Post by kjammer on May 9, 2007 16:26:20 GMT -5
I posted this on the oneness forum on CARM, and Pastor 2022 tried to discredit it by posting something from A.T. Robertson and Kennon Destroyed him on it.
1 Peter 3:20-21 Errors by Kennon Olison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Peter 3:20-21 Errors
Anyone who will use the common sense God gave them, and some basic principles of logic will clearly understand that this verse is teaching that baptism saves.
Hermeneutic principle and logistic rule: Because the bible is inspired of God, II Timothy 3:16, then it cannot contradict itself.
This means it cannot contradict itself where the same subject is taught in different passages. Therefore it most certainly cannot contradict itself within the same verse.
I Peter 3:21 explicitly states "baptism doth also now save us...". It becomes a logical contradiction to interpret the rest of this verse in any way that says baptism does not save.
Because scripture is inspired, then grammar is to be accepted as divine and inerrant. The grammar of this verse demands that we accept baptism is in fact what saves.
(Though one must understand that baptism alone never saves anyone. Other ingredients are manditory. All scripture given on the subject of salvation must be considered and applied. Therefore we know that Faith, repentance, and confession are all essential.)
Someone on this board has suggested that the Greek language does not say what the english does. Yet that same person has not given the grammatical structure to back up his or her assertion.
I maintain that the Greek makes it clear that baptism is what saves. It also makes it crystal clear that the Ark is not the type, or antitype referenced.
The Greek word examined is "O" (pardon the fact I dont have Greek font.) The word is translated, "which" or "whereunto". It is in the Greek grammar a Relative pronoun.
A Relative pronoun has an antecedent. It almost always points backwards, not forward.
"A relative pronoun is so named because it "relates" to a noun or pronoun in anohter clause of the sentence. This noun or pronoun is called the antecedent because it is logically prior to the relative (thought it is not always written first)." (Learn to read the Greek New Testament, David Alan Black, Pg. 155-156).
A relative pronoun must agree with its antecedent in gender, case, and number. This is the Greek grammar rule.
Examples of how Pronouns and antecedents work:
A loose English example: Ken when to the store and then he also when to the bank.
"He" is the pronoun. The antecedent is "Ken". (There are different types of pronoun's and so forth. This example is a basic to give an idea to the novice reader.)
In the Greek the relative pronoun becomes much more structured.
Words like, whom, whose, which, who, can all be relative pronouns.
Greek Example: Matthew 2:9 "behold, the star, which they saw in the east."
"which" is the relative pronoun. It's antedecent is "star". Remember the relative pronoun must match its antecedent in case, number, and gender.
As a general rule, the nearest noun is normally the antecedent. Or, the nearest clause, or phrase, (known as the relative clause) becomes the antecedent.
When we examine our text of I Peter 3:21, then we see clearly that the relative pronoun is "whereunto".
Whereunto baptism doth also now save us....
But what is the antecedent. The Faith onlyist, who will deny that this verse teaches baptism saves, will attempt to make the Ark of verse 20 the antecedent. They will compare baptism to the Ark.
This leads to making the Ark a type of Christ. While we have no arguement against teaching that the Ark can be a type of Christ, it becomes gramatically wrong to state that the Ark is the antecedent to the relative pronoun in verse 21.
The Ark does not match the relative pronoun is case, gender, or number. Therefore it cannot be gramatically linked to verse 21 in any way.
However the noun, "water" of verse 20, and the phrase "saved by water" are an exact match for "whereunto", which is the relative pronoun. Clearly the antecedent is "water" or "saved by water" and not the Ark.
So then, it says, "were saved by water, the likefigure whereunto baptism doth also now save us..."
The comparison is "saved by water" and "baptism".
It cannot be, "...while the ark was a preparing, (skip skip skip skip skip) This like figure baptism doth also now save us..."
That is not good grammar.
The proper interpretation simply shows that the flood and the salvation of Noah becomes a "type" for our salvation by baptism.
The example shows that Noah was coming from a horrible and sinful world, brought through the waters of the flood, into a new world. His travel and safety was inside the ark.
For us we are brought from a horrible and sinful state, through the waters of baptism, into a new life. (Romans 6:3-4). Our travel and safety is in Christ.
Those who attempt to state that baptism corresponds to the Ark are grammatically wrong.
The answer to the question, "what saved Noah, the water or the ark" becomes irrelevant to the the study of baptism. Noah was saved by God, in the ark, through the waters of the flood. Thats what the bible says.
When asking questions such as these, we simply miss that fact that God told Noah to get into the Ark. He tells us to get in the water. Acts 22:16. Will you do what God told Noah? Or what God tells us?
Finally the latter part of verse 21, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh..." can in no way contradict the previous statement that baptism saves us.
Peter was making it clear that getting in the water of baptism is not the same as cleaning our flesh from dirt. This was a ritual, called baptism, practiced by the priesthood before they offered sacrifices. Numbers 19:7.
Baptism is not a bath. It is cleansing of our spirit by faith in the ressurection of Jesus Christ.
With all the talk of I Peter 3:21, wouldnt it be much easier to simply accept the verse what it says? Baptism doth also now save us....
than to write hours of commentary explaining the text way?
