Is the Church of Christ a cult because of their particular view of baptism?

[NCTPremill]

They believe that water baptism effects forgiveness and justification. Thus, if you do not submit to full-immersion baptism you will not receive forgiveness and justification from God and you will eventually be sent to hell.

I find this pernicious doctrine heretical and no Bible-believing Christian will believe this nonsense. Discuss.

 

[nobdysfool]

While I personally believe in full immersion baptism, because of what it signifies (burial), If one says it MUST be done that way, or their sins remain unforgiven, those who demand that as the only true way are, in essence, attempting to speak for God, and are, in essence, claiming to know the Mind of God. Just more rules-making and demanding an "acceptable" outward act. An outward act never trumps an inward reality.

I wouldn't go so far as to call such teaching heretical, just unenlightened. it's sad that those who claim to be the most enlightened are often those most in need of real enlightenment.

 

[Steeno7]

They believe that water baptism effects forgiveness and justification. Thus, if you do not submit to full-immersion baptism you will not receive forgiveness and justification from God and you will eventually be sent to hell.

I find this pernicious doctrine heretical and no Bible-believing Christian will believe this nonsense. Discuss.

You are correct that for the CofC everything centers on water baptism, and that being by full immersion. That one erroneous central premise unfortunately results in far reaching legalistic implications. Salvation by grace through faith becomes salvation by grace through our faith "response"....and that "faith response" involves a wheelbarrow full of works (water baptism being just the first) one must do and continue to do if one wishes to be rewarded with salvation.

 

[bling]

I have attended Churches of Christ most of my life. They are not “uniform” in their practices since all are independent. Water baptism is not a “requirement” for salvation since God does the saving, but is something Christians get to do in order to help them.

Being “born again” is what Jesus told Nicodemus he need to do. This requires some thinking, because Jesus does not address the questions or comments that are verbalized, but directs his comments to the persons next step in their personal spiritual development (what is on their heart spiritually). Jesus is not making some general philosophical statement (like Buddha might make) but is always addressing the audience He is talking to. We have to get into the context.

What did Nicodemus need to do next in his spiritual development?

What does Nicodemus need to be doing next? (study the Old Testament, become one of the followers of Jesus right then and there, Confess, repent, etc.)

The first thing Nicodemus might do at least is what he already knows he should do? Is that not where you would start? So what is that?

Since Nicodemus is still part of the Sanhedrin, he would not have been immersed baptized by John’s baptism. That would have got him thrown out of the Sanhedrin.

John’s baptism would have been a hot topic among the religious scholars, yet the answer was obvious and they all know it (remember Jesus using it against them and causing them to quit asking him questions?)

Jesus is not going to blare the answer out to Nicodemus, since Nicodemus knows the answer, but he will make Nicodemus think about it hard, since it would already be on his mind.



Christian water baptism as seen in scripture: Is always adult (there are only two examples that “might include infants” but nothing definite, all the others are adult believers) water immersion to be a physical outward representation of what had or is happening spiritually in the person being baptized. It is mainly to help the individual being baptized to better grasp what is going on, but it can “witness” to others observing the baptism. It has the elements of going down under the water (burying the old man), placing your dependence in another; the person baptizing you (surrendering your life to God), being washed (having your sins washed away), rising out of the water (rising from the dead), and stepping forth out onto the earth (a new person). The person is walking out into the hugs of his new family. It is also a sign of your humility, since it is a humbling act anyone can simple allow someone to do it to them (so not a work) and since humility has been shown in the accept of charity (God’s free gift of undeserving forgiveness) it should just support and add to the memory of that acceptance. To refuse Christian water baptism when it is readily available might mean you are not ready to handle other responsibility like having the indwelling Holy Spirit.

The Western “Christian” Churches are all over the board, but other countries experiencing sever persecution of Christians (Underground churches: China, Southeast Asia, some of India, Iran) are for as far as I can see consistently requiring adult believer immersion baptism. These churches are growing rapidly (estimated at 100 million in China).


Is the real problem with humility, since adult water baptism is a humbling act?

Is the problem with “witnessing” since baptism help other Christians remember what they went through?

The whole “argument” about the “one” baptism having to be “spiritual baptism” so we do not need to (or even shouldn’t) be water immersed is not supported by scriptural examples, since everyone that was “baptized” by the Holy Spirit seems to have also been water baptized.

