Christian Forums

Phoebe,
You aren't reading what I write. You stated:

"In this case, it WAS the water that drowned those who did not have faith. To my knowledge, they did not have an option of "responding" to anything. IOW, God took them, just like God saved the others."


That is wrong. I showed why it was wrong from the Bible. Please never say it again. And everytime you say "Not water, God" you contradict the Bible.

The only right way to say it to agree with God is "God through water saves."

Not water, God.

And I'll keep saying it.

Not water, God.

Mike, just so you know I have two commentaries in my library which agree with James.  One by F.F. Bruce (International Bible Commentary), and one by Matthew Henry.

They were saved from water, not by water.  "Through water" neither implies nor requires immersion in it.

"Through water" seems to indicate the way for someone to be saved would be to have them get into a gopherwood box covered with pitch and float them across the baptisry.

THAT would be exactly "corresponding to that."

Quote from: spurly on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 12:27:44
Mike, just so you know I have two commentaries in my library which agree with James.  One by F.F. Bruce (International Bible Commentary), and one by Matthew Henry.

I read Henry, and I didn't get that. But, it was at best confusing and no direct reference was made as far as I could tell. I do not have the IBC.

So we have two. What does Bruce say? Can you give me a link to it? I would like to read it.

Quote from: mdd344 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 09:21:36
No one has done that. But many here have said "baptism doesn't save us in any form or fashion."

Baptism only saves us through the resurrection of Christ. Hence, it is still Christ's death and resurrection that saves us; we merely come into contact with that blood at baptism.

In many cases churches of Christ have exalted baptism at the expense of the cross. We must  be wary of doing that.

Pax.

Lee,
I really disagree. I think the perception may be that, but that is due to poor communication and poor perception, rather than due to reality. When the church 'preaches Jesus' then the question that ought to come to mind first is like the Eunuch, 'here is water.' And in its proper theological perspective, i.e. Rom. 6.

Quote from: spurly on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 12:27:44
Mike, just so you know I have two commentaries in my library which agree with James.  One by F.F. Bruce (International Bible Commentary), and one by Matthew Henry.

Thanks, Kevin. As I mentioned a number of times, I'm just not interested in playing Mike's game. He demands from others what he himself is unwilling to give (i.e. a list of commands that constitute "the law of Christ", amongst other things). Regardless, anyone you could provide would be readily dismissed, or received with a "but they also said" or an "I didn't get that from them" (see his previous comments on this thread).

I will contend that what I have said "bothers" Mike, not because of the absence of "serious scholars", but because he can't deal with it. It actually makes sense, especially when compared with the context, and takes the power away from his misquoted, partial prooftext "baptism saves you". As far as "serious scholars" are concerned, if that were the criteria for testing one's teaching, what about his erroneous teaching on the Holy Spirit? What about his teaching on salvation by works, and baptismal regeneration? The scholars he quoted are good enough for 1 Peter 3, but not good enough for these other issues, because they don't agree with him.

Even so, as I mentioned more than one time to Mike, even if the ark were not the type, the paranthetical phrase renders Mike's baptismal regeneration theology erroneous. If he were able to look at more than the word "water", and more than the words "baptism doth also now save you", he might be able to see what the passage is actually saying. This is just another example, however, of how a proof text without context, is only a pretext.

James,
How disappointing. You have not addressed the Grammar, which I believe prohibits your point. You have not addressed what you said you would, i.e. the scholars that you "could list."

My belief is you want water out of God's plan so bad that you will do what you can to get rid of it, i.e. make 'baptism' NOT save us, unlike what Peter explicitly stated.

However, if you have anything of substance to post I will be more than happy to read it. I am still waiting for some link to Bruce's comments as noted by Spurly.

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 12:39:22

Quote from: mdd344 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 09:21:36
No one has done that. But many here have said "baptism doesn't save us in any form or fashion."

Baptism only saves us through the resurrection of Christ. Hence, it is still Christ's death and resurrection that saves us; we merely come into contact with that blood at baptism.

In many cases churches of Christ have exalted baptism at the expense of the cross. We must  be wary of doing that.

Pax.

