In the Greek Peter said baptism saves.
Peter said baptism noW saves, some try and change the "w" in the word now to a "t".
y'mean like "not the cleaning of dirt form the body" ...?
baptizo literally means an immersion.
But "baptismos" is already an immersion rite, as well as a metaphorical meaning.
The OT type is 8 souls saved by WATER. So the NT type is used saved by WATER baptism. That killed your 'dry baptism' theory you proposed earlier.
The OT type is 8 souls saved THROUGH water. Water doesn't save them -- in fact a floating ark saves them.
As I didn't bring up "dry baptism", but you did, I'm glad you've agreed with your own view. To do otherwise would've been strange. However, your proposal baffles me. Noah's family didn't get immersed in water.
The flood water cleansed the earth of the filth of the flesh. Yet water baptism is not for cleasing away filth but water baptism is the answer of a good conscience towards God.
You're intending to say the flood water was
cleansing dirt from the flesh of those who perished? You don't mind that I disagree. That's not at all what Peter is referring to. In point of fact those who die in floods are muddy, dirty, and unclean. That's simply a fact. That's not what Peter is referring to.
Peter is clearly referring to the idea of baptism as a water bath. He's denying the action of the water to cleanse the flesh is what he means by "baptism". Get it straight: Peter's not talking about baptism as a bath.
Again, in Acts 2 Peter convicted his listeners with the sin of murdering the Messiah so much so they were 'pricked in their heart" and asked Peter what must they do. What was the "answer" Peter gave them for their conscience of sin? Be baptized for remission of sins. Having sins remitted would erase that guilty conscience of sin.
Two things Peter commended, and it's two things Christians commend to those who ask. But to demand that both are necessary to salvation because they're recommended -- that's quite an overreach. It's not what Peter said.
It does not matter what word translators used, 'by' or 'through' still proves my point. The OT type was 8 souls saved by/through WATER and the mirror reflection/anti-type is us by saved by/through water baptism.
That's not the case. "Through" water says the water is a participant -- but as in the case of Noah, it may well be the adversary. "By" water says the water is somehow an instrument.
Water is the very thing Peter is talking about inthe context.
So where is water present in the "answer in good conscience toward God"?
No, in point of fact Peter isn't saying anything particular about the water. He's saying that salvation is brought to us through water, but by the answer in good conscience toward God.
He just said 8 souls were saved by WATER
There it goes again -- it's through, and it's not by. Eight souls were not saved BY getting wet They were actually kept out of the water.
Peter actually uses that "not" the word you keep complaining about -- "
baptism saves you -- NOT the cleansing of dirt from the body, BUT (what does save you?) an answer in good conscience toward God."
It's not the water's action -- it's the heart's action that saves.
and the NT antitype is us being saved by WATER baptism....
"
they were saved through water; likewise baptism saves you -- NOT the cleansing of dirt from the body, BUT (instead) an answer in good conscience toward God."
It's not hard to understand -- it just needs to be read.
those in the OT were saved by WATER and us under the NT are saved by WATER.
THROUGH water -- for we've already determined that Noah's family was saved by not being immersed in water ...
Then in the parenthesis Peter explains the difference between these two waters that save.
No
water is an answer in good conscience. A human heart is an answer in good conscience.
The saving water of baptism is not for cleansing the filth of the flesh as the flood water did but the water of baptism is the answer of a good conscience for water baptism remits sins and the flood waters could not remit sins.
Here's where the whole thing departs Greek expression.
Peter says Noah's family was brought safely
through water -- a water of death,
a baptismal water by Greek expression. A killing water.
And that's the real commonality of the Noahic and the Christian baptismal waters -- both are preserved through
death.
That's what Peter is talking about. "Baptism" isn't a recall of water as if it's cleansing your body. "Baptism" is a recall of the death of Christ, and our heartfelt response in good conscience toward God is also death to this world, but life by the Spirit.
People try hard to misunderstand something so simple.
Yeah. Well, tell us how Noah was immersed and make it consistent with Peter's assertion. People will often try to hang onto a simple answer; but Scriptural consistency is more important.
In Acts 2:38 peter commanded them to repent AND be baptized. The conjunction 'and' shows that repentance and baptism are two different things.
That's simply wrong. Hebrew expression constantly restates the same thing twice with an "and" in between. "Let them become a snare and a trap." A snare is a trap. Reiteration of the same concept using a different word, that's downright regular for this area of the Middle East.
You quote Lk 24:47 "that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations,"
Peter preached repentance and he preached "forgiveness of sins, when he told them to be baptized for remission of sins.
Luke didn't said something about baptism in Lk 24:47. So I guess they're in conflict? But according to Paul (Luke's mentor) they weren't (Gal 2). So Peter's reference to baptism must not be absolutely necessary. Sure, it's normal. But not necessary.
One has to have his sins washed away by the blood of Christ, Rev 1:5. Christ shed that blood that washes away sin in His death, Jn 19:34. So I must have access to His death where His blood was shed for it to wash away my sins and baptism, not repentance, is how I gain access into Christ's death, Rom 6:3-6. Nowhere does repentance put one in Christ's death. Col 2:11ff it is when one is buried in baptism that God does the operation/work of removing the body of sin, not at repentance.
Lk 24:47 does put repentance there.
Mk 1:14-15 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (ESV)
Mk 6:12 So they went out and proclaimed that people should repent.
Lk 13:3 unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
Lk 13:5 unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
Lk 15:7 there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
Lk 15:10 Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
Acts 11:18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
Acts 17:30-31 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.
2 Pt 3:9 not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance [hm, not baptism].
or did I miss something? 