Distortion of Scripture

Were the saved-forgiven-saints of Heb 11 (in the OT) "Born-again" or were their lives the "fruit" of the "wicked tree" in Matt 7 (pre-cross) that was "good"??

Does the fallen condition of man - and his sinful nature - require the new birth, new creation for him to have MATT 7 "Good fruit" or does the good fruit come from "a bad tree"??

Is repentance, obedience, choosing baptism etc -- "a good fruit"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Excellent analogy and illustration.

 

That's all you have to admit isn't it. It was unto repentance.
unto = because of
"unto" is the word "eis" </font>[/QUOTE]"Unto" is a word for "eis", not "because of". It was unto repentance not because of repentance. John's baptism was different that what we have today. I do not read where repentance was a prerequisite for John's baptism. John came preaching repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. He told them to bear fruit in keeping with repentance. I think, and yes, I said, "I think", baptism was unto repentance, it was a part of the repentance process, not done after the repentance was complete. That is why baptism was unto repentance, not because they had already repented.

Mark states it this way in 1:4, John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Note, this is not a baptism because of repentance but a baptism of repentance, or a baptism repentance which was certainly for (or unto) the remission of sins. Check the Greek and see what you find out.

Prepositions can have direction. Eis always points forward, never in retrospect. It deals with reaching an unreached end.

Surely you can discern the difference in running "toward" the house and running "away" from the house. You can't look toward yesterday, but you can look toward tomorrow.

You can walk "into" a room, walk backwards "into" a room, run "into" a room, crawl into a room, jump into a room, etc., but you are always headed in the same direction, "into" the room.

Now, answer my questions, if you dare.

[ July 13, 2005, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: mman ]

 

Thanks. It's good to be back.

 

BobRyan,

bmerr here. Didn't mean to skip you, Bob.

In answer to your question, this may not satisfy, but I'd like to go to the OT.

In 1 Sam 10, we read of the annointing of Saul as king of Israel. Samuel tells Saul the events that will take place in the near future, one of which is that the Spirit of the LORD will come upon Saul, and he will prophesy (10:2-6).

Sure enough, these things come to pass, and Saul did indeed prophesy when the Spirit of the LORD came upon him (10:10).

Did this mean that Saul was saved? We know that near the end of his life, Saul had gone so far as to resort to witchcraft, murdered the priests of Nob, and had generally displayed comtempt for God and His commands. I'd say he died a lost man.

Or how about Balaam? He was a prophet, God spoke to him, and he prophesied as the Spirit of God came upon him (Num 22:6-24:25). Yet, in the NT, he is remembered only for his error (Jude 11).

Or even Balaam's ass? She spoke in a tongue that was unnatural to her, but do you think she will be in Heaven?

I realize these are OT examples, and we are in the NT, but I think they show that the fact of the Holy Spirit coming upon someone does not neccessitate their being saved.

Bob, I'd say the bigger problem would be to say that Cornelius and household were saved before they ever heard the gospel.

Since "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom 10:17), they could not have been saved, since the HS fell on them as Peter began to speak (Acts 11:15), at which point he had not even spoken the name of Christ (Acts 10:34, 35).

An exception to the rule for the gifts of the Spirit is far more plausible than an exception to the law of pardon for sinners under the NT.

Was it at his baptism?

Can one be a SAVED - FORGIVEN SAINT without being in the New Covenant or being a new creation or being born again??</font>[/QUOTE]If you think about it, Bob, it can't be proven whether the thief had been baptized or not. There were many from Jerusalem, Judea, and all around Jordan that went out to be baptized by John (Matt 3:5, 6; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:7; John 3:23).

Who is to say that the thief was not of this number.

Regardless, he was still under the OT, since Christ had not yet died (Heb 9:16, 17).

Oh, and yes, there are such things as OT saints. Take Moses and Elijah for example seen with Jesus at the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt 17:3).

