Re spirits in Prison and the common view

That is called debate. You give your reasons. I give mine. I give mine with Scripture and show how Scripture backs up scripture refuting the points that you gave. That is the nature of debate.

BTW, why did you change your name "LetsObeyChrist?

You mean, I am not giving into your doctrinal beliefs, and you cannot defeat what I have said. What you believe in is quite unscriptural and you probably know that. You belong to the Church of Christ, right?

I proclaim the truth of the Word of God. Then I give reasons for why it is the truth. When others come here and post that which is not truth, but error, I will tell why it is error and give Biblical reasons why. The truth is precious. To let others try and destroy it is wrong.

 

Fair enough, I'll address your points.

Alfred Persson is my name, LetsObeyChrist an alias. Because I am treating controversial subjects, its more forthright to use my name and stand by my comments. I believe what I claim to believe and am willing to suffer for it.

I have found using my own name disciplines my comments...don't want to say anything stupid that will haunt me in the future etc.

Once a poster accused LetsObeyChrist of stealing material from Alfred Persson...lol! so this should prevent that from happening again.

There's still a few boards where I haven't changed over...I'll get to them eventually...right now I'll be taking the time to answer your two lengthy posts.

 

I will treat your reply in segments, otherwise its too obtuse.

I am a Nicene Trinitarian, Jesus is God the Eternal Son, 2 Person of the Holy Trinity whom everyone must bow to, confess He is LORD publicly....to be born again.

I've posted every where on the NET, a simple Google search of either LetsObeyChrist or Alfred Persson reveals I am Orthodox.

I'm a John the Baptist Baptist, hence non denominational.

Smearing me as belonging to a certain church or alleging I believe heresy, when those are lies, is not professional. As a moderator you should discipline yourself.

Salvation is by grace alone, the believer is eternally secure, water baptism is not required to be saved but John the Baptist would say, full immersion is certianly the way to go, if not in the desert etc.

You think my eschatology is wrong, but you think that because you don't know the scriptures as well as I.
I will take your response in small segments, like for example the

"I never brought baptism into this discussion. It is a red herring that you have inserted"

Not a red herring, Peter brought it up therefore it is relevant and material to the correct exegesis of the text:

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, (1Pe 3:21 NKJ)

 

You misread my argument, never did I say anyone can be saved through suffering.

PETER is arguing a point, that benefits to the Kingdom accrue when we obey God and do His will, even if it means we must suffer. To prove that MAXIM he cites the example of Christ, who suffered "that He might bring us to God."

17 For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,
19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison,
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,
(1Pe 3:17-21 NKJ)

So Christ saving others confirms the MAXIM doing the Will of God even when it hurts, its better.

So where is Peter saying Christ went to these spirits in prison to proclaim victory? Its not there, nor is it implied. Rather Peter is giving examples of Christ saving, as proof its better to suffer if its God will. It brings tangible benefits to the Kingdom.

Preaching victory to the completely defeated is not a benefit to the Kingdom, its just cruel.

The Christ of Scripture traveled to other places to save what is lost:

18 "The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD."
(Luk 4:18-19 NKJ)

While its common today to believe nice people become nasty ghosts when they die…its not in the Bible and Jesus isn't just any man---Jesus is God the Eternal Son, unchangeable…love…and there are no parallels to Christ preaching victory to spirits in the Bible.

Therefore your argument is special pleading fallacy, nothing in the context supports it.

Also contradicting your theory is Peter who cites Baptism as antitype ("like figure",kjv)of what happened,

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)

Peter denies water is part of this ANTITYPE. That rules out water or Noah and those with him as the TYPE.

The Flood is NOT a type of Baptism, the waters slew everyone on dry land save those in the Ark.

499 antitupos is something that resembles something else, its TYPE.

The only resemblance in the context is Christ preaching to us....and to the spirits in prison.

Its a like figure what happened to them, and us. That means they were saved when they gave the answer of a good conscience, just as Noah and those with him did when they built and boarded the Ark, or us when we repented and confessed Jesus is LORD publicly.

Confirming this is the grammar, its not consistent with Noah and the water being the TYPE. Check it out yourself, look at the confusion in the critical commentaries...the flood nor the water can be the type which resembles baptism, because Peter said they were saved through the water...by the Ark of course.

