Saved by Water

[FreeGrace2]

1 Peter 3:20-21
“...God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
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:”


I believe the water mentioned in 1 Peter 3:20-21 pertains to water baptism for the following reasons:

It obviously does, as a SYMBOL for the "baptism that DOES save us".

antitupos: struck back, corresponding to
Original Word: ἀντίτυπος, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: antitupos
Phonetic Spelling: (an-teet'-oo-pon)
Definition: struck back, corresponding to
Usage: typical of, representing by type (or pattern), corresponding to, an image.
HELPS Word-studies
499 antítypon (from 473/antí, "corresponding to" and 5179/typos, "type") – properly, an antitype which corresponds to (fulfills) a type (a predictive symbol). See 5179 /typos ("a theological type") for extended discussion.

1.The water was the means God used to carry Noah and his family to safety.

This is quite obviously wrong. Instead, God used the ARK "to carry Noah and his family to safety". btw, 'safety' from what? Water.

The water represented DEATH by drowning. Just ask the rest of humanity in Noah's day. And animals, birds, etc.

Even the title of this thread is in error. 1 Peter 3:21 doesn't say "saved by water". It says "saved THROUGH water". The literal water didn't save anyone. The ARK saved 8 people. The literal water KILLED the rest of mankind. All of them.

The sin of the world was washed away in the flood waters.

Cute fantasy, but totally unbiblical.

2. Notice verse 21 makes specific mention of the process having nothing to do with the removal of filth from the flesh.

The reason for this is clear from the verse. It isn't literal water, which has EVERYTHING to do wtih removal of dirt from the body, that saves, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is a dry baptism.

(This is a reference to bath water) Thus, the comment points to a spiritual transaction taking place.

The spiritual transaction is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

John the baptizer said this about baptism:
Mark 1:8 - I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

This is clearly explained in Acts 10 and 11-
10-
44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.
45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles.

What then followed was the ritual of water baptism, which was AFTER Holy Spirit baptism.

11-
15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning.
16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

3. The scripture mentions that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. Our own behavior, and in this particular case getting baptized, is what prompts a good conscience.

No, the "good conscience" is by way of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, not by getting wet.

 

[jb]

Saved by Water

NO!

Saved by GRACE through FAITH (and that not of ourselves, it is the GIFT of God). Eph 2v8,9, Zech 4v9, Rom 5v1,2.

 

[mailmandan]

It obviously does, as a SYMBOL for the "baptism that DOES save us".

antitupos: struck back, corresponding to
Original Word: ἀντίτυπος, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: antitupos
Phonetic Spelling: (an-teet'-oo-pon)
Definition: struck back, corresponding to
Usage: typical of, representing by type (or pattern), corresponding to, an image.
HELPS Word-studies
499 antítypon (from 473/antí, "corresponding to" and 5179/typos, "type") – properly, an antitype which corresponds to (fulfills) a type (a predictive symbol). See 5179 /typos ("a theological type") for extended discussion.

This is quite obviously wrong. Instead, God used the ARK "to carry Noah and his family to safety". btw, 'safety' from what? Water.

The water represented DEATH by drowning. Just ask the rest of humanity in Noah's day. And animals, birds, etc.

Even the title of this thread is in error. 1 Peter 3:21 doesn't say "saved by water". It says "saved THROUGH water". The literal water didn't save anyone. The ARK saved 8 people. The literal water KILLED the rest of mankind. All of them.

Cute fantasy, but totally unbiblical.

The reason for this is clear from the verse. It isn't literal water, which has EVERYTHING to do wtih removal of dirt from the body, that saves, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is a dry baptism.

The spiritual transaction is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

John the baptizer said this about baptism:
Mark 1:8 - I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

This is clearly explained in Acts 10 and 11-
10-
44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.
45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles.

What then followed was the ritual of water baptism, which was AFTER Holy Spirit baptism.

11-
15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning.
16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

No, the "good conscience" is by way of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, not by getting wet.

You made some good points.

In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He said that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).

*Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY the wicked in Noah's day came in contact with the water and they all perished.