The book of John (as well as the other gospel accounts) are in the section of our Bibles labeled as "The New Testament". The gospel accounts introduce us to the Mediator of the NT (Heb 9:15), the testator (Heb 9:16, 17) Whose testament the New Testament is.

While Jesus walked among men, salvation was His to give to whoever He wanted to, under whatever conditions He chose (John 5:26, 27).

But since the cross, where the testator died, eternal life, which is His to give, can only be given in accordance with the New Testament. This requires men to hear the word (Rom 10:17), believe it(John 3:16), repent of sins (Luke 13:3, 5), confess Christ as the Son of God (Acts 8:37), and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

No, Jesus did not lie to Nicodemus. He spoke of the kingdom, which had not yet been established, but would be shortly, and was in Acts 2.

Yes, John 3 was before the cross, and therefore, under the Old Testament.

No, as I said, Jesus was speaking of future things.

I don't understand how it is that so many think this passage of Scripture teaches the Spirit "blowing around" saving people. Let's look at the text again, shall we?

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

First off, the Holy Spirit is not even a glorified "it", let alone just an ordinary old "it".

Second, in this text there are only two things blowing, the wind, and people. If you want the Holy Spirit to blow, you're going to have to find another passage of Scripture to show it.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Then you don't read your Bible, and this is where your confusion lies.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

What did John say:
Matthew 3:7-8 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

Mat.3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. (Because of their repentance, or on the basis of their repentance. They had to bring forth fruit thereof, to prove that they had repented.)

Luke 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

What did John do? He baptized on the basis of repentance. He would only baptize a person if they could prove that they had repented.
But you won't believe the Bible will you. You deny the evidence. The evidence that "unto" repentance means "because" of their repentance--an inescapable fact.
DHK

 

You still don't understand do you? Baptism was unto repentance. I've read the verses you listed many times and none of them preclude what I have already written. All show that it was a baptism of repentance not a baptism because they repented.

Now, for John 5:39, read and understand it.

Why have you been avoiding the following like the plague?

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Now, did Jesus really mean "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be condemned." or did he mean something else?

Why not accept that baptism if for (unto and not because of) the remission of sins – The logical conclusion of Acts 2:38?

Why not accept that baptism washes away our sins – the logical conclusion of Acts 22:16?

Why not accept that baptism puts us INTO Christ, the logical conclusion of Rom 6:3-4 and Gal 3:27?

Why not accept that baptism saves us, the logical conclusion of I Pet 3:21?

Why not accept that baptism is part of faith as shown in Gal 3:26-27 and Col 2:12?

Why not accept that water baptism is part of preaching Jesus as seen in Acts 8:35-36?

No matter how much you would like for these verses to be removed or re-worded, they continue to remain.

I have asked you time and time again to show the following two things, on this post and other post, yet you refuse to answer or cannot answer.

Show me how the walls of Jericho can fall by your definition of faith.

Show me how Noah can prepare an Ark by faith, using your definition of faith.

Your whole arguement stems around Acts 2:38 can't mean what it says, because that would violate what you believe about Eph 2:8-9. Therefore you have to find an obscure meaning, much different from the obvious meaning, and accept it. It doesn't matter that the exact phase is used in conjunction with the shedding of Jesus' blood and it must have a totally different meaning there(Matt 26:28) than in Acts 2:38.

It's of no use to claim that "eis" can or should be translated as because. Can you show me where ANY scholarship has at any time undertaken to translate or to render it in this fashion in any version of the bible? YOU CANNOT!!! There is good reason for that, because the Greek does not support that. I am still waiting for even one time where the scholarly translators have ever translated "eis" as "because", anywhere, not just in Acts 2:38.

As I've stated before, in Acts 2:38, they were told to repent and be baptized... "for the remission of sins". The same phrase is used in Matt 26:28, For this is My blood of the new covenant which is shed for many "for the remission of sins".

Do you have any trouble understanding what "for the remission of sins" means in Matt 26:28? Then why do you try so hard to misunderstand it in Acts 2:38?

