeneration in his early days, when he wrote his Commentaries, yet later in his older years, changed his mind, and denied means in regeneration, and this is reflected, say they, in his Body of Divinity, which was supposedly written later in life. This is a total lie of course and the above citations prove it. So, why do today's Hardshells keep repeating the lie? 

In my series "Hardshells and Gill" I demonstrate this even more.

Preaching & Emotional Appeals

I have written on this subject before. See "William Fristoe On Preaching To Emotion" (here) and "Preaching Has Become Dry As Dust" (here) 

One of my two majors in college was Speech Communication, which included classes in Rhetoric, argumentation and debate, persuasion, etc. I have also been a pastor and given many sermons, bible class lessons, and such like. I have also been an apologist, having had many public debates. I have also been an author or writer, having numerous apologetic writings. So, this topic is "right up my alley," so to speak. 

The following article "PATHOS AND PREACHING" by ADAM DOOLEY(here) offers some good comments upon this subject. His mention of logos, pathos, and ethos brings back memories from my college days when we studied these three aspects of persuasion. The following citations are highlighted by me as my way of saying "amen."

Wrote Dooley:

"Using Aristotle’s three modes of persuasion (logos, pathos, ethos), most Bible teachers emphasize the content and structure of the words themselves, or what we refer to as the logos of scripture. Great effort is taken, and rightly so, to accurately communicate the logical message within the focal verses at hand. Many, however, falsely dichotomize the message and mood of the Bible, as if attention to emotional goals and design is somehow manipulative. If, however, biblical pathos includes the emotive structure and intention, or what might be called the inspired tone of a text, faithful exposition necessitates discerning and declaring the spirit of holy writ. Mere passion in the pulpit will often fall short of this goal because it may not accurately correspond to the Holy Spirit’s revelatory mood.

Because the Bible pulsates with emotion, faithful exegetes will not only give attention to what the biblical text says, but also how it says it. Nathan clearly sought an emotional impact as well as a logical result when he rebuked David with the declaration, “Thou art the man!” in 2 Samuel 12:7. Urgency, lament, and even righteous anger leaps off the page when we survey Romans 1:18-32. The sarcasm of 2 Cor. 11-12 is difficult to overlook as we observe the Apostle Paul defending his apostleship. Passionate appeals woven into the biblical record reinforce instead of detracting from the overall message of each passage. Preachers should highlight rather than avoid revealed sentiments like these. The aforementioned passages fall flat if we disregard the feelings that accompany their content. Ignoring the textual pathos simply is not an option.

To avoid contradictory tones competing with the Bible’s message, the preacher’s goal is to stand behind the text so that its message and mood resonate with listeners. Though personally connecting with an audience is important, doing so must never come at the expense of connecting hearers to the logical and emotional goals of a text’s original author.

So what is the goal of text-driven preaching as it relates to pathos? Discerning the emotive structures of the Bible places text selection, grammatical construction, historical context, literary genre, and character development at the forefront of our hermeneutical disciplines. [2] Once the energy of scripture is extrapolated, the preaching moment becomes an opportunity to emulate the biblical mood for members of a congregation even as we seek to elicit the same response from them. Simply put, pathos in preaching means the preacher embodies the spirit of the text while seeking to help his audience do the same. Because people will feel something when we preach, our goal is to focus them on the energy of the text so that they feel the breath of God as they receive His message.

Even as the Bible determines and drives the emotion of every sermon, it remains equally true that the scripture should alter the preacher’s disposition too. If the Bible’s logos compels us to yield our beliefs to divine revelation, so too, the Bible’s pathos should motivate us to yield our personal disposition to the manner in which God speaks.

Who we are, what we say, and how we say it are the glorious burdens of text-driven preaching. By yielding to the intentional and deliberate pathos of the Bible, preachers of every disposition will be equipped to preach truth through God’s personality."   

Did not Jesus speak with passion as well as with logical fact?

Is Your Theology Increasing?

"For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God." (Col. 1: 9-10 NKJV)

The word "theology" means "science or knowledge of God."

A Christian should be daily increasing in the knowledge of God, which practically involves a knowledge of inspired scripture. I ought to know more about God now than I did when I was first saved about age 15. I not only ought to know more about "the knowledge of God" but should know him even more intimately now. 

Notice these words on the subject:

"Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD." (Jer. 9: 23-24 KJV)

Elderly Christians should have the best knowledge and understanding of God for they have been studying the knowledge of God for many years. Those who have spent the most time in study, meditation, contemplation of holy scripture, and thoughtful prayer, are they who have steadily "increased" in the "knowledge of God." 