The Greek word “antitupon,” as used in I Peter 3:21, is “an adjective, used as a noun,” and denotes, in the NT, “a corresponding type,” being “said of baptism.” The circumstances of the flood, the ark and its occupants, formed a type, and baptism forms “a corresponding type.” Noah was saved by the ark “through (via) water.” Water was not the means of their salvation, but the ark. The ark is what both delivered and preserved them, the two aspects of salvation.

 

[peldom10]

many will get baptised and not be saved, and many will be saved that have not been baptised.
It is the heart and character that counts. We should do all we can to be baptised as we were told but God will judge all cases individually.
Like i said we should follow Gods requests but a lack of baptism will not prevent those that were unable or unaware, Jesus has fulfilled all requirements for us and we do it to show who we are following, because baptism is symbolic of a change in heart. Symbolic of being born again.

You cannot be saved if you are not baptized.

That is a new age religion teaching which has entered the Christian world since the 60's.* Isn't it telling that it was not a teaching before?

Study scripture and start with Acts 2;38. Words have meaning.

 

[peldom10]

NO!

Saved by GRACE through FAITH (and that not of ourselves, it is the GIFT of God). Eph 2v8,9, Zech 4v9, Rom 5v1,2.

Grace is a provision for being born again if we repent and are baptized.
Study scripture and don't depend on new age religion teachings. ....."in the end times there will be great deceptions".... this is one of them.

 

[peldom10]

Jesus never water baptized anyone His entire ministry....So, if water is essential for forgiveness or regarding going to heaven, i guess he kinda forgot on the way to being the "no man comes to the Father but by Me". John 14:6

Also,

Paul, the apostle who wrote most of the New Testament, and is responsible for delivering the "Gospel of the Grace of God" to the world, originally, said......."Christ sent me not to water baptize".

Wrong.
Why do you avoid Acts 2;38, et al.
Baptism is required for the completion of sin cleansing.

 

[peldom10]

NO!

Saved by GRACE through FAITH (and that not of ourselves, it is the GIFT of God). Eph 2v8,9, Zech 4v9, Rom 5v1,2.

That does not negate the requirement of baptism....just as it does not negate the need for repentance.
That does not negate Acts 2;38, et al.
Study scripture and do not be miss led by new age religion teachings.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You cannot be saved if you are not baptized.

Water saves no one.

1 Cor 10-
1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.
2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
3 They all ate the same spiritual food
4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

Please ask the Egyptian army how their water baptism worked out for them. Oh, and the Israelites went through the Red Sea on DRY ground. They were baptized all right. The word means an "identification". The Israelites were certainly identified with Moses, as their leader, the cloud, as their spiritual leader, and identified with God's provision of deliverance FROM the literal waters of the Red Sea.

Do you understand the difference between water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism? Mark 1:8 shows the difference.

Oh, and please ask the entire human race in Noah's day about water baptism and how that worked out for them. Noah and his family were saved FROM THE LITERAL WATER of the flood.

Study scripture and start with Acts 2;38. Words have meaning.

Better to start with the verses I've provided above. And Acts 2:38 was only specific and relevant for the Jews were were present at Christ's crucifixion.

If water baptism were necessary for salvation, Paul wouldn't have written this:

1 Cor 1:17 - For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

No evangelist would make such a claim IF water baptism was necessary for soul salvation.

All of the various water baptisms are a RITUAL which reveals an identification. No salvation.

When a person is baptized with the Holy Spirit, THAT is salvation.

 

[peldom10]

Water saves no one.

1 Cor 10-
1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.
2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
3 They all ate the same spiritual food
4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

Please ask the Egyptian army how their water baptism worked out for them. Oh, and the Israelites went through the Red Sea on DRY ground. They were baptized all right. The word means an "identification". The Israelites were certainly identified with Moses, as their leader, the cloud, as their spiritual leader, and identified with God's provision of deliverance FROM the literal waters of the Red Sea.

Do you understand the difference between water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism? Mark 1:8 shows the difference.