The type is what Christ did with these "formerly disobedint" spirits in prison, its a "like figure" (kjv) because Christ went and preached salvation to these spirits in prison, and they also gave the answer of a good counscience...

And so they rose with Christ just as we rise with Christ:

buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Col 2:12 NKJ)

This interpretation alone is elegant, that is, parsimonous to the context. Parsimony is evident in all correct interpretation.

 

It is not a matter of salvation, second chances, etc.
He is writing to believers; believers that are suffering under the cruel reign of Nero and giving them encouragement.

This is a simple illustration. The fallen spirits are suffering because of their disobedience. That is all.

Peter is relating history. He is telling what happened. Christ was made alive by the Spirit by which he went and "proclaimed..." He is simply telling what happened. It is in the context of suffering.
1. The believers suffer.
2. Christ suffered as an example for them.
3. Fallen angels suffer for their disobedience.
4. They will suffer, but in spite of suffer should continue to obey.

This has nothing to do with the passage in 1Peter 3.

There are no passages of Christ preaching the gospel to fallen spirits--none, zilch, nada, zero. It doesn't happen. There are no second chances.

Did you know that in the originals there were no chapter or verse divisions. Even as the KJV translators put a paragraph marker beside verse 21, those last two verses could have been made the beginning of the fourth chapter. To connect "spirits in prison" to baptism is absurd. They don't have the same context.

Fallen spirits chained in darkness forever awaiting the judgment day do not give a good conscience and will never repent. You are deluded. Read the passages that go along with these ones:

1 Peter 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient,
2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
--They were cast down to hell, delivered into chains of darkness, reserved to judgment, in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
There is no chance of redemption.

The ark was a type of Christ.
One is saved by having a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Hogwash! They couldn't give a good answer. They are forever condemned and will stand before Christ at the Great White Throne Judgment as the Scripture says. Why do you ignore Scripture?

They do not rise with Christ; the Scripture does not say that. They are forever condemned.

Scripture taken out of context.

Totally invalid. You have ignored Scripture and relied on your vivid imagination.

 

ὃ καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν δι ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1 Pet 3:21 STEPHANUS 1550)

Interpreters suggest various antecedents for the neuter singular pronoun ὃ 1)water; 2)through the water; 3)antitype; 4)antitype Baptism; 5)Baptism; and others.

When greeted with such confusion I suspect all are wrong, therefore I propose something different. The neuter singular antecedent is only implied in the type, but identified in the Antitype by Peter, the singular neuter ἐπερώτημα ANSWER of a good conscience toward God. Its in Peter's mind throughout.

Its implied Noah and those with him gave this answer of a good conscience when they obeyed God and built the Ark, and got in when it started to rain, which saved them through the waters.

Peter is proving its better to suffer if it’s the will of God, by citing Christ's preaching to the spirits in prison.

These require identification lest they be confused as fallen angels.

These "formerly disobedient" "men of renown" didn't heed the preaching of Noah while he was building the ark (which rules out these being demons) and who were saved through the water---because they gave the right answer to God.

But when Christ made a special trip to them, then benefits to the Kingdom resulted because Christ chose to suffer that He might save us, and them.

So after this Noah parenthesis (cp 1 Pet 2:24, 21) Peter returns to what he was saying before, the Type that went before the Anti-type which now saves us, an element in Baptism, but not the water....Its the answer of a good conscience to God that saves and therefore we are buried with Christ, but rise with Him into heavenly places, just like the spirits in prison:

5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: (Eph 2:5-6 KJV)

buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Col 2:12 NKJ)

Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:4 NKJ)


These hybrid human angel "men of renown" (Gen c. 6) who died in the Flood were ushered into prison--- where they waited for what God determined for them.

Being neither human or angel, these spirits were segregated from both the fallen angels in Tartarus, or human kind in Sheol/Hades.

No doubt that's why Christ made a special trip to them, to explain the offer of salvation was indeed open to them, they were wrong to assume it wasn't. Therefore all who gave the answer of a good conscience were saved, by the resurrection (ransom) of Christ. By grace they were saved just like us.