Now you claim Jesus blood cleans "all those who believe in Chirst". If that were the case, then those in Acts 2:37 were cleansed when they believed which was before they repented. They obviously were believers who were cut to the heart. What would you have told them to do? What did Peter tell them to do? Did you get the same answer? I did. Is that what you believe and teach that a person is cleansed by the blood of Christ when they believe, prior to repentance? If they had already repented, Peter's instructions to repent and be baptized would have been meaningless and confusing.

Just when did those people in Acts 2 receive the remission of sins?

You see, the verse you listed, John 5:39 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me", indicates that some people think they have eternal life and they don't.

Matt 7:21 tells of sincere believers who will be lost. Of course they were false teachers, but obviously sincere since they were disputing with the Lord concerning their final judgment.

While sincerity is important, it is the truth that sanctifies. God's word is truth (Jn 17:17). Part of that truth is "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" - Mark 16:16. Truth always lies in parallel. No verse ever nullifies Mark 16:16, it can only compliment it. Eph 2:8-9 does not nullify it, it only compliments it. I've shown many times in the past how these two verses are in complete harmony.

IF Acts 2:38 really meant that we were baptized because our sins were already forgiven, would that contradict any scripture? Yes it would.

Mark 16:16 would have to be changed from its obvoius meaning to "He that believeth is saved and should be baptized".

Acts 22:16 would have to be changed from its obvious meaning to say, "Arise and be baptized as a symbol to show that your sins have already been washed away"

I Pet 3:21 would need to be changed from it obvious meaning to "Baptism is a symbol that you are already saved".

Rom 6:3-4 would have to be changed from it's obvious meaning from we are "baptized into Christ" to "baptism symbolized we are already in Christ".

Gal 3:26-27 would need to be changed to read, "For we are all childern of God by faith in Jesus Christ and baptism symbolizes that we are already in Christ".

Now, if these verses(and others) read that way, I would be right beside you, believing exactly the same as you do, but they don't read that way. Their obvious meaning has to be changed and twisted to make it fit.

We know what 2 Pet 3:16 says about twisting scripture, "as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures".

I truly appreciate your zeal, and that is a fine quality to have.

 

Of course you don't want to continue this conversation, because I keep posing the same questions you cannot answer. I understand why you can't. No matter how many times I have posed them to you, without exception, they are ignored.

I on the other hand have answered all your questions, yet you do not like the biblical answers I provide, so you begin with your usual inflammatory rhetoric designed to intimidate.

For your information, I have read the entire thread and you did not answer my questions anywhere.

Maybe I asked too many questions of you, so I will try it in much smaller pieces.

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned.

Did Jesus really mean this or did he mean to say something else? If he meant it, why don't you believe it? If he meant to say something else, why didn't he?

 

What question have I ignored, except just recently.

You will not and cannot (according to your theology) answer me an honest answer RE: Mat.3:11 and John 7:38. Did John baptize in order that they would receive repentance, or because they had repented? Did he not require them to bring forth fruit suitable for repentance?
You evade these questions every time. You have not given an honest answer yet.

I have answered them all. If not in this thread, then in another related thread. The answer may have been directed to Bmeer, ask him. I have answered all of these same questions, and more than once.

I have already provided an answer to that elsewhere.

I have already answered that elsewhere and many times over.
DHK

 

DHK,

bmeer here. Perhaps mman missed your answers. You could copy and paste them to bring us all up to speed.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

I have made my point clear Bmerr. I refuse to go down those trails over and over again, when Mman can't answer the one simple question I ask of him. Until I get an answer (and not a question answered back with a plethora of other questions) but a straightforward answer, I refuse to answer his other questions.
DHK

 

John came preaching repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. He told them to bear fruit in keeping with repentance. This baptism was unto repentance, it was a part of the repentance process, not done after the repentance was complete. That is why baptism was unto repentance, not because they had already repented.

Mark states it this way in 1:4, John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Note, this is not a baptism because of repentance but a baptism of repentance, or a baptism repentance which was certainly for (or unto) the remission of sins. Check the Greek and see what you find out.