Oh, and please ask the entire human race in Noah's day about water baptism and how that worked out for them. Noah and his family were saved FROM THE LITERAL WATER of the flood.


Better to start with the verses I've provided above. And Acts 2:38 was only specific and relevant for the Jews were were present at Christ's crucifixion.

If water baptism were necessary for salvation, Paul wouldn't have written this:

1 Cor 1:17 - For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

No evangelist would make such a claim IF water baptism was necessary for soul salvation.

All of the various water baptisms are a RITUAL which reveals an identification. No salvation.

When a person is baptized with the Holy Spirit, THAT is salvation.

You cannot be baptized by the Holy Spirit unless you have repented of your sins and been water baptized.
Start your study with Acts 2;38.

 

[peldom10]

Water saves no one.

1 Cor 10-
1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.
2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
3 They all ate the same spiritual food
4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

Please ask the Egyptian army how their water baptism worked out for them. Oh, and the Israelites went through the Red Sea on DRY ground. They were baptized all right. The word means an "identification". The Israelites were certainly identified with Moses, as their leader, the cloud, as their spiritual leader, and identified with God's provision of deliverance FROM the literal waters of the Red Sea.

Do you understand the difference between water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism? Mark 1:8 shows the difference.

Oh, and please ask the entire human race in Noah's day about water baptism and how that worked out for them. Noah and his family were saved FROM THE LITERAL WATER of the flood.


Better to start with the verses I've provided above. And Acts 2:38 was only specific and relevant for the Jews were were present at Christ's crucifixion.

If water baptism were necessary for salvation, Paul wouldn't have written this:

1 Cor 1:17 - For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

No evangelist would make such a claim IF water baptism was necessary for soul salvation.

All of the various water baptisms are a RITUAL which reveals an identification. No salvation.

When a person is baptized with the Holy Spirit, THAT is salvation.

Don't tell me you are going to maintain that repentance isn't necessary either.

 

[Hakawaka]

Acts 2:38 was only specific and relevant for the Jews were were present at Christ's crucifixion.

Was it now?

Did you read the very next verse, 39?

The one that mentions this promise is to you, and those who are FAR OFF, "even as many as the Lord our God shall call. " etc?

 

[peldom10]

Water saves no one.

1 Cor 10-
1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.
2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
3 They all ate the same spiritual food
4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

Please ask the Egyptian army how their water baptism worked out for them. Oh, and the Israelites went through the Red Sea on DRY ground. They were baptized all right. The word means an "identification". The Israelites were certainly identified with Moses, as their leader, the cloud, as their spiritual leader, and identified with God's provision of deliverance FROM the literal waters of the Red Sea.

Do you understand the difference between water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism? Mark 1:8 shows the difference.

Oh, and please ask the entire human race in Noah's day about water baptism and how that worked out for them. Noah and his family were saved FROM THE LITERAL WATER of the flood.


Better to start with the verses I've provided above. And Acts 2:38 was only specific and relevant for the Jews were were present at Christ's crucifixion.

If water baptism were necessary for salvation, Paul wouldn't have written this:

1 Cor 1:17 - For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

No evangelist would make such a claim IF water baptism was necessary for soul salvation.

All of the various water baptisms are a RITUAL which reveals an identification. No salvation.

When a person is baptized with the Holy Spirit, THAT is salvation.

Paul's teaching has nothing to do with the requirements of baptism. We must keep elements of scripture in context. There are several, including Acts 2;38 which requires baptism to complete the sin cleansing process.
Any other teaching is changing the Bible meaning and intent and is in violation Rev 22; 18,19 as well as the same repeated in 2 other books of the Bible...that we have no authority to change the Bible meaning and if we do all the wrath of God will be on our heads.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You cannot be baptized by the Holy Spirit unless you have repented of your sins and been water baptized.
Start your study with Acts 2;38.

That verse doesn't teach what you are claiming. And Acts 2:38 was said to a very specific group of people. Those who were PRESENT at the crucifixion and supported it. Were you there? No. Peter wasn't addressing the entire human race. Just those people.