In an effort to emphasis God’s unconditional (salvation), water baptism of believers has been avoided as a subject. People have “argued” that water baptism is a work and since “works” are not required for salvation, water baptism must be avoided. Most “Christian” religious groups “allow” immersion of believers if they want it.

The problem with this reasoning is adult believer immersion is not something you “do” (work), but is something you allow to be done to you. It is not something “done” as some requirement, but is something you get to do for your sake (to help you) and the sake of others.

 

[nobdysfool]

The bottom line is, Water Baptism is the only part of the whole process of redemption that we participate in directly, rather than by faith. Being immersed in water is analogous to being buried. It represents our death to the old life before faith in Christ. Jesus did everything for us, in dying in our place for our sins, and being raised from the dead because he was Himself innocent. Those things we partake of by faith in Him. Water Baptism is where we deliberately identify with Him in death, by being buried, and then rising out of the grave in newness of life.

Dead people are buried and completely covered up. Baptism, as a reflection of that, IMHO, should be total immersion, as a sign of identifying with Jesus in death and burial, and in rising out of the grave into newness of life. I don't look down on those who have been sprinkled, or had water poured over the heads, and say they aren't saved, because they weren't immersed.

Let each man be convinced in himself, and seek God about it. Do what He leads you to do. The error here is in imposing a certain method on others, and telling them if they don't do it this way, they are not saved and still lost. No man has the right or knowledge to make that determination.

The thief on the cross wasn't baptized in any fashion, and was saved.

 

[Butch5]

They believe that water baptism effects forgiveness and justification. Thus, if you do not submit to full-immersion baptism you will not receive forgiveness and justification from God and you will eventually be sent to hell.

I find this pernicious doctrine heretical and no Bible-believing Christian will believe this nonsense. Discuss.

That's funny Peter believed Baptism was for forgiveness too. So did Christians for the first several hundred years of the Christian faith.

KJV Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38 KJV)

 

[FreeGrace2]

That's funny Peter believed Baptism was for forgiveness too. So did Christians for the first several hundred years of the Christian faith.

KJV Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38 KJV)

As water baptism is a symbol of "the baptism that now saves you", according to Peter in 1 Pet 3:21 (and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ), one cannot conclude from Acts 2:38 that Peter meant that both repentance and water baptism were required for forgiveness. And other Scriptures state that one is forgiven through faith, where baptism isn't mentioned:
Acts 10:43 "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.
Acts 15:9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.
Acts 26:18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.'

A search of Acts regarding the mention of believing and being baptized, there are 23 accounts of believing without any mention of baptism, and 9 accounts where water baptism was mentioned with believing.

I believe the key to understanding water baptism is found in 1 Pet 3:20 and 21.

v.20 - who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

The bolded phrase makes clear that the 8 persons weren't immersed or even touched water. They were brought safely through the water, by being in the ark. Who did get fully immersed? Everyone else on the planet; they got the full dunk treatment, and they died.

Then, v.21 clarifies: and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of agood conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Notice that Peter didn't say that "this water saves you". He said "this water symbolizes the baptism (Holy Spirit) that saves you".

He makes it clear that he wasn't talking about physical water by the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the body". That water cleans the skin but does not save.

 

[Butch5]

As water baptism is a symbol of "the baptism that now saves you", according to Peter in 1 Pet 3:21 (and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ), one cannot conclude from Acts 2:38 that Peter meant that both repentance and water baptism were required for forgiveness. And other Scriptures state that one is forgiven through faith, where baptism isn't mentioned:
Acts 10:43 "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.
Acts 15:9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.
Acts 26:18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.'

A search of Acts regarding the mention of believing and being baptized, there are 23 accounts of believing without any mention of baptism, and 9 accounts where water baptism was mentioned with believing.

I believe the key to understanding water baptism is found in 1 Pet 3:20 and 21.

v.20 - who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

The bolded phrase makes clear that the 8 persons weren't immersed or even touched water. They were brought safely through the water, by being in the ark. Who did get fully immersed? Everyone else on the planet; they got the full dunk treatment, and they died.

Then, v.21 clarifies: and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of agood conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Notice that Peter didn't say that "this water saves you". He said "this water symbolizes the baptism (Holy Spirit) that saves you".

He makes it clear that he wasn't talking about physical water by the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the body". That water cleans the skin but does not save.

