Water Baptism

[MoreCoffee]

I am not sure that credobaptist makes sense, I understand why it is adhered to but I am not sure that it makes sense when the holy scriptures say what they do about baptism. It seems to me that credobaptism implies that baptism is symbolic and that it is a personal public witness about the baptised person's faith and repentance. Holy scripture does not teach that baptism is symbolic nor that it is a personal public witness about the baptised person's faith and repentance. Holy scripture presents these teachings about baptism:

• Baptism is tied to being born from above (John 3:5)
• Baptism is referred to being saved (1Peter 3:21)
• Baptism is referred to as the laver of regeneration (Titus 3:5)
• Baptism is called dying with Christ and rising with Christ (Romans 6:3-5)
• Baptism is referred to as to be enlightened (Hebrews 6:4-6)

Some will say that not all of these verses reference baptism because the word baptise is not in them but that is not the point when discussing what holy scripture teaches about the meaning of baptism. The truth is that holy scripture refers to baptism with words that reflect its meaning as well as by the word baptise. So while I can see why Baptists hold to the point of view that they do I do not think that the point of view that they hold makes sense, it fits their theological perspective but it is not what the holy scriptures teach about what baptism means.

 

[MennoSota]

I am not sure that credobaptist makes sense, I understand why it is adhered to but I am not sure that it makes sense when the holy scriptures say what they do about baptism. It seems to me that credobaptism implies that baptism is symbolic and that it is a personal public witness about the baptised person's faith and repentance. Holy scripture does not teach that baptism is symbolic nor that it is a personal public witness about the baptised person's faith and repentance. Holy scripture presents these teachings about baptism:

• Baptism is tied to being born from above (John 3:5)
• Baptism is referred to being saved (1Peter 3:21)
• Baptism is referred to as the laver of regeneration (Titus 3:5)
• Baptism is called dying with Christ and rising with Christ (Romans 6:3-5)
• Baptism is referred to as to be enlightened (Hebrews 6:4-6)

Some will say that not all of these verses reference baptism because the word baptise is not in them but that is not the point when discussing what holy scripture teaches about the meaning of baptism. The truth is that holy scripture refers to baptism with words that reflect its meaning as well as by the word baptise. So while I can see why Baptists hold to the point of view that they do I do not think that the point of view that they hold makes sense, it fits their theological perspective but it is not what the holy scriptures teach about what baptism means.

MC, rather than accept your statement about the verses you reference, please quote each verse and passage.
I have already shown you that John 3:5 has nothing that references baptism. Not one thing says baptism. You are reading baptism into the verse and boldly, dogmatically, claiming baptism with no actual reference. The actual context of Jesus and Nicodemus conversation has to do with new birth vs birth as an infant. Nicodemus was confused. He would never have asked about being born of a woman a second time if he was thinking about baptism. Thus, your interpretation of John 3:5 in relation to baptism is merely speculation without solid evidence.
Do you wish to provide the actual verses for the other statements or do you simply imagine that a firm assertion without the actual verse being presented makes your claim legitimate?

 

[atpollard]

I am not sure that credobaptist makes sense, I understand why it is adhered to but I am not sure that it makes sense when the holy scriptures say what they do about baptism. It seems to me that credobaptism implies that baptism is symbolic and that it is a personal public witness about the baptised person's faith and repentance. Holy scripture does not teach that baptism is symbolic nor that it is a personal public witness about the baptised person's faith and repentance. Holy scripture presents these teachings about baptism:

I would hope you feel that way. Otherwise you should become a Particular Baptist and that would mean a lot of bother with finding a new church to attend and membership classes and deciding if you need to be baptized again. It is much easier for you if you disagree with me and continue to hold your own beliefs.

The question of ‘literal’ vs ‘spiritual’ vs ‘symbolic’ is one that Baptists will disagree among themselves on. There are indeed some that view it as 100% symbolic and some that do not. I can sympathize with the confusion. Let’s go through your verses and discuss it.