And read 1 Cor 1 until the truth begins to sink in about Paul's comments about water baptism.

 

[Angela53510]

When we believe in Jesus.

This is how I see it. That obviously doesn’t make it correct, but I can use scripture to explain it.

“for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭26:28‬ ‭KJV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/1/mat.26.28.KJV

In this passage “for the remission of sins” is eis aphesin hamartion in Greek. The most common translation of eis is into. So, Jesus blood was poured out into remission of sins. Remission of sins represents the new covenant.

“and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭24:47‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/luk.24.47.ESV

In this passage we see ”repentance for the remission of sins.” In Greek it is metanoian eis/kai aphesin hamartion. Several of the oldest manuscripts use eis. I see evidence in the Bible that eis is not wrong. This passage illustrates that:

“To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.””
‭‭Acts‬ ‭10:43‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/act.10.43.ESV

To me it seems that Peter is remembering here what Jesus said to the apostles in Luke 24 when he opened their minds to understand the scriptures.

“Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭24:44-47‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/luk.24.45-47.ESV

Metanoia means “a change of mind.” If your mind changes from unbelieving to believing you have simply become a believer In Jesus. So, Acts 10:43 is simply Peter remembering what Jesus taught him in Luke 24. Luke 24 is where Jesus opened his mind to understand the prophets. This would be consistent with the use of eis in Luke 24:47. It also, doesn’t make kai wrong.

This is why I see Luke 24:47 as saying “a change of mind into remission of sins.” or change your mind and be immersed into remission of sins.

“And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭2:38‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/act.2.38.ESV

If you look at the greek words in Acts 2:38 and consider their meanings, you very simply end up with this:

”Change your mind and be immersed every one of you on (epi) the authority (onomati) of Jesus Christ into (eis) the remission of your sins….” When you change your mind and believe in Jesus you are immersed into remission of sins (the new covenant). Now remember Matthew 26:28, Jesus blood was poured out into (eis) remission of sins. So its not a water immersion, its an immersion into the new covenant, into remission of sins, into Jesus blood.

When you are immersed into remission of sins upon a change of mind, you are immersed into Jesus’ blood.

Also, think about other ways you see this in scripture such as immersed into his death or immersed into Christ. If you are immersed into his blood all of these are true as well. We have been buried with him or immersed into his death (blood).

Think about the similarity between this immersion and the immersion of the Israelites into Moses in 1 Corinthians 10:2.

I'm glad you have researched this out. But people who have not studied Koine Greek, or for that matter, any other language, falter in these so-called word-for-word translations. (Which are not even possible because Greek uses cases and the word order has to change in order for it to make sense in English!) my Greek teacher for 2 years was Bill Mounce, who is one of the top translators in the world, we used his material in seminary, and the second course I took online with Dr. Mounce.

The other important thing he says, is that Koine (common) Greek was a language in transition. The prepositions in particular, are very fluid. "Eis" is one that has different meanings, because it was an older word, being replaced by "en." The gloss, I would agree, is "into." But a glossary in a grammar book notes that eis is "into, in, among." Seriously, "into" is a word that is dying in English, so there is no need to pin it down as only meaning "into." Learn the Greek alphabet, then get Bauer, or BDAG, the best Greek lexicon. Then you can the full means of words. The alphabet isn't hard, and when you use it a bit, you will remember it.

Just because a translation translates a word a certain way, doesn't mean it is right. Some Bibles, like the ESV follow the "KJ tradition," meaning that the rely heavily upon an older translations. Looking it up in multiple modern translations can help to pin down the meaning. Sometimes a certain passage uses the preposition in the same way in every translation. Other times, things get more slippery. This might be a case where eis = into. I'll leave that to you to figure out. Just be careful about flatly translating. And if you are really interested in Greek, which I always was, study it, either in a class or online. You will be amazed at what you learn.

"Πέτρος δὲ [a]πρὸς αὐτούς· Μετανοήσατε, καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν [c]τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν [d]ὑμῶν, καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος·" Acts 2:38

For example:

"Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized[a] in the name of Jesus Christ for[c] the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38 NET

The NET basically used "for" for, for eis. The NET Bible is renowned for its its 60,000 footnotes [c] is attached here. As you can see, it is much more complicated translating it, than you make it to be in your post.