I honestly doubt they have meant to give this impression, but in their (our) pursuit of teaching truth, this particular aspect of the response to the gospel message has taken center stage as a response to evangelical understanding of baptism.   Few could deny that the Church has always held baptism in a very high view, if not the highest in the conversion process.  The burden of proof need not exclude the clear teaching of scripture and how it has been understand through the centuries.   It should not be surprising that so much teaching in the NT is to baptized believers that no longer needed the milk of their conversion.   Some great apologetic insights can be made that include many aspects of our faith that bring various understandings of any particular act.  But no one can biblically throw the act out.  Some have.  When we are able to move beyond the demand for factual detail at all points of our walk and the inevitable backwash of interpretive shortfalls as THE definitive proof of our adoptive nature as family, we could begin to see the cross more clearly, all of us, as baptized believers seeking to live as living sacrifices for Him.  I will be quiet now!

James, I have personally gotten a lot out of your posts -- and ignoring Mike's posts has helped me get a lot more out of them (his stuff is just negative and confusing and dogmatic).  You strike me as much more of a scholar than I'll ever be, so your insight has been very, very enlightening.  Thank you so much for "putting it out there" despite the obvious bashing it's bound to run into from argumentative others.  :o)

Quote from: mdd344 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 13:05:05
How disappointing. You have not addressed the Grammar, which I believe prohibits your point.

Please remind me, in your own words, why you believe Grammar prohibits my point.

Quote from: mdd344 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 13:05:05
You have not addressed what you said you would, i.e. the scholars that you "could list."

Read what I actually said, along with what I said after that, and stop putting words in people's mouths. That is one of your biggest problems... And, even worse, that you don't stop with people.

Quote from: mdd344 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 13:05:05
My belief is you want water out of God's plan so bad that you will do what you can to get rid of it, i.e. make 'baptism' NOT save us, unlike what Peter explicitly stated.

Do you read the same New Testament that I read? Baptism is not only by water, Mike. I am not trying to "make 'baptism' NOT save us, unlike what Peter explicitly said". Accuse me of what you will, however. You not only put words into peoples mouths, but you also presume to read the thoughts and intentions of their heart. Is this a result of your theology, or something else? Maybe if you focused more on Christ, and less on works, particularly, baptism, you would see that He is the only One that can do what you believe you have the ability, and right to do?

Quote from: mdd344 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 13:05:05
However, if you have anything of substance to post I will be more than happy to read it.

Substance? Do you really want to go there?

Quote from: kalen on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 13:24:47
James, I have personally gotten a lot out of your posts -- and ignoring Mike's posts has helped me get a lot more out of them (his stuff is just negative and confusing and dogmatic).  You strike me as much more of a scholar than I'll ever be, so your insight has been very, very enlightening.  Thank you so much for "putting it out there" despite the obvious bashing it's bound to run into from argumentative others.  :o)

Thanks, Kalen. I appreciate your kind words.

James,
Okay, here is more substance. What is the Greek rule about relative pronouns and antecedents? And, what is the antecedent to the relative pronoun in 1 Pet. 3:21?

"More substance"? "More" would imply that there had previously been substance, and due to the fact that you were the one who stated it, in this instance, that such substance actually came from you. Unfortunately, such an implication (inference?), and thus, such a statement would be incorrect, considering our discussion up to this point. Regardless, instead of asking the question, why don't you just state your case? Do so by breaking the passage down, and stating, grammatically, why it must say what you believe it says. I know it's easier to sit back and let others do the work, and then just criticize what they have written/answered. Your actually stating your case for what you believe here, and why you believe it, in your own words, would be more substantial, however... Not to mention, more beneficial.

James,
You know Greek, right? I mean I just saw you give some good info on 'tupos.' So what is the rule on antecedents and relative pronouns and what is the relative pronoun in 3:21--and thus what is its antecedent?

You asked me to state it in my own words. Here you are. Your answer will state exactly my case, provided you follow the rules of Grammar.

Tell me, Mike. Make your case, in your own words... Up until now, you have yet to do that.

James,
I guess I will have to state it for you. But I surely want you to address it once I have.

"The relative pronoun must agree with its antecedent in gender and number--not neccesarily in case; since that depends on the function which is assigned to the pronoun..." (Hadjiantoniou, "Learning the Basics of New Testament Greek" p. 101).