That's why they are a "like figure" and why doing the will of God, even if it hurts, results in great gains for the kingdom, like the salvation of many.

 

Self taught with the gracious help of the Holy Spirit.

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus.
(Act 4:13 NKJ)

 

You are entitled to your opinion.

As you didn't provide any scriptural reasons why its correct, i don't agree.

Nor did you provide reasons my post was wrong, so it remains standing tall like a mountain in a barren plain.

Like a sumo wrestler, among straw men.

 

You aren't an authority to me, only scripture is.

The Bible doesn't have to give me reasons to believe, God said it, I believe it.

But you do. You can offer your opinions till blue in the face...

If you don't give precise reasons to believe your claims...I won't.

I understand things might be trying right now...but that evidently didn't stop you from posting.

I hope things go well for you, and when you have the time, feel free to provide the reasons for believing what you claim.

Thanks in advance.

 

You have demonstrated that not only you reject all other scholarship, you reject the Scriptures as our authority, and you have just admitted that you have set yourself up as your own authority. So tell me, Why should any of us listen to you?

No, it isn't. Here is what the Scriptures say:
Genesis 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

All are saved by grace through faith and not of works.
Salvation has never changed.

Spirits in prison are fallen angels. There is no difference. And they suffer, and will so for all eternity. That is the point Peter is making in the greater context.

They were not "men" but fallen angels. They had assumed human bodies, but were angels. They could not be saved because in reality they were demons. Show in Scripture where Satan and his demons can be saved! Ridiculous!

Christ did not "preach" anything to them. These spirits are like Satan. They cannot be saved. These spirits were followers of Satan in rebelling against God.

Scripture is taken out of context and therefore is totally meaningless as far as the passage concerning the spirits in prison is concerned.
What can I say? You have an active imagination when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture. You need to learn to "rightly divide the word of truth."

They were demons who had assumed human bodies. It was wickedness, and therefore God said:

Genesis 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Heresy! What does the Bible say?
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
They already know the gospel.
They have already rejected the gospel.
They tremble as they await that final coming day of judgement.

This applies to believers only, not to "spirits in prison." Your exposition of this passage is faulty and stretches the limits of valid hermeneutics.

 

If you used smear time to actually prove what you say is in a verse of Scripture, we could advance the conversation.

Scripture I believe, what you say scripture teaches, I do not...unless you prove what you say is actually taught in the verse.

 

Be my guest, research their arguments and educate me which is right.

They all contradict each other, therefore they are rejecting themselves.

And I only scratched the surface of disagreement, there is a textual issue, whether its ᾧ, ὃ or missing in the text. For me, there is no doubt...I accept the Stephanus 1550 (TR) as the best mss. I'll look at the others, but Stephanus has the Johanine comma in it, therefore I believe its the best. The entire Byzantine Majority Text is preferable to the eclectic formulations based upon far less mss.

If I'm wrong, I'm willing to pay the price. I've researched this---don't think I'm wrong. Minor spelling differences and word order are irrelevant:

"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Mat 5:18 NKJ)

This is not a promise Scribal marks, many of which came into existence hundreds of years after Christ said this and are a work of men...will remain...its a promise not the smallest bit of truth will be lost...that means the Byzantine Majority Text, (& Masoretic OT) preserves every jot and tittle even if there are minor spelling differences etc. Even if one mss puts the verse somewhere else than others---as long as its teaching is undiminished, not one jot or tittle (of truth) passed away.


One of the characteristics of correct interpretation, is parsimony. Physicists and Philosophers realize the same. If there is a choice between two or more interpretations, the most elegant (parsimonous) has the most probability of being right.

It is parsimonous ἐπερώτημα is the proleptic antecedent of HO, Peter has it in mind from the beginning when he began talking about Christ preaching.

I never asked anyone to believe me, I gave scriptural reasons why I believe Christ preached salvation to the spirits in prison, whether you believe me or not is entirely up to you.

If anyone here quotes scripture correctly, then I'm a believer. So far, a lot of "scripture quotes" have been hurled my way, without any proof they actually teach what the Quoter claims.

So you lie if you say I don't believe scripture...As a moderator you should display more professionalism than make baseless accusations.