Let me make this as clear as I know how. John's baptism was unto repentance not because they had repented.

It was a baptism of repentance.(Acts 19:4, Mark 1:4, and Luke 3:3). From all indication, baptism was part of this repentance or reformation.

Matthew said it was a baptism unto repentance, which fits this idea perfectly.

Matt 3:11 - The baptism was unto repentance, not because they had already repented.

I can't help it if you don't like my answer. It is written as simply as I know how. Can you understand it?

And for the record, you have never answered my question concerning Mark 16:16 in this thread or any other thread. The closest you have ever come to attempting to answer it is post something someone else wrote who basically said Jesus didn't really mean what he said, he meant something else.

You have never in this thread or any other thread answered my challenge of using your definition of faith and show how the walls of Jericho fell.

There are many other questions you refuse to answer, and I accept that. That doesn't mean I am going to quit asking them.

This tactic of I'm not answering your question until you answer mine it very transparent and telling to me. I have answered time and time again, you just don't like the answer. Until you can show me where I'm wrong, I won't change. If you can, I will gladly change. Will you be as honest?

 

The word "unto" is the Greek word "eis" meaning in this case "because of." Repentance is not, never was a process. It is a one-time act. There is no process of repentance. To say "part of the repentance process" is foolishness. You either repent or you don't.
"Except ye repent ye shall likewise perish."
John did not say: "to bear fruit in keeping with repentance."
Why are misquoting or misrepresenting Scripture. There is a penalty for adding to the Word of God. He said to bring forth fruit meet (or suitable) for repentance." There was nothing said "in keeping with repentance." That is deceptive. They were to bring forth fruit because they had repented, that is unto repentance. eis=unto=because of.

You say this is not a baptism because of repentance. Then you preach heresy. The only way that John would baptize a person was on the basis of repentance. Not unless they had repented would he baptize them. Tell me: Did John ever baptize an unrepentant Pharisee?? Yes or No.

The only reason that John would baptize anyone is because, or on the basis that they had repented. That is straightforward theology. Repentance was the basis upon which he baptized. That is not difficult to understand.

As I have said before you need a dictionary. Repentance is not reformation. A man can do all the reforming he wants, but he well never get saved through reformation. Man needs regeneration not reformation.
Jesus commmanded all men to repent, not to reform.
We wouldn't have reformatories if people repented.
Repentance is a one-time act. It is not a process. Otherwise Jesus would not have given a choice: Repent or perish. There is no way that baptism could ever be a part of repentance. That doesn't make sense. Repentance isn't a process in which baptism can be a part of.

Example.
Turn on your computer and take a bath. Turning on your computer is an act, not a process. Taking a bath has nothing to do with turning on your computer. It is something unrelated that you can do afterward. That is about the same comparison (and about as far-fetched) as you saying that baptism is a part of "a repentance process." It is not. It doesn't even make sense.

Matthew said it like it is. It was a baptism "unto" (because of) repentance. The Greek allows that meaning. It is too bad that you reject Scripture. Your view of Scripture is skewed by your own presuppositions. I can show you in all 66 books of the Bible the great and wondrous theme: justification by faith alone. But you have to rely on just a half dozen verses in the Bible. Don't you think something is terribly wrong when your few verses go against the totality of the Bible?

I can never understand people who get caught up in damnable heresies.

I have indeed answered those questions, and many times over. In fact I tire of answering them over and over again. That is why I try to get you to stick to one topic at a time. But you use the same J.W. tactic--when cornered spray a whole lot of questions and divert the topic to another.
DHK

 

Just how many times does it have to be stated for it to be true?

Justification has never been by faith alone. You cannot show even one example of justification by faith alone.

You claim I reject scripture. I reject no scripture. I am not willing to go beyond what is written. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance or a baptism unto repentance. That's all the scripture says. I can show where you reject scripture.

James says, "if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?" - Jas 2:14

DHK would have to answer Yes - we are justified by faith alone.