What is the relative pronoun in 1 Pet. 3:21? The ASV sets it out this way:

1Pe 3:20  that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water:
1Pe 3:21  which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism,

The relative pronoun is "which" (Greek is "o"). Check Greek NT to see this "o" first in 3:21.

"which...doth now save you...even baptism."

You have contended that "baptism" referred to "ark" and not "water." Thus the "baptism" was not "water" but related to suffering in some way and had reference to "ark."

The antecedent of "which" is "water", the word immediately prior to it.

Thus "which after a true likness" refers to "water" and not "ark." 'Even baptism" is an appositive phrase describing what has just been stated. The word "like figure" or "true likeness" is the word "antitupon" which has reference to its counterpart, baptism.

The Greek text literally reads:

"which antetype is now saving you, even baptism." And the reference is not to ark, and grammatcially cannot be. It is to 'water.'

The ALT reads: (Analytical Literal Translation) Type for "N" initially. Thanks for correction.

"1Pe 3:20  having formerly refused to believe, when the patience of God kept eagerly waiting in [the] days of Noah, while an ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water;
1Pe 3:21  which [as] an antitype baptism [or, immersion] now also saves us (not [the] removal of [the] filth of flesh, _but_ an appeal to God for a good conscience) through [the] resurrection of Jesus Christ, "

So my point is that you cannot connect "water" or "which" or "baptism" in any way to "ark."

Quote from: James Rondon on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 13:36:53

Quote from: kalen on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 13:24:47
James, I have personally gotten a lot out of your posts -- and ignoring Mike's posts has helped me get a lot more out of them (his stuff is just negative and confusing and dogmatic).  You strike me as much more of a scholar than I'll ever be, so your insight has been very, very enlightening.  Thank you so much for "putting it out there" despite the obvious bashing it's bound to run into from argumentative others.  :o)

Thanks, Kalen. I appreciate your kind words.

I agree also, my brother.

ATIC

No offense, Mike, but this isn't the NLT, as you stated:

Quote1Pe 3:20  having formerly refused to believe, when the patience of God kept eagerly waiting in [the] days of Noah, while an ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water;
1Pe 3:21  which [as] an antitype baptism [or, immersion] now also saves us (not [the] removal of [the] filth of flesh, _but_ an appeal to God for a good conscience) through [the] resurrection of Jesus Christ, "

I don't know what it is, but it isn't NLT.

This is:

1 Peter 3:20-21:

"those who disobeyed God long ago when God waited patiently while Noah was building his boat. Only eight people were saved from drowning in that terrible flood.  And this is a picture of baptism, which now saves you by the power of Jesus Christ's resurrection. Baptism is not a removal of dirt from your body; it is an appeal to God from a clean conscience."

Phoebe,
Thanks. It was ALT and I typed "N" for some reason. I corrected it.

okey-dokey.

This was interesting:

Quotere: baptism, accd. to Strong's:

immersion, submersion
   ....

2. of John's baptism, that purification rite by which men on confessing their sins were bound to spiritual reformation, obtained the pardon of their past sins and became qualified for the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom soon to be set up. This was valid Christian baptism, as this was the only baptism the apostles received and it is not recorded anywhere that they were ever rebaptised after Pentecost.

Don't know what to do with that last sentence, just caught my eye, thought it interesting. It seems like the question was asked somewhere recently - were the apostles immersed? .. not sure what thread... or if it was answered.

Sorry for the interruption. Back to the ark...

Quote from: mdd344 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 14:39:01
James,
I guess I will have to state it for you. But I surely want you to address it once I have.

"The relative pronoun must agree with its antecedent in gender and number--not neccesarily in case; since that depends on the function which is assigned to the pronoun..." (Hadjiantoniou, "Learning the Basics of New Testament Greek" p. 101).

What is the relative pronoun in 1 Pet. 3:21? The ASV sets it out this way:

1Pe 3:20  that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water:
1Pe 3:21  which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism,

The relative pronoun is "which" (Greek is "o"). Check Greek NT to see this "o" first in 3:21.

"which...doth now save you...even baptism."

You have contended that "baptism" referred to "ark" and not "water." Thus the "baptism" was not "water" but related to suffering in some way and had reference to "ark."

The antecedent of "which" is "water", the word immediately prior to it.