Notice how the above text calls upon us to glory or rejoice in the fact that we have a good degree of knowledge of God. Such a truth makes me think of what one country preacher said: 'I don't know much about the ages of rocks but I know something about the rock of ages." 

I don't take any pride in earthly wisdom or knowledge of academic sciences. Likewise, I do not take pride in riches, or in how much money I have made in my life. But, I do rejoice that I have "increased" in the knowledge of God, in understanding theology, and in having a closer walk with God. God help us all to acquire a greater "knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding."

God's Eye Testing

"The LORD is in His holy temple; the LORD’S throne is in heaven. His eyes see, His eyelids test the children of men." (Psa. 11: 4 Amplified)

The all seeing eye of God! His omniscience! He is watching everyone closely, taking note of each thought, word, and deed. Amazing thought. Selah.

On the above words of the Psalm, C.H. Spurgeon said:

"His eyelids try the children of men:" he narrowly inspects their actions, words and thoughts. As men, when intently and narrowly inspecting some very minute object, almost close their eyelids to exclude every other object, so will the Lord look all men through and through. God sees each man as much and as perfectly as if there were no other creature in the universe. He sees us always; he never removes his eye from us; he sees us entirely, reading the recesses of the soul as readily as the glancing of the eye." (Spurgeon in Treasury of David)

Again, I am simply awestruck when I consider how nothing I think, say, or do is hid from the Lord! The thought of this truth regarding the Deity ought to cause us to fear and tremble before the Lord and to realize that God is not a God who is far off, but a God who is nigh everyone of us. (See Acts 17: 27)

The next verse in the Psalm says: "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked." (Psa. 11: 5) His eyes see and "try" all men, and "tests" each, both "the righteous and the wicked." 

Elsewhere in the Psalms it is affirmed that "the righteous God tries the hearts and minds." (Psa. 7: 9)

But, how does God daily "try" or "test" the hearts and minds of men? How does his trying of the hearts and minds of the wicked differ from his trying of the righteous?

"For You have tried us, O God; You have refined us as silver is refined." (Psa. 66: 10)

Here it seems that the result of being "tried" by God is that the person is "refined," made spiritually and morally more pure than before. Knowing this has led the righteous to pray - "Examine me, O Lord, and try me; Test my mind and my heart." (Psa. 26: 2)

Notice those three words, all used to express God's watching and inspection; examine, try, test. 

Testing or trying a heart or mind involves removing impurities, just as refining metals removes dross or foreign material. ("For You have tried us, O God; You have refined us as silver is refined" - Psa. 66: 10) It has this effect upon the righteous, upon those who put their trust in the Lord. So Job confessed: "When He has tried me, I shall come forth as gold." (Job 23: 10)

Testing hearts also involves discovery and revelation. So we read:

"You shall remember all the way which the Lord your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not." (Deut. 8: 2)

"Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me and know my anxious thoughts." (Psa. 139: 23)

God already knows what is in a man's heart before he test it, for he is omniscient. Yet, God often uses anthropomorphic language in speaking of himself and his doings. 

God tests in order to "prove" or otherwise demonstrate something about what is being tested. 

God tests "the children of men," even those who are lost and most wicked. Of men in general it is written:

"You examine him every morning 

And try and test him every moment?" (Job 7: 18 Amplified)

Tested by God every morning? And, every moment? Ponder that awhile!

But, with most men, they fail such testing. Life's trials, sent by God, do not purify the heart and mind of most men. Why does this daily testing succeed (in its positive effects, i.e. salvation) with some few while it fails with most others? That is the question argued between Pelagians and Augustinians, between Arminians and Calvinists, is it not? 

The important question is this: are you asking God to inspect you? And, Are you asking him to refine and purify your heart and mind?

Who May Baptize?

In a recently released video by Ligonier, both at ligonier.org and on youtube, these were the words heading the audio:

"Are parents authorized by Jesus Christ to baptize their children at home? Can a Bible study privately partake of the Lord’s Supper? From our special online event Made in the Image of God, Burk Parsons and Stephen Nichols consider who may legitimately administer the sacraments." (here)

Two elders responded by saying:

PARSONS: Christ has authorized His elders of His church, His undershepherds, to baptize. Yet, we also have run across many circumstances where people have been baptized by someone other than an elder of Christ’s church, and that’s where we have to use a great deal of wisdom and discernment. We have to consider the circumstances and how the baptism was performed. It takes the wisdom of the plurality of elders in a local body to discern if that baptism was a legitimate baptism.