"Acts 2:38 tn There is debate over the meaning of εἰς in the prepositional phrase εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν (eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn humōn, “for/because of/with reference to the forgiveness of your sins”). Although a causal sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain here. ExSyn 369-71 discusses at least four other ways of dealing with the passage: (1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and εἰς has the meaning of “for” or “unto.” Such a view suggests that salvation is based on works—an idea that runs counter to the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance often precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v. 47]; 13:38-39, 48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 26:18); (2) The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of “baptism” in Acts—especially in this text (cf. 2:41); (3) The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. The idea then would be, “Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized…” Such a view is an acceptable way of handling εἰς, but its subtlety and awkwardness count against it; (4) Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. That Peter connects both closely in his thinking is clear from other passages such as Acts 10:47 and 11:15-16. If this interpretation is correct, then Acts 2:38 is saying very little about the specific theological relationship between the symbol and the reality, only that historically they were viewed together. One must look in other places for a theological analysis. For further discussion see R. N. Longenecker, “Acts,” EBC 9:283-85; B. Witherington, Acts, 154-55; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 129-30; BDAG 290 s.v. εἰς 4.f." NET

You can access all the footnotes in Biblegateway.com, for free! And if you are interested in Greek, don't rely in Concordances, but learn the alphabet and get a good quality lexicon, like Bauer, BDAG, which is what Biblical scholars use, and tax some classes!

 

[FreeGrace2]

Don't tell me you are going to maintain that repentance isn't necessary either.

Define "repentance". There's a lot of misunderstanding going around about that word.

I'll respond to your comment after you define what you mean by it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Was it now?

Did you read the very next verse, 39?

The one that mentions this promise is to you, and those who are FAR OFF, "even as many as the Lord our God shall call. " etc?

Jews considered Gentiles to be "far off" in relation to God. And they considered themselves as being "near". Read Eph 2 where Paul addresses that.

The promise is salvation, btw. And THAT IS to the entire human race. Titus 2:11

 

[FreeGrace2]

Paul's teaching has nothing to do with the requirements of baptism. We must keep elements of scripture in context. There are several, including Acts 2;38 which requires baptism to complete the sin cleansing process.

Sin cleansing comes from faith in Christ. Read Acts 10 and 11 for the biblical perspective on baptism by the Holy Spirit and water baptism. Cornelius and family received the Holy Spirit BEFORE water baptism.

Any other teaching is changing the Bible meaning and intent and is in violation Rev 22; 18,19 as well as the same repeated in 2 other books of the Bible...that we have no authority to change the Bible meaning and if we do all the wrath of God will be on our heads.

I stand for biblical truth. 1 Pet 3:21 is very clear regarding water baptism. It does NOT save. It is a symbol (ritual) that identifies the believer with Christ.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You made some good points.

In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He said that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).

*Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY the wicked in Noah's day came in contact with the water and they all perished.

The Greek word “antitupon,” as used in I Peter 3:21, is “an adjective, used as a noun,” and denotes, in the NT, “a corresponding type,” being “said of baptism.” The circumstances of the flood, the ark and its occupants, formed a type, and baptism forms “a corresponding type.” Noah was saved by the ark “through (via) water.” Water was not the means of their salvation, but the ark. The ark is what both delivered and preserved them, the two aspects of salvation.

amen,

Water was Gods means of destruction or Judgment, not the means of salvation.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Grace is a provision for being born again if we repent and are baptized.
Study scripture and don't depend on new age religion teachings. ....."in the end times there will be great deceptions".... this is one of them.

Thats not grace my freind

Thats works.

we are saved BY GRACE, through faith.

not BY faith plus baptism,

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Wrong.
Why do you avoid Acts 2;38, et al.
Baptism is required for the completion of sin cleansing.

We are not avoiding it. We interpret acts 2 correctly. As you should.