Thus "which after a true likness" refers to "water" and not "ark." 'Even baptism" is an appositive phrase describing what has just been stated. The word "like figure" or "true likeness" is the word "antitupon" which has reference to its counterpart, baptism.

The Greek text literally reads:

"which antetype is now saving you, even baptism." And the reference is not to ark, and grammatcially cannot be. It is to 'water.'

The ALT reads: (Analytical Literal Translation) Type for "N" initially. Thanks for correction.

"1Pe 3:20  having formerly refused to believe, when the patience of God kept eagerly waiting in [the] days of Noah, while an ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water;
1Pe 3:21  which [as] an antitype baptism [or, immersion] now also saves us (not [the] removal of [the] filth of flesh, _but_ an appeal to God for a good conscience) through [the] resurrection of Jesus Christ, "

So my point is that you cannot connect "water" or "which" or "baptism" in any way to "ark."

Thank you for actually dealing with the text, and laying out your case. I will try to make an indepth response either tonight, or tomorrow.

Quote from: mdd344 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 12:34:31

Quote from: spurly on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 12:27:44
Mike, just so you know I have two commentaries in my library which agree with James.  One by F.F. Bruce (International Bible Commentary), and one by Matthew Henry.

I read Henry, and I didn't get that. But, it was at best confusing and no direct reference was made as far as I could tell. I do not have the IBC.

So we have two. What does Bruce say? Can you give me a link to it? I would like to read it.

mdd,

Yet you listed Matthew Henry in support of your view in your OP. Am I missing something here?

Apollos

Quote from: Apollos on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 19:57:11

Quote from: mdd344 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 12:34:31

Quote from: spurly on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 12:27:44
Mike, just so you know I have two commentaries in my library which agree with James.  One by F.F. Bruce (International Bible Commentary), and one by Matthew Henry.

I read Henry, and I didn't get that. But, it was at best confusing and no direct reference was made as far as I could tell. I do not have the IBC.

So we have two. What does Bruce say? Can you give me a link to it? I would like to read it.

mdd,

Yet you listed Matthew Henry in support of your view in your OP. Am I missing something here?

Apollos

mdd344, which version of Henry's commentary did you consult?  The full version or the condensed version?

Quote from: mdd344 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 14:39:01
James,
I guess I will have to state it for you. But I surely want you to address it once I have.

"The relative pronoun must agree with its antecedent in gender and number--not neccesarily in case; since that depends on the function which is assigned to the pronoun..." (Hadjiantoniou, "Learning the Basics of New Testament Greek" p. 101).

What is the relative pronoun in 1 Pet. 3:21? The ASV sets it out this way:

1Pe 3:20  that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water:
1Pe 3:21  which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism,

The relative pronoun is "which" (Greek is "o"). Check Greek NT to see this "o" first in 3:21.

"which...doth now save you...even baptism."

You have contended that "baptism" referred to "ark" and not "water." Thus the "baptism" was not "water" but related to suffering in some way and had reference to "ark."

The antecedent of "which" is "water", the word immediately prior to it.

Thus "which after a true likness" refers to "water" and not "ark." 'Even baptism" is an appositive phrase describing what has just been stated. The word "like figure" or "true likeness" is the word "antitupon" which has reference to its counterpart, baptism.

The Greek text literally reads:

"which antetype is now saving you, even baptism." And the reference is not to ark, and grammatcially cannot be. It is to 'water.'

The ALT reads: (Analytical Literal Translation) Type for "N" initially. Thanks for correction.

"1Pe 3:20  having formerly refused to believe, when the patience of God kept eagerly waiting in [the] days of Noah, while an ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water;
1Pe 3:21  which [as] an antitype baptism [or, immersion] now also saves us (not [the] removal of [the] filth of flesh, _but_ an appeal to God for a good conscience) through [the] resurrection of Jesus Christ, "

So my point is that you cannot connect "water" or "which" or "baptism" in any way to "ark."

Mike,

Excellent post.  You are 100% correct.  This passage is just one of many that leads us to the truth regarding the essentiality of baptism. 

Okimar,
My thanks to you for that encouragement.






Spurly, Apollos,
I read the condensed version. I thought I read into his confusing words one thing, perhaps you saw another. I would list it officially as 'disputed.' I don't use him much because he uses so many words to say something.  FYI.