NICHOLS: There is a large group within American evangelicalism that’s always been there that has a low ecclesiology and a low understanding of how God has ordained the church. I know the question is specifically about baptism, but this comes up sometimes with the Lord’s Supper too. Something that happens a lot among young people who are very sincere Christians is that they want to give each other communion and have communion on Christian college campuses in their dorm rooms. I think it’s reflective of a symptom of American evangelicalism having a low ecclesiology and not recognizing how God has ordained His church as the means of grace and how He has ordained the sacraments or the ordinances, which are in the purview of the church. 

I totally disagree with these men who insist that baptism, to be legitimate, must be performed by certain qualified administrators. I also disagree with Nichols who affirms that those who believe that any disciple may baptize (the signers of the 1644 London Baptist Confession for instance) have a "low ecclesiology."

I dealt at length with this question in my series "Hardshells and Alien Baptism"(June 2017 Archives). I also dealt with it to some lessor degree in my series on "Landmarkism."

In the comment section for the youtube video we have these interesting comments, most of which I would heartily agree with.

Listener Comments

"Can we get a Bible verse or something. Otherwise everything that was stated is moot."

"So if a family of husband and wife are the only Christians in a predominantly Hindu or Islamic region, then they can never take communion together or be baptized legitimately?"

"Sorry Ligonier, you've helped me so much, but not with you on this one."

"Wow- and I thought the Roman Catholics were heavy on man-made traditions! Come on guys---you can do better!"

"So only elders can baptize? Can someone post scripture for this please?"

"Any born again believer can baptize."

"The answer "only elders can do the baptism" seems not consistent with the Bible."

"I must have missed it, but did they answer the question and did we learn anything? Just a talk fest going nowhere."

"Too bad no one answered the question. A group of men sat around using doctrinal buzzwords criticizing others but not teaching. Very poor job."

"I'm a great fan of Ligonier, but I don't see anywhere with this view can be substantiated by the Bible. If he gave the command to the disciples, then everyone can do these things, if he gave it to the apostles, then nobody can, unless there is Apostolic succession."

"Yep, as others are pointing out, this position is simply anti-Biblical. There is not a word in Scripture commanding that only elders baptize believers. Is it preferable, when possible? Perhaps. Commanded? Absolutely not. Get off your high horses guys."

"The priesthood of all believers and the freedom of christ extends to me the right to baptize my children but to administer the sacraments as well. Don't fence the table."

Edifying Myself

"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church." (I Cor. 14: 4 kjv)

More and more I find myself spending time edifying myself rather than edifying others. Edifying others often takes more than ordinary effort. For instance, I can study a topic and rejoice in what I learn. That is a case of self edification. But, when I preach a sermon, or write a treatise, I am edifying others also. I see myself spending more time in my last years edifying myself, personally enjoying my walk with God, rather than expending efforts in edifying others in these ways.

Whoever sings hymns to God while alone edifies himself. Whoever is in deep meditation on the things of God edifies himself. Whoever enjoys communion with God and his presence edifies himself. Whoever speaks in tongues edifies himself. Nothing wrong with edifying oneself in the Lord. I would that more practiced it. In fact, a man who is not edifying himself, as thus explained, is not equipped to edify others.

Proposition: Everyone who has edified the church has first edified himself.

Opportunities to edify others become less as one grows old and feeble. It takes labor to communicate to others for their edification. As long as I am able, I will labor in speaking or writing, or otherwise seek to edify others in the faith. 

"And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you." (Paul in Cor. 12: 15)

Circumcised In Heart

"Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh." (Phil. 3: 2-3)

"We (Christians, believers in Jesus) are the circumcision"

I am so glad to be in the group described in the above words of Paul! 

Those who have only been circumcised in the flesh, and who oppose the gospel (against whom Paul gives warning), are styled "the concision," an appropriate label for those who are circumcised in the flesh but not in the heart or spirit. In other words, Paul says -  BEWARE OF THE FALSE CIRCUMCISION or "FLESH CUTTERS"! More literally Paul says "Beware of the mutilation"! 

"The KJV says "beware of the concision" where concision is an archaic term which means to mutilate. Concision describes the mark on the flesh of the Israelite who had submitted to the outward rite, but had never been circumcised in heart. Spurgeon - Beware of the cutters off, those who excommunicate and cut off others because they do not happen quite to agree with them in certain rites and ceremonies." (here)

Paul says, “You Jews think that you are circumcised; in point of fact, you are only mutilated." (Barclay, ibid) Believers in Jesus are they who have experienced circumcision of heart.

