Salvation Not Possible Without Works

[JGIG]

Faith only advocates create serious contradictions within the Roman epistle when they try and get Rom 4:4 to mean Paul was eliminating ALL works.

An issue Paul dealt with seemingly ongoingly was trying to get the Jews to faithfully obey God's NT gospel than try to keep the OT law perfectly and merit savlation....."And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams" 1 Sam 15:22 Obeying and hearkening unto the Lord is better than trying to keep the law perfectly for the Jew would always fail in trying to keep the law perfectly. The OT law did not even require faith, Gal 3:12 so the Jews would faithlessly try and keep the law perfectly to try and merit their salvation. In some cases, Rom 10:3 the Jews would replace God's law with their own traditions and think they could be saved by perfectly keeping their own traditions...."went about establishing their own righteousness". And this was the issue Paul was dealing with in Rom 4:1-8. By showing an obedient faith, like that of Abraham and David, is what saves not trying to faithlessly keep God's OT law perfectly.

SeaBass, we're not 'faith only proponents'. We're 'Christ only proponents'. We believe that the forgiving, the gifting of Righteousness, and the giving of New Life ALL come from what God in Christ has done without any help from us whatsoever.

By faith, we enter into what He has already accomplished on our behalf.

Then because He lives in us, He produces His Fruit in and through us - LIVING works.

When reading the Gospel accounts, the Epistles, and the Revelation, you need to take your eyes off of YOU and put them on JESUS. The perspective change would do you good.

-JGIG

 

[BenFTW]

Do you know any baptized people who aren't saved?

[rhetorical question]

-JGIG

I like how a site gave an analogy. Its an interesting point. From the site:

Those who try to use Mark 16:16 to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation commit a common but serious mistake that is sometimes called the Negative Inference Fallacy. This is the rule to follow: “If a statement is true, we cannot assume that all negations (or opposites) of that statement are also true." For example, the statement “a dog with brown spots is an animal” is true; however, the negative, “if a dog does not have brown spots, it is not an animal” is false. In the same way, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” is true; however, the statement “he who believes but is not baptized will not be saved” is an unwarranted assumption. Yet this is exactly the assumption made by those who support baptismal regeneration.

Consider this example: "Whoever believes and lives in Kansas will be saved, but those that do not believe are condemned." This statement is strictly true; Kansans who believe in Jesus will be saved. However, to say that only those believers who live in Kansas are saved is an illogical and false assumption. The statement does not say a believer must live in Kansas in order to go to heaven. Similarly, Mark 16:16 does not say a believer must be baptized. The verse states a fact about baptized believers (they will be saved), but it says exactly nothing about believers who have not been baptized. There may be believers who do not dwell in Kansas, yet they are still saved; and there may be believers who have not been baptized, yet they, too, are still saved.

 

[JGIG]

We have heresy on both sides of this argument. But God only knows who is saved; Both heretics on each side could be saved, I don't know, That is only for God to know. BUT, I control who teaches what in my church; And neither side will teach in my church, nor be a member if they don't agree with my teaching. They would have to leave and find a church that agrees with their heresy. So, if you don't agree with me; Don't try to join my church. You are both are wasting my time. I had an apostolic believer in my church once, as soon as he prayed to "Father Jesus" I invited him to leave and not come back. He also believed in baptismal regeneration. Love to all, Hoffco

Well it's a good thing I'm not interested in joining 'your' church, but in being a part of the Body of Christ. (I do belong to a local church btw - have no problem with that or with submitting to authority.)

Maybe you didn't mean it to sound like this, but "BUT Icontrol who teaches what in my church" sounds an awful lot like you think it is your church, and not His. It also implies that you have attained perfection of doctrine, and my bet is that NO ONE is there, including you.

Just sayin'.

-JGIG

 

[Jabberjaw]

You do understand that Peter is using water baptism here as a metaphor, right? It's not the water itself that saves anyone, but the resurrection of Christ!