__________________
K. Olison
Keeping the Faith Till the last Amen
1 Peter 3:20-21 Errors by Kennon Olison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Peter 3:20-21 Errors
Anyone who will use the common sense God gave them, and some basic principles of logic will clearly understand that this verse is teaching that baptism saves.
Hermeneutic principle and logistic rule: Because the bible is inspired of God, II Timothy 3:16, then it cannot contradict itself.
This means it cannot contradict itself where the same subject is taught in different passages. Therefore it most certainly cannot contradict itself within the same verse.
I Peter 3:21 explicitly states "baptism doth also now save us...". It becomes a logical contradiction to interpret the rest of this verse in any way that says baptism does not save.
Because scripture is inspired, then grammar is to be accepted as divine and inerrant. The grammar of this verse demands that we accept baptism is in fact what saves.
(Though one must understand that baptism alone never saves anyone. Other ingredients are manditory. All scripture given on the subject of salvation must be considered and applied. Therefore we know that Faith, repentance, and confession are all essential.)
Someone on this board has suggested that the Greek language does not say what the english does. Yet that same person has not given the grammatical structure to back up his or her assertion.
I maintain that the Greek makes it clear that baptism is what saves. It also makes it crystal clear that the Ark is not the type, or antitype referenced.
The Greek word examined is "O" (pardon the fact I dont have Greek font.) The word is translated, "which" or "whereunto". It is in the Greek grammar a Relative pronoun.
A Relative pronoun has an antecedent. It almost always points backwards, not forward.
"A relative pronoun is so named because it "relates" to a noun or pronoun in anohter clause of the sentence. This noun or pronoun is called the antecedent because it is logically prior to the relative (thought it is not always written first)." (Learn to read the Greek New Testament, David Alan Black, Pg. 155-156).
A relative pronoun must agree with its antecedent in gender, case, and number. This is the Greek grammar rule.
Examples of how Pronouns and antecedents work:
A loose English example: Ken when to the store and then he also when to the bank.
"He" is the pronoun. The antecedent is "Ken". (There are different types of pronoun's and so forth. This example is a basic to give an idea to the novice reader.)
In the Greek the relative pronoun becomes much more structured.
Words like, whom, whose, which, who, can all be relative pronouns.
Greek Example: Matthew 2:9 "behold, the star, which they saw in the east."
"which" is the relative pronoun. It's antedecent is "star". Remember the relative pronoun must match its antecedent in case, number, and gender.
As a general rule, the nearest noun is normally the antecedent. Or, the nearest clause, or phrase, (known as the relative clause) becomes the antecedent.
When we examine our text of I Peter 3:21, then we see clearly that the relative pronoun is "whereunto".
Whereunto baptism doth also now save us....
But what is the antecedent. The Faith onlyist, who will deny that this verse teaches baptism saves, will attempt to make the Ark of verse 20 the antecedent. They will compare baptism to the Ark.
This leads to making the Ark a type of Christ. While we have no arguement against teaching that the Ark can be a type of Christ, it becomes gramatically wrong to state that the Ark is the antecedent to the relative pronoun in verse 21.
The Ark does not match the relative pronoun is case, gender, or number. Therefore it cannot be gramatically linked to verse 21 in any way.
However the noun, "water" of verse 20, and the phrase "saved by water" are an exact match for "whereunto", which is the relative pronoun. Clearly the antecedent is "water" or "saved by water" and not the Ark.
So then, it says, "were saved by water, the likefigure whereunto baptism doth also now save us..."
The comparison is "saved by water" and "baptism".
It cannot be, "...while the ark was a preparing, (skip skip skip skip skip) This like figure baptism doth also now save us..."
That is not good grammar.
The proper interpretation simply shows that the flood and the salvation of Noah becomes a "type" for our salvation by baptism.
The example shows that Noah was coming from a horrible and sinful world, brought through the waters of the flood, into a new world. His travel and safety was inside the ark.
For us we are brought from a horrible and sinful state, through the waters of baptism, into a new life. (Romans 6:3-4). Our travel and safety is in Christ.
Those who attempt to state that baptism corresponds to the Ark are grammatically wrong.
The answer to the question, "what saved Noah, the water or the ark" becomes irrelevant to the the study of baptism. Noah was saved by God, in the ark, through the waters of the flood. Thats what the bible says.
When asking questions such as these, we simply miss that fact that God told Noah to get into the Ark. He tells us to get in the water. Acts 22:16. Will you do what God told Noah? Or what God tells us?
Finally the latter part of verse 21, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh..." can in no way contradict the previous statement that baptism saves us.
Peter was making it clear that getting in the water of baptism is not the same as cleaning our flesh from dirt. This was a ritual, called baptism, practiced by the priesthood before they offered sacrifices. Numbers 19:7.
Baptism is not a bath. It is cleansing of our spirit by faith in the ressurection of Jesus Christ.
With all the talk of I Peter 3:21, wouldnt it be much easier to simply accept the verse what it says? Baptism doth also now save us....
than to write hours of commentary explaining the text way?
__________________
K. Olison
Keeping the Faith Till the last Amen