James said, "So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." - James 2:17

DHK would have to teach that faith alone is alive and justifies.

James said, " that faith apart from works is useless" - James 2:20

DHK teaches faith apart from works is useful, since it justifies.

James says, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." James 2:24

DHK says man is justified by faith alone apart from works.

Without Heb 11, I'm sure you would argue that by works Noah prepared an ark for the saving of his household.

The scriptures clearly teach that by faith, Noah prepared an ark (Heb 11:7).

Without Heb 11, I'm sure you would argue that by works the walls of Jericho fell down.

The scriptures clearly teach the wall fell by faith. (Heb 11:30)

Josh 6:2 states, "And the LORD said to Joshua, "See, I have given Jericho into your hand, with its king and mighty men of valor. "

God had given them something. It was a gift. When they complied with the instructions, the walls fell down. They didn't earn it, it was given. If they "earned" it, then we could perform those same actions today and God would be obligated to make the walls fall down.

In Heb 11, show where anyone was justified who only believed.

You see, when we obey God's instructions it is called faith. Read Heb 11.

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Was Jesus kidding? Do you believe Jesus? Was Jesus trying to deceive us?

You see, when we obey this instruction, God calls it faith. We are not earning anything. Your definition of works would also include confession, but even you don't think that confession is a work of merit, do you?

Gal 3:26-27 (ESV) for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Baptism is not a work of merit but an act of faith. If it were meritious, then God would be obligated to forgive the sins of anyone who at any time was ever plunged beneath the water for any reason. Just as it can be said that by faith... Noah prepared an ark, or by the faith, the walls of Jericho fell down, it can be said, by faith we are baptized into Christ (Gal 3:26-27).

You see, to claim justification by faith alone and proving justification by faith alone are two totally separate things. You ignore the plain teachings on baptism because they don't fit with your belief of justification by faith only. Just because you ignore them doesn't make them go away. On another post, you tried to show justification by faith alone by listing verses from Matt to the first part of Romans, yet I showed you where it was justification by faith (not faith alone) and that none of your listed passages precluded baptism.

Now, did Jesus really mean, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and the that believeth not shall be condemned." or did he mean something else?

Is this verse not valid because it does not fit with your belief of justification by faith only?

Read and study all of Hebrews 11 to understand biblical faith. Without this type of faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God.

Where ever you see the word faith in Heb 11, I want you to substitute "belief only" and see how miserably that fits. Faith is not belief only. It is hearing God, believing or trusting God and obedience to God's instructions.

 

DHK,

bmerr here. I may be mistaken, but a "type" is symbolic, while an "anti-type" is actual. The symbolic always precedes the real.

So in the text at hand, the flood is a type of baptism, in which the sin of the world was washed away, while baptism is the antetype, or the real thing. The flood was a "like figure" of baptism, which "doth also now save us".

Now you have stated that baptism does not save one from sin. But the Bible very plainly states that at least in some sense, baptism "doth also now save us".

If not from sin, then from what?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us KJV
which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism ASV
which figure also now saves you, [even] baptism, Darby
This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you WEB

Perhaps you should use a better translation, one that doesn't confuse you. I've quoted from four different translations, including the KJV.
"The like figure"
"after a true likeness"
"Which figure"
this is a symbol This last one (the WEB) makes it very plain doesn't it. Baptism is a symbol. BTW, how much English grammar have you had? Did you ever learn how to diagram sentences?
Let's break down the statement phrase by phrase until we have the basic subject and predicate, and leave the modifiers out.