Water baptism is not a metaphor, its an anti-type :

1 Peter 3:20-21 (NKJV)
[SUP]20 [/SUP]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. [SUP]21 [/SUP]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,

Antitype:
1. One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
2. An opposite or contrasting type.
he American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

[Jabberjaw]

We have heresy on both sides of this argument. But God only knows who is saved; Both heretics on each side could be saved, I don't know, That is only for God to know. BUT, I control who teaches what in my church; And neither side will teach in my church, nor be a member if they don't agree with my teaching. They would have to leave and find a church that agrees with their heresy. So, if you don't agree with me; Don't try to join my church. You are both are wasting my time. I had an apostolic believer in my church once, as soon as he prayed to "Father Jesus" I invited him to leave and not come back. He also believed in baptismal regeneration. Love to all, Hoffco

Only a heretic would have his own church, you can have your own church, I belong to the Lords church, the one you cannot join, but the Lord adds you to... Acts 2:47

Acts 2:47 (NKJV)
praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

 

[Jabberjaw]

I like how a site gave an analogy. Its an interesting point. From the site:

Those who try to use Mark 16:16 to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation commit a common but serious mistake that is sometimes called the Negative Inference Fallacy. This is the rule to follow: “If a statement is true, we cannot assume that all negations (or opposites) of that statement are also true." For example, the statement “a dog with brown spots is an animal” is true; however, the negative, “if a dog does not have brown spots, it is not an animal” is false. In the same way, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” is true; however, the statement “he who believes but is not baptized will not be saved” is an unwarranted assumption. Yet this is exactly the assumption made by those who support baptismal regeneration.

Consider this example: "Whoever believes and lives in Kansas will be saved, but those that do not believe are condemned." This statement is strictly true; Kansans who believe in Jesus will be saved. However, to say that only those believers who live in Kansas are saved is an illogical and false assumption. The statement does not say a believer must live in Kansas in order to go to heaven. Similarly, Mark 16:16 does not say a believer must be baptized. The verse states a fact about baptized believers (they will be saved), but it says exactly nothing about believers who have not been baptized. There may be believers who do not dwell in Kansas, yet they are still saved; and there may be believers who have not been baptized, yet they, too, are still saved.

And you have been shown with a simple truth table, Mark 16:16 says baptism is a requirement for salvation, your web site can twist scripture, but cannot twist simple logic :

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

[TABLE="class: cms_table_grid"]
[TR]
[TD]Believe = True[/TD]
[TD]Baptized = True[/TD]
[TD]Saved = True[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Believe = False[/TD]
[TD]Baptized = True[/TD]
[TD]Saved = False[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Believe = True[/TD]
[TD]Baptized = False[/TD]
[TD]Saved = False[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Believe = False[/TD]
[TD]Baptized = False[/TD]
[TD]Saved = False[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[BenFTW]

And you have been shown with a simple truth table, Mark 16:16 says baptism is a requirement for salvation, your web site can twist scripture, but cannot twist simple logic :

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

[TABLE="class: cms_table_grid"]
[TR]
[TD]Believe = True[/TD]
[TD]Baptized = True[/TD]
[TD]Saved = True[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Believe = False[/TD]
[TD]Baptized = True[/TD]
[TD]Saved = False[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Believe = True[/TD]
[TD]Baptized = False[/TD]
[TD]Saved = True[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Believe = False[/TD]
[TD]Baptized = False[/TD]
[TD]Saved = False[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

There, I fixed it for you.

 

[JGIG]

Water baptism is not a metaphor, its an anti-type :

1 Peter 3:20-21 (NKJV)
[SUP]20 [/SUP]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. [SUP]21 [/SUP]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,

Antitype:
1. One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
2. An opposite or contrasting type.
he American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Classic.

You're taking a translation that inserts words not found in the original text, and then define Greek words that are not in the text using an English dictionary.

I'm sooooo convinced. (note sarcasm)

-JGIG

 

[JGIG]

And you have been shown with a simple truth table, Mark 16:16 says baptism is a requirement for salvation, your web site can twist scripture, but cannot twist simple logic :

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

[TABLE="class: cms_table_grid"]
[TR]
[TD]Believe = True[/TD]
[TD]Baptized = True[/TD]
[TD]Saved = True[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Believe = False[/TD]
[TD]Baptized = True[/TD]
[TD]Saved = False[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Believe = True[/TD]
[TD]Baptized = False[/TD]
[TD]Saved = False[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Believe = False[/TD]
[TD]Baptized = False[/TD]
[TD]Saved = False[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

And we come back to the thief.

Did Christ receive his faith or did Christ not receive his faith?