I don't believe you quoting scripture, there is a difference.

Until you produce the exegesis detailing how your point is scriptural, I am not disbelieving scripture...I'm disbelieving you...as a good Berean Christian should.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Act 17:11 KJV)

I don't post here for converts...I posted for reasoned dialogue so stone could sharpen stone, and the truth be known.

Lets discuss the reasons why a certain view is right, or wrong. That would be nice.

Can't we do that like Christians, with some respect for each other?

 

I wasn't referring to a textual issue. Here is what you said:

Regardless of what you believe the Greek variants are you are giving your interpretation of the text. It is your interpretation of the text, the passage in question, that I take issue with, not the textual criticism.

You give five different "interpretations". Yes, you may base them on a neuter singular pronoun, but there is so much more to be taken into consideration then just one pronoun. That is why your argument is weak.

There was not one part of my post that was addressing the Greek text. Why not address the post itself; the doctrine that you are posting is error; in fact it is heresy. It goes directly against the grain of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

I didn't list five of MY interpretations, only one and its different than any of the five.

And I did support my interpretation expecting everyone who reads the text in the context will see it alone is parsimonous.

Parsimony is characteristic of correct interpretation.

However, its correct I didn't go into any detail...Here are the issues:

3:21 ὁ (which) {A}
This neuter singular relative pronoun has strong and widespread manuscript support. It is, however, grammatically difficult, and for this reason the other readings appear to be attempts to improve this more difficult reading. The relative pronoun is most likely to be taken as the subject of the verb σῴφει (saves). The antecedent of ὁ is probably ὕδατος (water; so Michaels, 1 Peter, pp. 213–14; and Achtemeier, 1 Peter, p. 266) and not the entire preceding clause (so Senior, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter, pp. 104–5). Some interpreters, however, consider βάπτισμα (baptism) to be the antecedent. The interpretation of v. 21 is very difficult, and this textual problem must be considered in connection with grammatical and lexical difficulties also (see Elliott, 1 Peter, pp. 668–82). -Omanson, R. L., & Metzger, B. M. (2006). A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger's Textual commentary for the needs of translators (488). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.


For me the Textus Receptus (Stephanus 1550) solves any textual issues, I don't trust my ability to guess what the word of God is, I just accept what is written in the mss. Often interpreters change the wording to fit a preconceived interpretation, or at least that's the impression I have. I rather change the interpretation, to fit the wording.

Scholars argue which antecedent works because the pronoun relates to something specific as the TYPE and the ANTITYPE, but Peter changed the Figure from water to the "answer" of a good conscience towards God, destroying the parallel. HO is a relative pronoun:

The antecedent to ὅ is either ὕδωρ or τὸ διασωθῆναι διʼ ὕδατος: but St. Peter suddenly changes his figure, introducing two new metaphors; hence arises the embarrassment of the grammar. The mention of Noah had led him to speak of Baptism, which at first strikes him as analogous to the Flood, inasmuch as it is a deliverance from drowning in the waters of sin. But here he is struck by the thought that this is not an adequate account of Baptism, or that there are other aspects of the sacrament which are equally valuable. It has an outward and an inward part; it is a washing, a question which brings you safe to God. No trace of the parallel which he set out to draw remains except in εἰς Θεόν = εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν, and διʼ ἀναστάσεως = διʼ ὕδατος.
Bigg, C. (1901). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. International Critical Commentary (164–166). Edinburgh: T&T Clark International.


Interpreters have argued that the antecedent is ὕδατος (hydatos, water) in 3:20 (Achtemeier 1996: 266; France 1977: 273; Michaels 1988: 213–14); or ἀντίτυπον (antitypon, antitype), which follows in 3:21 (J. H. Elliott 2000: 668); or the entire thought of 3:20b (Beare 1970: 174; Cook 1980: 77; Goppelt 1993: 266). The three respective translations are close in sense:
1. “were saved through water, which also now saves you” (Achtemeier 1996: 240);
2. “were saved through water. Corresponding to this, baptism now saves you too” (J. H. Elliott 2000: 637);
3. “were saved through water. In the counterpart to this, baptism now saves you also” (Beare 1970: 170).
Selwyn’s (1958: 203) argument—based on “the rhythm of the Greek sentence,” takes ὑμᾶς (hymas, you) as the antecedent, forming the typology between Peter’s readers and Noah—has not been widely accepted: “And water now saves you too, who are the antitype of Noah and his company, namely the water of baptism.” -Jobes, K. H. (2005). 1 Peter. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (252–256). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.