You look for a more accurate translation as this one is leading you to an erroneous conclusion.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You look for a more accurate translation as this one is leading you to an erroneous conclusion.

It would have been much more helpful if an explanation were provided that addresses why my translation leads to an erroneous conclusion. And which translation leads to the correct conclusion.

My point is that water baptism doesn't save anyone, and there are examples in the Bible where the believers didn't get wet and were saved or delivered, while their enemies did get immersed and died.

What is your point?

 

[Butch5]

It would have been much more helpful if an explanation were provided that addresses why my translation leads to an erroneous conclusion. And which translation leads to the correct conclusion.

My point is that water baptism doesn't save anyone, and there are examples in the Bible where the believers didn't get wet and were saved or delivered, while their enemies did get immersed and died.

What is your point?

My point is that the translation you used is not accurate. The Scriptures don't say what you posted. They don't say, '8 souls were brought safely through the water' and they don't say baptism symbolizes anything.

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 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.
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: (1 Pet. 3:19-21 KJV)

The word "by" in verse 20 is the Greek word "dia". It means through as in the means of something, or the channel through which something is obtained, or agency. In other words, if I say, "I bought these tickets through a broker," I am saying that the broker was the one through whom I obtained the tickets. I'm not saying the tickets physically went through the body of the human being that is the broker. What verse 20 means is that the water is the agent by which the 8 souls were saved. It's not saying they physically went through the water as the translation you posted suggests. Likewise the word "antitupos" translated "like figure" doesn't mean a symbol. It means something that is patterned after something else. Peter is saying that just as water saved the 8 souls, it saves the Christian.

Now, obviously there is nothing special about the water. It is God who is doing the saving, He just uses the method that He chooses to use.

 

[Aijalon]

A guy I used to work with was in a serious state of anxiety all the time, medicated because of it, and it was due to the social elements of his controlling church, and the way they managed all the socialization. He talked about being a "disciple" etc... as this was the Church of Christ. Yeah, I told him he needed to move on to a different church, he admitted he worried about his salvation a lot. He would evangelize people in the most awkward ways.. he was kind of a laughing stock at the office.

Great guy, and yeah, he seemed as if he was on the edge of a cult. I do not call it a cult though, but it is cultish.

 

[FreeGrace2]

My point is that the translation you used is not accurate. The Scriptures don't say what you posted. They don't say, '8 souls were brought safely through the water' and they don't say baptism symbolizes anything.

How do you know that your translation is correct? Have you consulted a lexicon? I did. The Greek word is "dia". According to my lexicon: "prep. with a genitive, through, used of place or medium; through, of time, during, in the course of; through, of immediate agency, causation, instrumentality, by means, of by, of means or manner, through, by, with, of state of condition, in a state of; with an accusative, used of causation which is not direct and immediate in the production of a result, on account of, because of, for the sake of, with a view to; rarely, through, while subject to a state of untoward circumstances.

One should consult a lexicon before one makes unsubstantiated claims.

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 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.
21 The like figure where unto 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: (1 Pet. 3:19-21 KJV)

The word "by" in verse 20 is the Greek word "dia". It means through as in the means of something, or the channel through which something is obtained, or agency.

Yep. It means "through".

In other words, if I say, "I bought these tickets through a broker," I am saying that the broker was the one through whom I obtained the tickets. I'm not saying the tickets physically went through the body of the human being that is the broker. What verse 20 means is that the water is the agent by which the 8 souls were saved.

No, the water didn't save them. The ark saved them. They were saved FROM the water. Unlike the rest of humanity. They died FROM the water.

It's not saying they physically went through the water as the translation you posted suggests. Likewise the word "antitupos" translated "like figure" doesn't mean a symbol. It means something that is patterned after something else. Peter is saying that just as water saved the 8 souls, it saves the Christian.

Impossible. They were NOT saved by the water. The water drowned the rest of humanity!! How can one make such an outlandish claim?

Peter's whole point is that they were saved FROM being drowned by the water.

Now, obviously there is nothing special about the water. It is God who is doing the saving, He just uses the method that He chooses to use.

God does not use water to save anyone. What does save is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, not water. John the baptizer made that clear when he said of Jesus: "I baptize with water, but He will baptize with the Holy Spirit".