Baptism is tied to being born from above (John 3:5)

Absolutely. I would point out that even in Acts 2, Peter told them to be baptized and they WILL RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT! If that doesn’t agree with Jesus about being born of water and the spirit ...
[Just a quick edit to keep Meno’s head from exploding at the thought that I have gone over to salvation by baptism. “water and the spirit” has two common traditional interpretations. One is Baptism and the Holy Spirit ... which meshes well with the events of Acts 2. The second is natural birth (placental water) and the Holy Spirit ... which meshes well with the verse in John 3 about Spirit giving birth to Spirit. So I am acknowledging that your position is not contradictory to many theologians, but it is not the only way to view the verse.]

Baptism is referred to being saved (1Peter 3:21)

[1Pe 3:21-22 NASB] 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.​

I would argue that in the case of THIS PARTICULAR verse, the baptism in the water (the physical act) is what is referenced as “not the removal of dirt from the flesh”, so it is more a claim that the “spiritual baptism” which is our becoming “IN CHRIST” that saves us.

Baptism is referred to as the laver of regeneration (Titus 3:5)

[Tit 3:4-7 NASB] 4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and [His] love for mankind appeared, 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to [the] hope of eternal life.​

Any thoughts on the difference between “regeneration” and “renewing”?
Could the baptism be a washing of repentance like what John the Baptist and Jesus preached while they walked the earth?
I am really just asking. I don’t have an answer off the top of my head.

Baptism is called dying with Christ and rising with Christ (Romans 6:3-5)

Here is where we get into the exact same ‘literal’/‘spiritual’/‘symbolic’ debate as communion. Let’s face it, unless you practice total immersion and really hold them under a LONG time, the person’s death is not literal. So there must be some deeper meaning going on. We could discuss it, and even debate it, and we might even reach agreement ... but I doubt that I could get all of the other Credobaptist to agree with me and I suspect that you would also have trouble getting agreement from all Padeobaptists. So the best thing is to probably admit that different folks will disagree on this verse.

Baptism is referred to as to be enlightened (Hebrews 6:4-6)

Maybe. I honestly can’t tell if it means those who have once been “baptized” or one been “saved”. For the sake of argument, let’s assume it means baptized.

[Heb 6:4-6 NASB] 4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and [then] have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.​

I still think that Hebrews is speaking of a hypothetical case here and describing something that cannot actually happen (I know you disagree with Perseverance of the saints, but I still believe that He who began a good work in me will see it to completion).
In any event, does the Catholic Church forbid an adult that was baptized as an infant and fell deep into apostasy, to renew his faith and be baptized at Easter with the other new believers?

I am sure that someone who repented could find a person willing to baptize them, so the verse cannot mean that it is physically impossible to be (immersed/poured/sprinkled) twice? I agree it is wrong and unnecessary, but it is not a physical impossibility.

Some will say that not all of these verses reference baptism because the word baptise is not in them but that is not the point when discussing what holy scripture teaches about the meaning of baptism. The truth is that holy scripture refers to baptism with words that reflect its meaning as well as by the word baptise. So while I can see why Baptists hold to the point of view that they do I do not think that the point of view that they hold makes sense, it fits their theological perspective but it is not what the holy scriptures teach about what baptism means.

Good conclusion. Now let me throw a fly in your ointment. Both Baptists and Catholics acknowledge that a person can be saved, by God, WITHOUT water baptism. The obvious example from scripture is the Thief on the cross. The only person in the NT that we know for CERTAIN is in Heaven, was saved while dying on a cross and had no opportunity to get immersed or sprinkled. Beyond that, those on their death bed and unable to be baptized are still saved under Catholic teaching (and I only know this because it happens enough that you even gave it a name that I can’t remember). Baptists that I know would agree 100%.

I have seen a lot of verses that seem to link “believe” with “baptize”, but not so many verse that link “saved” with “baptized”. “Saved” seems to be linked more with “Faith” and “believe”. My personal favorite verse on getting saved ...

[Rom 10:8-10 NASB] 8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus [as] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.​

No mandatory baptism in water mentioned.

 

[MoreCoffee]

MC, rather than accept your statement about the verses you reference, please quote each verse and passage.
I have already shown you that John 3:5 has nothing that references baptism. Not one thing says baptism. You are reading baptism into the verse and boldly, dogmatically, claiming baptism with no actual reference. The actual context of Jesus and Nicodemus conversation has to do with new birth vs birth as an infant. Nicodemus was confused. He would never have asked about being born of a woman a second time if he was thinking about baptism. Thus, your interpretation of John 3:5 in relation to baptism is merely speculation without solid evidence.
Do you wish to provide the actual verses for the other statements or do you simply imagine that a firm assertion without the actual verse being presented makes your claim legitimate?