That explains it then, the version I have is the long version.  I was wondering what the difference was.  By the way, I don't use him a lot either.

This passage does hit a sensitive nerve for some.  On the surface, it appears that is associates our salvation with water baptism.  But what does it teach upon closer inspection?

First, the subject of the sentence in verse 21 is the "antitype."  "Baptism" stands in aposition to it, specifying what that antitype is.  That being the case, many modern translations, for the sake of readability, simply make baptism the subject, giving a more straightforward reading.  The net effect is the same, either way.  The NASB says that "baptism now saves you." The NRSV says, "And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you."  The ESV reads, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you."

The question then becomes whether or not this refers to water baptism.  The relative pronoun in Greek, "o", is neuter in gender.  Could this be a reference to the ark?  Actually, the word "ark" is feminine in gender, so there is no grammatical agreement.  There is agreement with the word "water," which is neuter also.  Apparently the waters of the flood called to mind the waters of baptism.  The NIV translators apparently felt so confident in this connection that they translate as follows: "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also."

So upon closer examination, this passage does associate our salvation with water baptism.  One can debate how that works, whether there are exceptions, and whether that is the exact moment of justification, but what seems clear is that there is that association made in the NT through inspiration.

I wanted to write this, not because it hasn't been said already, but because it is easy to write off what some people say because they are commonly seen in an adversarial position. 

Blessings,

Bob

Alright. I am now going to take a little time to go through the passages under discussion, making analysis from the actual Greek text, in response to what Mike has written. This response will answer/address Bob's analysis, as well. (By the way, Bob, I appreciated your input here.)

QuoteJames R. contends that "like figure" is "ark," not "baptism" 1 Pet. 3:20f

Starting off, the title of this very thread is a misrepresenation of what I have actually stated, and contended. I assume that this is just a typo, but if not, it would reveal that, not only does Mike not have a grasp of what the Greek says, but also, that he does not have a grasp of what the English says.

In my exegesis of 1st Peter 3:20-21 on another thread, of which this thread is an actual offspring, I stated that the "ark" in 1st Peter 3:20 is the "type" (Gk: "tupos"), and that the word "baptism", and more specifically, "the answer of a good conscience toward God" is the "like figure", or "antitype" (Gk: "antitupos").

What Mike was really trying to say in the title of this thread was: "James R. contends that 'like figure' is 'ark', not 'water'", but what he should have really said was: "James R. contends that 'like figure' refers to 'ark', not 'water'", or: "James R. contends that the 'type' is 'ark' not 'water'". Clarifying this is very important, and will help in actually dealing with, not only what I have actually stated, contended, and still contend, but will also help in dealing with what the passage, itself, actually says.

Quote from: mdd344 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 - 14:39:01
James,
I guess I will have to state it for you. But I surely want you to address it once I have.

"The relative pronoun must agree with its antecedent in gender and number--not neccesarily in case; since that depends on the function which is assigned to the pronoun..." (Hadjiantoniou, "Learning the Basics of New Testament Greek" p. 101).

This is an overstatement, and probably clarified by the author in it's actual context. However, this rule is the case more often than not (i.e. "generally, or "normally"), and does have a bearing on this discussion, and this passage.

QuoteWhat is the relative pronoun in 1 Pet. 3:21? The ASV sets it out this way:

1Pe 3:20  that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water:
1Pe 3:21  which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism,

The relative pronoun is "which" (Greek is "o"). Check Greek NT to see this "o" first in 3:21.

"which...doth now save you...even baptism."

Here is the actual Greek text, for those interested:

QuoteYou have contended that "baptism" referred to "ark" and not "water." Thus the "baptism" was not "water" but related to suffering in some way and had reference to "ark."

The antecedent of "which" is "water", the word immediately prior to it.

Your case has been made, at first, upon the fact that the ark was still being prepared. That, obviously, ignores the actual passage, the proceeding clause, and the reality of what happened to Noah and his family, with which Peter is referring. Then, your case was made upon what other scholars have said, or what you have thought they have said (i.e. Matthew Henry). Finally you have made your case on the "antecedent", assuming that the rule given by Hadjiantoniou agrees with your position, and proposition. All of this, of course, an effort to prove that water baptism is what saves one's soul, thus, the evolution of your argument.

Knowing that your case is now made upon the "antecedent", and that that is what we are actually discussing, I will deal with your assertion.