I argue it is parsimonous ἐπερώτημα is the proleptic antecedent of HO, Peter has it in mind as he wrote throughout this context:

1. "were saved by the answer (ἐπερώτημα) of a good conscience which also now saves you"

That preserves the TYPE ANTITYPE "like figure" because the ANSWER of a good conscience is present throughout, it saves us when we repent and believe; it saved Noah & crew when they obeyed God and built the ark which saved them through the water which was like a burial in water and a rising to dry ground, but also spiritual salvation by the resurrection of Christ.

Therefore it follows Peter's "like figure" Christ's preaching saved the "formerly disobedient" spirits in prison because they also gave the answer of a good conscience towards God---Christ led these captives in His train when He ascended into heaven where they wait with the other redeemed in paradise for the first resurrection.

The few relevant texts about these "men of renown" who died in the flood to become the "spirits in prison" suggest to me they weren't all that bad, and likely believed themselves ineligible for salvation because the image of God in them was defiled with angelic DNA. "Formerly disobedient" suggests they were "living according to God in the spirit" when Christ descended to preach to them. They are a special case and that explains the special trip to them while Christ was in Hades.

The parallels to Christ descending to preach to us, and His descending to preach to the spirits in prison, the symbolism of being buried and raised, and saved through the answer of a good conscience by the resurrection of Christ...is the Type and Antitype, in them and us...the mention of Noah was first to identify who the spirits in prison are, then to include Noah & crew who were also saved by their answer of a good conscience through the water when they entered the Ark.

As the value of the Ransom of God the Son is infinite, it has infinite potential to redeem all before Calvary therefore Noah & crew are also saved by the resurrection of Christ. No one is saved apart from Christ, no one is saved because of works. Salvation is by grace alone for everyone, even those "judged by their works to be sheep" enter the Kingdom, by the Gracious invite of the Word of God, and not because of their works.

This is not heresy. Its primitive Christian eschatology found in the NT and early Christian texts. What Protestants now believe about hell is mostly a carry over from Catholicism...the premises were largely kept, only some Catholic teachings like indulgences, purgatory, prayers for saints were (rightly) rejected.

 

Don't let the word purgatory cause a knee jerk reaction: in primitive Christian eschatology--- the tormenting regions of Hades served to bring UNBELIEVERS to their senses, if not guilty of eternal sin----believers are saved to the uttermost, and enter paradise immediately when they die.

CHAP. VI.—PURGATORY AND HELL

“Such is the nature of the one and only God, who made the world, and who created us, and who has given us all things, that as long as any one is within the limit of piety, and does not blaspheme His Holy Spirit, through His love towards him He brings the soul to Himself by reason of His love towards it. And although it be sinful, it is His nature to save it, after it has been suitably punished for the deeds it hath done. But if any one shall deny Him, or in any other way be guilty of impiety against Him, and then shall repent, he shall be punished indeed for the sins he hath committed against Him, but he shall be saved, because he turned and lived. And perhaps excessive piety and supplication shall even be delivered from punishment, ignorance being admitted as a reason for the pardon of sin after repentance.1 But those who do not repent shall be destroyed by the punishment of fire, even though in all other things they are most holy. But, as I said, at an appointed time a fifth2 part, being punished with eternal fire, shall be consumed. For they cannot endure for ever who have been impious against the one God.