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
--Though it ends in a colon and continues on in the next verse, this verse in itself could be considered as a sentence in itself.
"The like figure" The meaninig is obvious. I just quoted it to you from four different translations. It is an introductory phrase meaning "symbolically speaking." Baptism in the Bible is always presented as a symbol, and Peter comes right out and says so here. The WEB translation puts it best.
The basic part of the verse is: "baptism saves us," but it does have some conditions and qualifiers that define what baptism it is that saves us. We know that it is not a physical water baptism by our introduction. "This is a symbol." Symbolically speaking baptism saves us. That means that it is not that baptism saves. Baptism is a symbol of something else that saves. It says outright that it is a symbol.
Now Peter goes on and makes that thought even more clear:

"baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,"
Aaaaah, so it is not the physical baptism that saves. It is not water baptism that cleanses us from sin, or puts away the filth of the flesh. No baptism can do that. That is a silly superstition, and I think Peter would agree to that otherwise why would he write such?
So that phrase eliminates water baptism as any possibility of being a rite that can save or remit sin. It doesn't. Peter says so right there.

Thus:
baptism doth also now save us,Not...but the answer of a good conscience toward God,
What saves? Not the baptism. BUT the answer of a good conscience toward God. What must my conscience answer to?
"by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" My conscience must answer to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (which is the gospel that saves). Without the resurrection there is no gospel, no saving power. And baptism is symbolic of this message--of his death, his resurrection. It is a symbol. Faith in Christ saves. Noah did not put faith in the destructive waters of the flood to save him. He put faith in the ark (Christ) to save him.
DHK

 

DHK - Your mental gymnastics are remarkable.

Here are some more literal translations:

I Pet 3:20 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. 21There 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, (NKJV)

I Pet 3:20 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. 21Corresponding 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, (NAS)

I Pet 3:20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (ESV)

I Pet 3:20 who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah -- an ark being preparing -- in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water; 21also to which an antitype doth now save us -- baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ, (YLT)

You refuse to accept the plain teaching of this passage. Baptism saves us. No, the power is not in the water, washing away your sins the way it washes away dirt, but is done in response to God and just as he raised Christ from the dead, we are also raised from the dead (Read Rom 6).

The parenthetical phrase is giving more detail concerning baptism, it does not change the meaning of the first part of the sentence. If sin were washed away the same as dirt, then every time water touched your body, it would be washing away sin. No, of course it doesn't work that way and that is what Peter is teaching.

You dismiss the obvious teaching of this passage because it doesn't fit your other beliefs. If you truly studied this passage to learn the meaning of it, without trying to satisfy your other beliefs, you would no doubt come to the conclusion that "baptism now saves you" - NAS.

When Naaman was cleansed from his leprosy, was the power in water or in God? Did the water wash away his leprosy the same way water washes away dirt? Peter is clearly teaching the same thing.

This passage clearly teaches Baptism saves us. You teach Baptism does not save us.

This reminds me of how the word "not" is inserted where God did not have it,
See Gen 2:17, "but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Gen 3:4 "The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!"

Furthermore, I Pet 3:21 clearly agrees with the simple and plain teaching of Jesus in Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned."

It clearly teaches the same as Acts 2:38 - "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins", yet you want to twist each of these from their obvious meanings.

The logical conclusion of I Pet 3:21 clearly agrees with Acts 22:16, "Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins".

It agrees with Eph 5:26, "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,"

It agrees with Heb 10:22 "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."

Since salvation is in Christ (II Tim 2:10) and the only way the scriptures tell us how to get into Christ is through baptism (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27), I Pet 3:21 fits perfectly with this.

God - Baptism saves us
DHK - Baptism does not save us

 

We use a common English expression. It really is the common way to say things today. Baptism--NOT!!!!

Now read almost every translation. What do they say?

Baptism, Not..

 

That's real funny, NOT. If you think that is the way that is used, you are truly deceived.

Now for some context, "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh" - ESV

If I were to say about Naaman, "He dipped in the waters of the Jordan river 7 times and he was healed, not because the water physically washed away his leprosy, but it was his response to God's instructions.

Would you argue that he was healed - NOT!?

I would say that he was healed when he dipped 7 times in the Jordan River, not because the water possessed special healing powers, but in an honest response to God's instructions.

Now, does 1 Pet 3:21 agree with or contradict Mark 16:16? What about Acts 2:38? What about Acts 22:16? What about Rom 6:3-4? What about Gal 3:26-27?