-JGIG

 

[Hoffco]

Well it's a good thing I'm not interested in joining 'your' church, but in being a part of the Body of Christ. (I do belong to a local church btw - have no problem with that or with submitting to authority.)

Maybe you didn't mean it to sound like this, but "BUT Icontrol who teaches what in my church" sounds an awful lot like you think it is your church, and not His. It also implies that you have attained perfection of doctrine, and my bet is that NO ONE is there, including you.

Just sayin'.

-JGIG

JGIG,,thanks for the question, I will answer honest questions. It is MY church, (small "c"). It is in my home totally controlled by ME. I have been "brown nosed" by so many "big shots" in churches, that I will, properly, never joint an other church which disagrees with me and will not let me pastor it. I would join a local church that believes the Bible and agrees to disagree peacefully and let me teach. And I agree with you, I don't know it all yet. Love to all, Hoffco

 

[Jabberjaw]

And we come back to the thief.

Did Christ receive his faith or did Christ not receive his faith?

-JGIG

The thief was not a new testament example, Jesus was still alive, He could save anyone He wanted by His words, after His testament came into power, then He would not be able to save the thief without going against His own word and would not be just.

Hebrews 9:16-17 (NKJV)
[SUP]16 [/SUP]For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. [SUP]17 [/SUP]For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

Jesus saved the thief before he died.

 

[just-me]

The thief was not a new testament example, Jesus was still alive, He could save anyone He wanted by His words, after His testament came into power, then He would not be able to save the thief without going against His own word and would not be just.

Hebrews 9:16-17 (NKJV)
[SUP]16 [/SUP]For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. [SUP]17 [/SUP]For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

Jesus saved the thief before he died.

Good point that you make. Anti works and anti Old Testament people don't like that scripture, but I sure do because that scripture is proof that all Jesus taught, and did before He died is Old Testament. Therefore, it makes Jesus Christ our perfect mediator.

 

[Jabberjaw]

Classic.

You're taking a translation that inserts words not found in the original text, and then define Greek words that are not in the text using an English dictionary.

I'm sooooo convinced. (note sarcasm)

-JGIG

Lets see if your correct :

1 Peter 3:21 (TR)
ο ω και ημας αντιτυπον νυν σωζει βαπτισμα ου σαρκος αποθεσις ρυπου αλλα συνειδησεως αγαθης επερωτημα εις θεον δι αναστασεως ιησου χριστου

1 Peter 3:21 (Byz)
ο αντιτυπον νυν και ημας σωζει βαπτισμα ου σαρκος αποθεσις ρυπου αλλα συνειδησεως αγαθης επερωτημα εις θεον δι αναστασεως ιησου χριστου

1 Peter 3:21 (WHNU)
ο και υμας αντιτυπον νυν σωζει βαπτισμα ου σαρκος αποθεσις ρυπου αλλα συνειδησεως αγαθης επερωτημα εις θεον δι αναστασεως ιησου χριστου

That should cover about every Greek text under all English versions, lets look at the word "αντιτυπον" :

Strong's:
499 antitupon an-teet'-oo-pon neuter of a compound of 473 and 5179; corresponding ("antitype"), i.e. a representative, counterpart:--(like) figure (whereunto). see GREEK for 473 see GREEK for 5179

58.69 ἀντίτυπος, ον: pertaining to that which corresponds in form and structure to something else, either as an anticipation of a later reality or as a fulfillment of a prior type - 'correspondence, antitype, representation, fulfillment.' ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα 'which corresponds to baptism which now saves you' 1 Peter 3:21; χειροποίητα ... ἅγια ... ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν 'a sanctuary ... made with hands ... corresponding to the true sanctuary' Hebrews 9:24.
Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Symantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 593.

Original Word: ἀντίτυπον, antitypon
Usage Notes: is rendered "after a true likeness," in 1 Pet. 3:21, RV (marg., "in the antitype"). See FIGURE, No. 2.
William E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old Testament and New Testament Words, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1940), Under: "Likeness of".

If your version does not say antitype or likeness of or Like Figure, then you have a bad version.

 

[JGIG]

The thief was not a new testament example, Jesus was still alive, He could save anyone He wanted by His words, after His testament came into power, then He would not be able to save the thief without going against His own word and would not be just.

Hebrews 9:16-17 (NKJV)
[SUP]16 [/SUP]For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. [SUP]17 [/SUP]For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

Jesus saved the thief before he died.

