[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

How can you possibly take that from what I said?

I said: The effects of the cross were benficial and accounted even before Calvary.

You then ask: Are you saying the cross has no benefit at all?

Either you're not paying attention or you're deliberately attributing the exact opposite to what I say.

This is exactly what you said, Pel:

My only point in arguing here is to say that anyone who was ever "saved" from anything was saved by the grace of God. Remember, even Noah was "saved" by grace (Genesis 6:8). "Oh," you say (well not "you" but "they"), Noah was "saved" by building the ark! Works!

Not so, at least I don't think so. Where does it say that Noah was "saved" by that boat? 1 Peter 3:20-21 says that it was the "longsuffering of God that waited..." and then attributes Noah's salvation not to the boat, but to the flood. The "eight souls" were "saved by water..."

Ah, ha! Water "saves" us? No, for Peter tortuously goes on to say that the obvious effects of the water are in fact meaningless. What ultimately saves us in Peter's view is the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21).

So after all of that, I would say that the thief was "saved" by the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his faith in that event. The thief himself said, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom..."

The Dispy style arguments, in my view, fail here. What ultimately matters was that the thief had faith in Jesus Christ, and the fact that Jesus Himself was able to prove Himself faithful.

My response was to your post that is in quotes above.

I deeply resent what appears to be a deliberate attempt to undermine my preaching of the Gospel.The effects of the cross were benficial and accounted even before Calvary.

Where did you say "I said: The cross perhaps has a greater benefit than what we've considered.? Are you confusing another post with the one I was responding to? How was I suppose to come to the conclusion from what you posted that "the cross perhaps has a greater benefit than what we've considered"?

And I resent that you think Peter is saying water baptism is "meaningless" and that what ultimately saves us in Peter's view is the resurrection"
Because of which I responded "Does that mean Jesus' death on the cross and the blood He shed for us was without effect as well without the resurrecton?"

IMO, you are saying we are saved by the resurrection alone and denying that Peter said baptism saves us because of the resurrection which is the total opposite of what Peter, in my mind, is saying. And that you were disannuling what Peter said about baptism completely and agreeing with what Paul teaches that without the resurrection, and if there be not resurrection, then Christ's death was in vain, our faith is in vain, and we are still sinners! Which is saying the cross is of none effect and no consequence if Christ was not raised from the dead. And then you are taking this argument to say that baptism is meaningless when in fact the resurrection affirms or confirms the cross and in 1Pet 3:21 the resurrection affirms water baptism...we are baptized for the dead...meaning when we die and are judged for the deeds we did in the flesh, the remission of sins we received at baptism and the continued benefit of the blood of Christ after baptism through repentance will have been what keeps us from condemnation while standing before the throne of Christ.

I also added a couple of verses that shows the necessity of the resurrection and made an additional comment that the resurrection reinforces the salvific nature of water baptism.

1Cor 15:13-17 .....and if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain, ye are yet in your sins.

Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

The fact that Christ rose from the dead doesn't take away from the salvific nature of water baptism but reinforces it!

You respond by saying: "Pelathais says the cross has no benefit at all?"

No hard feelings intended here, but I just can't escape feelings of resentment over such a gloss.

Sorry, I caused you to feel resentment over something I wasn't accusing you of saying and likewise that you misunderstood me. You may need to read some of 1 Cor 15 to see where I'm coming from and why I thought you were talking along these lines in your post esp in regards to Peter implying that the resurrection ultimately saves us, which it does.

I never said "the resurrection take[s] away from the salvific nature of water baptism..." I quoted the very words of Peter himself when I said "that baptism doth now save us... through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." That's what the Book says (1 Peter 3:20-21).

You also said this: Ah, ha! Water "saves" us? No, for Peter tortuously goes on to say that the obvious effects of the water are in fact meaningless. What ultimately saves us in Peter's view is the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21).

And I'm contending that yes, ultimately the resurrection saves us but it does not render meaningless water baptism but on the contrary it reinforces it! And I believe that is exactly what Peter is saying as well...baptism saves because Christ rose from the dead. If He wasn't resurrected the cross and the blood shed on the cross would be of none effect, we would still be in our sins and when we meet death, we would be found lacking.

Since the discussion involved the "salvation" sought for and apparently found by the Thief on the Cross, and the fact that this Thief was never baptized caused me to look for similarities between those who are "saved" and baptized and those who are "saved" and not baptized in the Bible. One similarity that leaps from the pages of the Bible is the hope for and faith in the resurrection of the Savior.

I haven't read the whole thread but I believe the thief was an exception in a time of flux between the two testaments and Jesus had the power to forgive sins by His word. I wasn't addressing this part of your post. I was mostly addressing the 1 Peter 3:21 verse. I do agree with you that the thief seemed to believe that Jesus was the Christ and would live again to rule a kingdom. I would speculate the same as you that faith saved the thief but I wouldn't go to the lengths you went to to disprove the salvific nature of baptism in 1 Peter 3:21 and the further implications you are trying to bring about through that.

Add to this the fact that no one has even attempted to disprove my assertion that John's baptism was "for the remission of sins..." and that this "remission of sins" was accounted before the cross. The only response I get from that point is "Nuh-uh." No one has even attempted to address Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77; and Luke 3:3.

Are you saying no one in this thread or no one ever has attempted to address those verses in this forum. I would disagree with you as would Matt, MFBlume, and perhaps Prax if you are sayng no one on this forum ever...

I will agree with you again that John's baptism for the remission of sins is a BAPTISM ....remission happened at the BAPTISM by faith. Remission of sins was accounted for before the cross with a clear looking forward to of Him that was to come. And once Jesus came they needed to believe on Him and be rebaptized and recieve the Holy Spirit, just like the Ephesus believers in Acts 19. To me this is intertestamental exceptions to the rule, because without the shedding of blood the new testament/covenant is not in effect.

The people who responded to John's preaching received "the remission of sins" before the cross. And those are Mark's and Luke's words, not mine. The whole purpose of John's ministry was "To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins..." Those were the words that Luke attributes to the Holy Spirit speaking through the priest Zacharius, John's father.

I'm not arguing against you here, Pel. My concern was with your interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21.

Q: When did the people receive this "knowledge of salvation?"
A: When they heard John's preaching - before the cross.

Q:When did the people receive "remission of sins?"
A: When they came to John, confessed their sins and were baptized by John and his disciples and later by the disciples of Jesus Christ Himself (John 4:1-2) before the cross.

Q: Why is this important?
A: Because by looking at baptism both before and after the events at Calvary we can compare and contrast the different time periods and see what was "different" about after the cross.

Thank you for simple explanation of your reasoning which I truly don't have much of a problem with considering the lengthy, exhaustive discussion we had on another thread with Matt, Blume, and Prax. As you can see I agree with much of what you say EXCEPT your interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21.

What do you think of this verse? Does it fit in with the rest of your reasoning?

Luke 11:12-13 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

What does it mean "...and the law prophesied UNTIL John"

Essentially, the "only" thing that was "different" was that Jesus had completed the promised work for our salvation. AND NOTE: I put the word "only" in the scary "QUOTE" marks to emphasize the fact that this event was a pretty big deal in my opinion. However, the "only" difference remains one of timing. [/CENTER]

I never meant to imply this event wasn't a BIG deal for you!