Here's another very obvious example of how baptism doesn't always means getting wet.
1For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea 1 Cor 10:1-2

So, Paul said the Exodus generation were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the SEA. Yet, they walked across the Red Sea on dry ground.

Ex 14:16 - “As for you, lift up your staff and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it, and the sons of Israel shall go through the midst of the sea on dry land.

So, Paul describes the Jews as being baptized into Moses yet they walked across the Red Sea on dry land. No water. They were not immersed into the water. But the Egyptian army was IMMERSED in the water and they all drowned.

This example proves that when baptism is used to describe salvation, it does NOT refer to water.

 

[Butch5]

How do you know that your translation is correct? Have you consulted a lexicon? I did. The Greek word is "dia". According to my lexicon: "prep. with a genitive, through, used of place or medium; through, of time, during, in the course of; through, of immediate agency, causation, instrumentality, by means, of by, of means or manner, through, by, with, of state of condition, in a state of; with an accusative, used of causation which is not direct and immediate in the production of a result, on account of, because of, for the sake of, with a view to; rarely, through, while subject to a state of untoward circumstances.

One should consult a lexicon before one makes unsubstantiated claims.


Yep. It means "through".


No, the water didn't save them. The ark saved them. They were saved FROM the water. Unlike the rest of humanity. They died FROM the water.


Impossible. They were NOT saved by the water. The water drowned the rest of humanity!! How can one make such an outlandish claim?

Peter's whole point is that they were saved FROM being drowned by the water.


God does not use water to save anyone. What does save is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, not water. John the baptizer made that clear when he said of Jesus: "I baptize with water, but He will baptize with the Holy Spirit".

Here's another very obvious example of how baptism doesn't always means getting wet.
1For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea 1 Cor 10:1-2

So, Paul said the Exodus generation were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the SEA. Yet, they walked across the Red Sea on dry ground.

Ex 14:16 - “As for you, lift up your staff and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it, and the sons of Israel shall go through the midst of the sea on dry land.

So, Paul describes the Jews as being baptized into Moses yet they walked across the Red Sea on dry land. No water. They were not immersed into the water. But the Egyptian army was IMMERSED in the water and they all drowned.

This example proves that when baptism is used to describe salvation, it does NOT refer to water.

And as with the rest of the your posts we get unsubstantiated claims. I ususally don't respond to your posts for that reason. However, I thought I would help you out and point out the error in the translation you were using.

 

[FreeGrace2]

And as with the rest of the your posts we get unsubstantiated claims.

This is quite a silly claim. I quoted directly from a lexicon as to the meaning of "dia". It means 'through'.

I ususally don't respond to your posts for that reason. However, I thought I would help you out and point out the error in the translation you were using.

But your reply to my post actually AGREED with my post. So I thank you for that.

btw, I forgot to deal with the word "symbolizes" in 1 Pet 3:21. The Greek word is: antitupon

1) a thing formed after some pattern How is this NOT a symbol?

2) a thing resembling another, its counterpart How is this NOT a symbol?

2a) something in the Messianic times which answers to thetype, as baptism corresponds to the deluge (1 Pet 3:21 )
What does "correspond" mean that does NOT suggest or mean a symbol?

Again, you've failed to prove your point. And I've shown from the Greek that it isn't water that saves one. In fact, the point of Scripture is that God has used water to judge people; kill them. Not save them. 2 perfect examples: the flood killed mankind, except 8 persons, who were saved not by water, but FROM water by being in the ark. And the Egyptian army which was drowned by being immersed in the Red Sea when God released the parted water. Yet Paul speaks of those Jews as being "baptized into Moses", who crossed the Red Sea on dry ground.

 

[Butch5]

This is quite a silly claim. I quoted directly from a lexicon as to the meaning of "dia". It means 'through'.

Which is what I said. However, it's agency, not physical travel. Also, the passage doesn't say they were brought safely through the water. It says they were saved "dia" water.

But your reply to my post actually AGREED with my post. So I thank you for that.

Which shows me you didn't understand what I said.

btw, I forgot to deal with the word "symbolizes" in 1 Pet 3:21. The Greek word is: antitupon

1) a thing formed after some pattern How is this NOT a symbol?

2) a thing resembling another, its counterpart How is this NOT a symbol?

2a) something in the Messianic times which answers to thetype, as baptism corresponds to the deluge (1 Pet 3:21 )
What does "correspond" mean that does NOT suggest or mean a symbol?