No, Jesus told the thief that on that day he'd join Christ in Paradise. Then He died. Then the thief died. The thief believed in the Christ who said, 'It is Finished', having done the Work of the Cross.

Been over this before, yet you ignore the facts.

-JGIG

 

[Hoffco]

Only a heretic would have his own church, you can have your own church, I belong to the Lords church, the one you cannot join, but the Lord adds you to... Acts 2:47

Acts 2:47 (NKJV)
praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

I agree with you on The Church of Jesus Christ of which I have been baptized into by the Holy Spirit. I have baptized in water also, which as a anti type which saves because of my good profession , life of faith works and recognized by many real Christians as a brother in Christ. I care not if I am called a heretic; They will all have to apology to me and Christ at the Judgment seat. What is an antitype? I think it is a type in a "back handed way" (anti: against, opposite) water destroyed in the flood, but water in a "sense", in baptism "saves" . It is a "saving grace". Love to all, Hoffco

 

[Jabberjaw]

No, Jesus told the thief that on that day he'd join Christ in Paradise. Then He died. Then the thief died. The thief believed in the Christ who said, 'It is Finished', having done the Work of the Cross.

Been over this before, yet you ignore the facts.

-JGIG

So according to you, Jesus told the thief he would be saved that night, then Jesus died and nullified his salvation?

Or you suppose that the thief was saved by Grace before the Gospel was ever preached? as Paul would say "God forbid"

Jesus saved the thief under the Old Testament by just speaking the words, after His death (actually after Pentecost because although it was in force, it had not been preached (revealed)) Jesus could not have saved the thief by His word because it would be unjust, He would be violating his own Law.

 

[JGIG]

Lets see if your correct :

1 Peter 3:21 (TR)
ο ω και ημας αντιτυπον νυν σωζει βαπτισμα ου σαρκος αποθεσις ρυπου αλλα συνειδησεως αγαθης επερωτημα εις θεον δι αναστασεως ιησου χριστου

1 Peter 3:21 (Byz)
ο αντιτυπον νυν και ημας σωζει βαπτισμα ου σαρκος αποθεσις ρυπου αλλα συνειδησεως αγαθης επερωτημα εις θεον δι αναστασεως ιησου χριστου

1 Peter 3:21 (WHNU)
ο και υμας αντιτυπον νυν σωζει βαπτισμα ου σαρκος αποθεσις ρυπου αλλα συνειδησεως αγαθης επερωτημα εις θεον δι αναστασεως ιησου χριστου

That should cover about every Greek text under all English versions, lets look at the word "αντιτυπον" :

Strong's:
499 antitupon an-teet'-oo-pon neuter of a compound of 473 and 5179; corresponding ("antitype"), i.e. a representative, counterpart:--(like) figure (whereunto). see GREEK for 473 see GREEK for 5179

58.69 ἀντίτυπος, ον: pertaining to that which corresponds in form and structure to something else, either as an anticipation of a later reality or as a fulfillment of a prior type - 'correspondence, antitype, representation, fulfillment.' ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα 'which corresponds to baptism which now saves you' 1 Peter 3:21; χειροποίητα ... ἅγια ... ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν 'a sanctuary ... made with hands ... corresponding to the true sanctuary' Hebrews 9:24.
Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Symantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 593.

Original Word: ἀντίτυπον, antitypon
Usage Notes: is rendered "after a true likeness," in 1 Pet. 3:21, RV (marg., "in the antitype"). See FIGURE, No. 2.
William E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old Testament and New Testament Words, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1940), Under: "Likeness of".

If your version does not say antitype or likeness of or Like Figure, then you have a bad version.

Point taken - I scrolled down too far in the Greek of the verse when I looked at it. I understand the concept of type/anti-type. You are correct, it is there. My apologies.

Baptism does not save, however, anymore than the flood saved those not inside the ark.

The water symbolizes DEATH, not SALVATION.

We are buried with Christ, having died with Him on the Cross, and are raised alive in Him, because of His Resurrection. It's a picture. A metaphor. A public proclamation. Baptism, however, has no power to save us. As the last part of that passage says,

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: (from 1 Pet 3)​

Note that the water killed most. Only those who were in the Ark (a picture for the future Christ) were saved. The water testified to their survival because of the ARK, not because of the water! The object of our salvation is ALWAYS Christ, never us.