1 The text manifestly corrupt.

2 Perhaps, rather, “the greatest part.”

Pseudo-Clement of Rome. (1886). The Clementine Homilies T. Smith, Trans.). In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume VIII: Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, the Clementina, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First Ages (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (239–240). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

That Dives was a child of Abraham and therefore one of God's Elect who died unbelieving--- and so ended up suffering in Hades, is implied by:

1)Luke 16:27 ff which does not depict Dives cursing Abraham for not helping him, as a child of the Devil would do, but rather showing Christian like concern for others);

2)Luke 16:26 The redeemed in heaven praise God when the wicked are punished, but here they pity Dives, therefore he is redeemable, a lost child who can be found; They are willing to endure the torments of Hades to help Dives, but the great gulf doesn't allow it. Scripture shows the redeemed in heaven would NOT feel that way towards children of the Devil:

9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? (Rev 6:9-10 KJV)

3)The irredeemable Wicked in Hades are in darkness (2 Pet 2:4; Job 10:21f; Ps 88:6), but Dives still sees the light of God, Abraham and Lazarus in paradise or third heaven (2 Cor 12:2,4), hence he is in a different part of Hades than the eternally cursed.[/B]


As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.
(Zec 9:11 KJV)

No one is saved in the name of being one of God's Elect, all must repent and believe in Christ to be saved...there is no salvation by any other name under the heaven. John the Baptist warned all---being "elect" does not spare the fires of hell:

9 And think 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.
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. (Mat 3:9-12 KJV)

3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?
4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6 who "will render to each one according to his deeds":
7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;
8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-- indignation and wrath,
9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;
10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.
(Rom 2:3-11 NKJ)

God is not partial, whatever a man sows that he will reap. But thanks be to God Hades presents the argument for believing in very compelling terms, so that many who enter therein choose, like Dives, to repent and live according to God in the spirit (1 Pet 4:6), that their spirit may be saved in the Day of the LORD Jesus (1 Cor 5:5), when He judges all the earth sitting on the Great White Throne:

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:11-1 KJV)

If one of God's elect chosen before the foundation of the world according to His purpose, should die unbelieving in this life...it is predestined the fires of hell will be adjusted to whatever level is required, to bring them to their senses, so they can rise in the Resurrection unto life and be conformed completely to the image of His Son.


28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. (Joh 5:28-29 KJV)

Although Paul is speaking mainly about his countrymen, what he says applies to the Elect, Jew and Gentile alike:

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
(Rom 11:26-33 KJV)

 

It doesn't matter how you "interpret" the Greek. When you have "interpreted" the Greek to contradict what the majority of the Bible teaches then you know what you have done is wrong, and you need to go back to the drawing table and admit your error.

Your error began with your previous admission: "All other scholars believe this..., but they are all wrong. I am the only one that is right and here is why..." Such an arrogant statement can hardly be entertained. No one ever has it ALL right. You just threw out the window all scholarship that ever went before you. That is absurd.
The "I am the only one that is right" mentality, is a bad place to stand.

Even in the way this is written, it is a textual problem that one cannot be dogmatic on.

You have a wrong impression about textual criticism. You simply have decided to use a different text, and that is all. But it is not different than the one used by the KJV translators.

The words "like figure" go back to what was formerly written. They indicate a figure of speech. There is a comparison being made.

Your lack of Greek knowledge is showing even here, so I don't know where you are getting this material from. Baptism is an English word, not even the translation of the Greek, but a transliteration of a Greek word. If it were translated properly it would have said "immersion," but the KJV translators didn't do that. Not all immersions are baptisms. Peter isn't necessarily speaking about baptism. Those that died in the flood were totally immersed in the waters of the flood. They were destroyed by those waters, not saved. Noah was saved by the ark. If we are saved by immersion it is immersion into Christ, by his resurrection.

There is no "sacrament" referred to. Baptism in and of itself is not a sacrament. And the word means "immersion," probably having no reference to the ordinance of baptism at all.

Baptism (the ordinance) is a command of Christ to be obeyed after one's salvation. The only thing it accomplishes is that it gets you wet. It has no salvic value. It does not wash away sins. That is a heresy.

But we know that is wrong, for water has nothing to do with salvation. Do you really superstitiously believe that a combination of Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms put together in a 2:1 ratio is going to give you salvation. That is not salvation; it is superstition.

And that is as far as that figure goes.

The illustration doesn't extend that far, and what you say is now heresy.
This is absolutely unorthodox doctrine--that demons can be saved. Does God offer salvation to Satan as well? This is what you are suggesting. It is heretical. God does not offer salvation to anyone in hell. But these are fallen angels, usually referred to as demons. Why would you suggest that demons have the opportunity to be saved?