Look at the definition of symbol and look at what Peter said and see if you can see the difference.

Again, you've failed to prove your point. And I've shown from the Greek that it isn't water that saves one.

No, you post a lexicon definition, not Greek. Firstly, you didn't show how the definition even proved you point.

In fact, the point of Scripture is that God has used water to judge people; kill them. Not save them. 2 perfect examples: the flood killed mankind, except 8 persons, who were saved not by water, but FROM water by being in the ark. And the Egyptian army which was drowned by being immersed in the Red Sea when God released the parted water. Yet Paul speaks of those Jews as being "baptized into Moses", who crossed the Red Sea on dry ground.

I'll let you argue with Peter.

20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
(1 Pet. 3:20-22 NKJ)

Peter says they were saved "dia" water.

Your statement "the flood killed mankind, except 8 persons, who were saved not by water, but FROM water by being in the ark" suggests to me that either you completely missed what Peter said or simply refuse to accept it

 

[FreeGrace2]

Which is what I said. However, it's agency, not physical travel. Also, the passage doesn't say they were brought safely through the water. It says they were saved "dia" water.

Which I showed from a lexicon that 'dia' means through. They were NOT saved by water. The water did not save them. They were actually saved FROM the water. Or prove otherwise from the actual event.

Which shows me you didn't understand what I said.

Then please clarify.

Look at the definition of symbol and look at what Peter said and see if you can see the difference.

What Peter said makes no difference as to what the definition of the Greek word translated "symbolizes". And I asked how the definition of "antitupon" didn't mean "symbolizes".

No, you post a lexicon definition, not Greek.

Seriously. What kind of lexicon would one think I was using: Latin, Russian, Chinese, or what? It was a GREEK lexicon, of course.

Firstly, you didn't show how the definition even proved you point.

I asked questions regarding the lexicon definition, which is being ignored or dodged. Please answer the questions. That will determine whether I proved my point. Mere claims have no weight.

I'll let you argue with Peter.

Silliness. I have none with Peter. The issue is your misunderstanding of what Peter said.

20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
(1 Pet. 3:20-22 NKJ)

Peter says they were saved "dia" water.[/QUOTE]
To which I agreed, and showed that the GREEK lexicon for "dia" was THROUGH.

Your statement "the flood killed mankind, except 8 persons, who were saved not by water, but FROM water by being in the ark" suggests to me that either you completely missed what Peter said or simply refuse to accept it

No, that was the whole point.

Are you disagreeing that the flood killed mankind except (save for) 8 persons? And were those 8 persons saved FROM the water? Please answer these questions.

 

[Butch5]

Let me say here to save you the time of responding to this post this post is the reason I typically don't respond. It's all over the place, there are multiple subjects, question unrelated to the initial discussion, etc. The initial post was regarding "dia" and "antitupon" and the translation you posted, if you want to focus on those two we can discuss them. I 'm not interested in anything else

Which I showed from a lexicon that 'dia' means through. They were NOT saved by water. The water did not save them. They were actually saved FROM the water. Or prove otherwise from the actual event.

This is why I don't answer your posts. You're not addressing the issue I raised instead you're just reasserting your your previous statement. I've stated from the beginning that "dia" means through.

Then please clarify.

What I said didn't agree with what you said. Therefore if you believe I agreed with your post my point was not realized.

What Peter said makes no difference as to what the definition of the Greek word translated "symbolizes". And I asked how the definition of "antitupon" didn't mean "symbolizes".

Sure it does. My bet is that Peter knew the meaning of the word much better than any Leixcon or Greek scholar. So, if you look up the modern definition of the word symbol and look at what Peter said regarding "antitupon" you should see the difference.

Seriously. What kind of lexicon would one think I was using: Latin, Russian, Chinese, or what? It was a GREEK lexicon, of course.

Written in English. Do you realize that a Lexicon is not the final word on a subject? Do know how they are made? Look at all of the different translations of the Bible, Lexicons are no different. And yes, Lexicons do contain errors.

I asked questions regarding the lexicon definition, which is being ignored or dodged. Please answer the questions. That will determine whether I proved my point.

As I said, you didn't make you point. Just posting a definition doesn't explain how you understand things

Mere claims have no weight.