No doubt, a difficult passage, and one could interpret it as you do, but then it would contradict many, many other places where it is clear that it is not baptism does not save, but Christ.

-JGIG

 

[Jabberjaw]

ark 16:16 (NKJV)
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

[TABLE="class: cms_table_cms_table_grid"]
[TR]
[TD]Believe = True[/TD]
[TD]Baptized = True[/TD]
[TD]Saved = True[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Believe = False[/TD]
[TD]Baptized = True[/TD]
[TD]Saved = False[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Believe = True[/TD]
[TD]Baptized = False[/TD]
[TD]Saved = True[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Believe = False[/TD]
[TD]Baptized = False[/TD]
[TD]Saved = False[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

There, I fixed it for you.

No, you have only proven you don't have a clue to understanding simple logic, you should have learned that in school.

if you say :

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]Believe = True[/TD]
[TD]Baptized = False[/TD]
[TD]Saved = True[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Then you say even Devils are saved :

James 2:19 (KJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP]Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]Devils believe = True[/TD]
[TD]Devils Baptized = False[/TD]
[TD]Devils Saved = True[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Good logic you have there.

 

[JGIG]

No, you have only proven you don't have a clue to understanding simple logic, you should have learned that in school.

if you say :

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]Believe = True[/TD]
[TD]Baptized = False[/TD]
[TD]Saved = True[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Then you say even Devils are saved :

James 2:19 (KJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP]Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]Devils believe = True[/TD]
[TD]Devils Baptized = False[/TD]
[TD]Devils Saved = True[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Good logic you have there.

Some will make a charge of ’easy believism’ against those who preach the Gospel of Grace, using this single verse from Scripture:

James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that — and shudder.
​

They then try to equate that belief of demons with faith in Christ. Demons do understand – they know Who Jesus is – they believe that fact – but they don’t put their faith in His Work. It is not the same thing at all. The unspoken accusation here, whether intended or not, is that belief by humans, without the added performance of Law, is no better than the belief of demons. What a motivator, eh?!

Broken people who have been saved by Grace through Faith, in the midst of healing and restoring by the Spirit of God, don’t believe like the demons believe. They are placing their faith and trust in the God Who came in the flesh to die a horrible death to satisfy the wrath that should have come on them and are instead receiving complete forgiveness that He freely gives, enabling Him to impute to them the Righteousness of Christ, resulting in New Life – the indwelling of the Holy Spirit – making them a New Creation in Christ (Romans 5 and 2 Corinthians 5:16-21)!


No, the belief that demons exercise is something quite different indeed.

-JGIG

 

[Jabberjaw]

Point taken - I scrolled down too far in the Greek of the verse when I looked at it. I understand the concept of type/anti-type. You are correct, it is there. My apologies.

No apologies required, we all make mistakes, especially me LoL.

Baptism does not save, however, anymore than the flood saved those not inside the ark.

The water symbolizes DEATH, not SALVATION.

We are buried with Christ, having died with Him on the Cross, and are raised alive in Him, because of His Resurrection. It's a picture. A metaphor. A public proclamation. Baptism, however, has no power to save us. As the last part of that passage says,

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: (from 1 Pet 3)​

Note though your quote above from 1 Pet. 3, the "like figure" is water, and "whereunto even baptism doth also now save us" says undeniably that baptism by water saves, but it is not a normal washing (not the putting away the filth of the flesh), when one goes into the water, they "in like figure" are buried, dead to sin, when they come up out of the water, they are "like figure" resurrected a new creature, a babe in Christ, they are newborn Christians. it is in the water that you through the Holy Spirit are washed with the cleansing blood of Christ, it is there you come into contact with his cleansing blood remitting your sins.

Note that the water killed most. Only those who were in the Ark (a picture for the future Christ) were saved. The water testified to their survival because of the ARK, not because of the water! The object of our salvation is ALWAYS Christ, never us.

actually, in with Noah "like figure" the water washed away the sins of the world, the antitype is the water washed away our individual sins, not the sins of the world.

No doubt, a difficult passage, and one could interpret it as you do, but then it would contradict many, many other places where it is clear that it is not baptism does not save, but Christ.

-JGIG

I have yet to find a single conversion where baptism was not required.