Spiritual Circumcision

Moses told Israel, “Circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.” (Deut. 10:16)

Jeremiah exhorted: 

"Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." (Jer. 4: 4)

What is meant, metaphorically, by "foreskins of your heart"? And, what does it signify for one to "take away" or to "cut away" the "foreskins of the heart"?

Commented Dr. Gill:

"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart - Content not yourselves with, nor put your confidence in outward circumcision of the flesh, but be concerned for the circumcision of the heart; for removing from that whatever is disagreeable to the Lord, even all carnality, sensuality, hypocrisy, and superfluity of naughtiness, and for having that put there which is well pleasing in his sight; and which though it is the work of God, and he only can do it and has promised it, yet such an exhortation is made to bring men to a sense of their need of it, and of the importance of it, and to show how agreeable it is to the Lord, and so to stir them up to seek unto him for it." (Gill's Commentary)

Something is cut away or removed in the work of circumcision. In spiritual circumcision of the heart there is a "removing" of "whatever is disagreeable to the Lord." And, if that is true, and I think it is, then spiritual circumcision is never completed in this life, but is an ongoing experience. Yet, the scriptures do not generally portray heart circumcision as a continuous process throughout the life of the believer. 

Many commentators will say that the sin nature of believers is what is cut away in heart circumcision. But, believers still have the sinful nature, or the flesh, even after conversion and regeneration. 

I think we may conceive of spiritual circumcision as being both initial and continuant. It is like attachment which may be likewise conceived of as both completed act and ongoing process. I became attached to Christ in conversion, but I am more attached to him now than ever before. You see what I mean? Each day finds me in need of becoming less attached to the world and the flesh and more attached to the Lord.

"Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart." (Jer. 9:26)

Notice the contrast between circumcision of the heart and of the flesh and the irony. In the new testament, Stephen condemned the Jews for being “men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart” (Acts 7:51).

Though the Lord commanded the people to circumcise their hearts to the Lord, yet this they could not do by their own will power, and so required God to do for them what they could not do for themselves, and so the prophet says:

“Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live” (30: 6). 

In the new testament this is spoken of in several places.

"For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God." (Ro 2: 28, 29)

In Ephesians Paul contrasts physical circumcision with spiritual circumcision, speaking of "the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands" (Eph. 2:11) in contrast to that hidden circumcision which the Spirit performs upon spirit and "without hands." 

To the Colossians Paul wrote:

"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." (Col. 2: 11-13)

Notice again how circumcision involves a "putting off" what is called "the body of the sins of the flesh." 

Many commentators believe "the body of the sins of the flesh" denotes the depraved fallen nature that remains unrenewed after regeneration (or spiritual circumcision). 

Colossians 2:11 in the NASB reads: "When you came to Christ, you were "circumcised," but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision--the cutting away of your sinful nature."

But, Christians find that they still, after conversion, have a sinful nature that is still attached to them, so how can this be the correct interpretation? Perhaps it involves the same thing Paul referred to when he wrote a few verses later - "Do not lie to one another, after having stripped off the old man with his deeds." (Col. 3: 9)

So, what does it mean to "strip off the old man with his deeds"? What does it mean to "put away the body of the sins of the flesh"? 

Doubtless the two descriptive phrases, "old man with his deeds" and "body of the sins of the flesh" are to be equated with what is called (as we have seen) "the foreskins of the heart." 

Is this stripping and putting away (or cutting away) an initial one time act at the start of the Christian life? Or, is it also something that is habitually occurring in the heart, mind, and spirit of the Christian? Is it like "crucifying the flesh"? (Gal. 5: 24) This is pictured as being in some respects a finished act of conversion and also an ongoing experience.

The Truly Circumcised

There are three things that describe the truly saved Christian, the one who is circumcised with "the circumcision of Christ." 

First, they "worship God in the spirit." Second, they "rejoice in Christ Jesus." Third, they "have no confidence in the flesh."

Well, praise God, I can say that these three things describe my life generally. How is it with you? How can you know that you have been circumcised in heart? Do you adore God? Do you think of him daily? Do you rejoice in Christ Jesus? Is he precious to you? Do you deny yourself, hating the flesh, putting no confidence in it? I have little confidence in myself. The world says that I should believe in myself, to love and trust myself, but I cannot follow this advice. 

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)