This is the basis of much of your argument. If it has no weight then your argument has no weight.

Silliness. I have none with Peter. The issue is your misunderstanding of what Peter said.

20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
(1 Pet. 3:20-22 NKJ)

No need for fallacies. I haven't misunderstood Peter. How do I know? Because the understanding I have harmonizes with the rest of Scripture.

To which I agreed, and showed that the GREEK lexicon for "dia" was THROUGH.

In the wrong sense of the word.

No, that was the whole point.
Are you disagreeing that the flood killed mankind except (save for) 8 persons? And were those 8 persons saved FROM the water? Please answer these questions.

Which show me you missed the point. Do you think that Peter's point here it to tell his readers about Noah and the flood or was his point something else.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Let me say here to save you the time of responding to this post this post is the reason I typically don't respond. It's all over the place, there are multiple subjects, question unrelated to the initial discussion, etc. The initial post was regarding "dia" and "antitupon" and the translation you posted, if you want to focus on those two we can discuss them. I 'm not interested in anything else

Please allow me to show how your posts are "all over the place" and ignore direct questions.

I said this:
"Are you disagreeing that the flood killed mankind except (save for) 8 persons? And were those 8 persons saved FROM the water? Please answer these questions."

to which you replied:

Which show me you missed the point. Do you think that Peter's point here it to tell his readers about Noah and the flood or was his point something else.

Whether or not I missed any point is beside the point. I asked a very direct question about the flood which Peter brought up as an example, and instead of addressing my questions, I get dodge ball.

It is clear that Peter didn't believe that water baptism saved anyone by his statement in v.21 - Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

He begins by saying "baptism now saves you", then clarifies with "not the removal of dirt from the flesh". How does one remove dirt from the flesh? By using WATER, that's how.

So, Peter was telling us that it isn't water baptism that saves us.

 

[Butch5]

Please allow me to show how your posts are "all over the place" and ignore direct questions.

I said this:
"Are you disagreeing that the flood killed mankind except (save for) 8 persons? And were those 8 persons saved FROM the water? Please answer these questions."

to which you replied:

Whether or not I missed any point is beside the point. I asked a very direct question about the flood which Peter brought up as an example, and instead of addressing my questions, I get dodge ball.

It is clear that Peter didn't believe that water baptism saved anyone by his statement in v.21 - Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

He begins by saying "baptism now saves you", then clarifies with "not the removal of dirt from the flesh". How does one remove dirt from the flesh? By using WATER, that's how.

So, Peter was telling us that it isn't water baptism that saves us.

That's right I didn't answer your question. The reason that I didn't answer the question is because it is irrelevant. The questions you asked had nothing at all to do with the the issue I raised which was that the translation you quoted didn't properly translation "dia" and "antitupon."

Then you said this,

"He begins by saying "baptism now saves you", then clarifies with "not the removal of dirt from the flesh". How does one remove dirt from the flesh? By using WATER, that's how.

So, Peter was telling us that it isn't water baptism that saves us."

which makes no sense at all. Your statement reads as Peter says baptism saves but doesn't save. It's contradictory and makes not sense.

So, if you'd like to discuss "dia" and "antitupon" have at it, otherwise there's no need to reply.

 

[FreeGrace2]

That's right I didn't answer your question. The reason that I didn't answer the question is because it is irrelevant. The questions you asked had nothing at all to do with the the issue I raised which was that the translation you quoted didn't properly translation "dia" and "antitupon."

My question is directly relevant to your posts. And one is free to dodge any question.

Then you said this,

"He begins by saying "baptism now saves you", then clarifies with "not the removal of dirt from the flesh". How does one remove dirt from the flesh? By using WATER, that's how.

So, Peter was telling us that it isn't water baptism that saves us."

which makes no sense at all.

It makes perfect sense. But not to those who believe differently.

Your statement reads as Peter says baptism saves but doesn't save.

It does not. It says that baptism saves, but NOT the water kind. It is very clear.

It's contradictory and makes not sense.

It's not contradictory and does make sense. Baptism that Peter notes is Holy Spirit baptism, NOT water baptism. In fact, he makes clear that water baptism symbolizes the baptism that saves us.

So, if you'd like to discuss "dia" and "antitupon" have at it, otherwise there's no need to reply.

I already have. And there are still some questions that are directly relevant to your posts that should be answered rather than dodged.