James L. Boyer, in his work, "Relative Clauses In The Greek New Testament: A Statistical Study" says the following about the "pronoun" (particularly, the relative pronoun; cf. antecedent, etc.) and the "antecedent":

QuoteA pronoun is a standardized, abbreviated substitute for a noun. Every pronoun has an antecedent, the nominal in place of which the pronoun stands.

He also had this to say about the antecedent, regarding its position:

QuoteThe very term antecedent suggests that the antecedent comes before the relative, as it actually does in 1089 cases (about 82%). But in 244 cases the antecedent follows the relative in the sentence. If one subtracts the 69 places where the pleonastic pronoun is counted as an antecedent following the relative, there are 175 cases (less than 13%) in which the antecedent follows the relative.

More often than not, the location of the antecedent comes before the relative. However, as you can see, that is not a definitive rule, and the antecedent can actually follow the relative. Thus, the term has reference more to the word itself, as related to the pronoun (i.e. "relative" pronoun), and not necessarily it's actual position with regard to said pronoun.

Would we have any reason to conclude that the antecedent, in 1st Peter 3:21, does not directly precede the relative pronoun? Actually, we do. Boyer continues on the antecedent:

QuoteSince a relative has connections with both the antecedent and the relative clause, its grammatical identifiers (gender, number, and case) do double duty. Normally, gender and number agree with the antecedent, but the case of the relative is determined by its grammatical function in its own clause. This normal rule is true in the NT more than 96% of the time. The exceptions to this rule are often called by grammarians "ad sensum" agreement, i.e., agreement in sense but not in grammatical form.

A good way to ascertain what the antecedent is, is to look for grammatical identifiers: gender, number, and case (this was already alluded to in Mike's post, but as I already mentioned, was overstated in said post).

When we look at 1st Peter 3:21, we can match up the grammatical identifiers fairly easily:

As you can see, the antecedent appears, in this case, to follow the relative pronoun. The word "water", in the Greek, is actually "genitive neuter singular", and thus, does not match up with the relative pronoun, in this case. The "which", or "whereunto" in the KJV, actually relates the words "like figure" (Gk: "antitupos") with "baptism" (Gk: "baptisma"), and not water. In fact, aside from water not matching up with all of the identifiers, it also comes at the end of another sentence, and another clause.

The King James Version actually had the construction of this phrase, and passage correct, in the English:

QuoteThe 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...

Trying to use "hos" in 1st Peter 3:21 to tie baptism to water, in the preceding verse is incorrect. As has already been stated, "hos" ties "the like figure" (Gk: "antitupos") with "baptism" (Gk: "baptisma"), and doesn't tie baptism with water.

In order to find out what the type (Gk: "tupos") is, to the "like figure" or "antitype" (Gk: "antitupos"), one must look at the context, and the construction of the passage, and the preceding passage. As I stated in another post:

QuoteBreak the passage down.  The ark is the type, not the water.  Baptism (cf. Matt. 20:22-23) is the antitype.  The reference in verse 19 is to the flood, which raised up the ark, in the midst of the destruction that was occurring around, and below.  The ark was their protection, and rescue through this destruction, and from this destruction.  In the same way, the answer of a good conscience is the ark of protection for these believers, who are raised up by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and rescued through their suffering, and from their suffering.


The ark was being prepared, yes, but "wherein few... were saved".  How were they saved by (through) the water, with an unfinished ark?  As I said, break the passage down:


Ark                                                      |       few, that is, eight souls       |      saved by water
Baptism (pledge of a good conscience)    |       you                                   |      saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

The "ark" is the type, and "baptism" (more particularly, "the answer [pledge] of  a good conscience") is the antitype.

Thanks James.  You have put a lot of thought into that post and it deserves a lot of study on my part.

James,

What a magnificent effort for all of us here.  I intend to print your post for future reference, if that's okay (I'll always give the penning credit to you.)

Don

Thanks Kevin, and Don. (By the way, Don, feel free to use whatever I write, if it seems beneficial.)

Quote from: James Rondon on Sat Jan 27, 2007 - 14:13:17
Thanks Kevin, and Don. (By the way, Don, feel free to use whatever I write, if it seems beneficial.)

Most excellent.

ATIC