If you put your mouse pointer over the bible reference then the text of the verse will appear. So I did in fact reference and quote the passages if you take the time to use your mouse pointer to see the verse text.

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION], I shall come back to your post later, it is lunch time here and I want to cook my lunch. It is getting wintery here now and a nice hot meal is desirable.

 

[MennoSota]

If you put your mouse pointer over the bible reference then the text of the verse will appear. So I did in fact reference and quote the passages if you take the time to use your mouse pointer to see the verse text.

If you quote it then all people can read it. I use Tapatalk as the app for discussion so your method isn't going to work.
I have already observed many of the passages for everyone here to read. I have yet to see any Lutheran or Catholic actually observe what the text says. It is always an assertion first with the text provided as proof of the assertion. It would be refreshing to have you, Josiah, Albion and Id2 quote the verse and actually observe what the text says...not what you want it to say. Observe, observe, observe. It's inductive.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If you quote it then all people can read it. I use Tapatalk as the app for discussion so your method isn't going to work.
I have already observed many of the passages for everyone here to read. I have yet to see any Lutheran or Catholic actually observe what the text says. It is always an assertion first with the text provided as proof of the assertion. It would be refreshing to have you, Josiah, Albion and Id2 quote the verse and actually observe what the text says...not what you want it to say. Observe, observe, observe. It's inductive.

Does your device have a bible? If it does then use it and look up the passages.

 

[MennoSota]

Does your device have a bible? If it does then use it and look up the passages.

Deflection.
I often end up copying and pasting the verse and the passage around it so that you and others can actually observe what God wrote to us.
I suspect that you and others don't like what you observe so you just assert your opinion and then toss the verse reference in as an afterthought.

 

[MennoSota]

1 Peter 3:18-22 For Christ also sufferedonce for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

 

[MennoSota]

Titus 3:1-7 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

 

[MennoSota]

Romans 6:1-6 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old selfwas crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

 

[MennoSota]

Hebrews 6:1-9 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings,the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits. For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned. Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation.

 

[MennoSota]

John 3:1-15 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesusby night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born againhe cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘Youmust be born again.’ The windblows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but youdo not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

 

[MennoSota]

Those are the passages MC referenced. What does the text in each passage actually say. No interpretation, just observation. What do you observe about water baptism? Is there any water stated? Perhaps, perhaps not. How does the passage inform our understanding when we observe what it says...and doesn't say?
The exercise of observation is good for the soul. Try it with the passages MC referenced and I posted.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Mennosota, did you not read atpollard's post in which he quoted all the passages?

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]


You SAID (many times) you want to discuss (and just as many times that you won't).

You SAID I must limit everything to a narrow definition of Credobaptism (as you defined); that's the only Baptism dogma of the Baptists you will discuss (and that narrowly defined). And I agreed.

You SAID if I gave my position, you would (finally) enter into discussion and talk about Credobaptism (one of the Baptist dogmas you have been parroting).

So far, you've ignored it (again; yet again).

Let's try one more time:




I hold that there is no biblical prohibition against baptizing people in chronological time before they state that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Nor is there a biblical mandate that one must show they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior in chronological time BEFORE the prohibition of baptism is for them lifted. I reject the late 16th Century invention of Credobaptism (in all its aspects, but you want to limit it to this one, I believe) in part because it is missing in the Bible (as well as nearly 1600 years of Christianity); it is not taught in the Scriptures.


Now, I admit, it SEEMS that MOST of the examples of baptisms that happen to be exampled in the NT appear do fit this, but we cannot show that they all do. And, like you, I reject the rubric that we MUST do whatever is exampled in the Bible and CANNOT do what is not exampled in the Bible, so this is an irrelevant point.


Now, if you have a verse or verses (previously kept secret) that state we are forbidden to baptize any who has not previously, in chronological time, given statement that they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, or one(s) that we are mandated to require such, then now present it. But perhaps you only have verses that prove MY point: the dogma isn't there.



Now, I might add, you reject the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary, not because you have any verse that proves it wrong but because you note that the RCC has no verse that proves it's right (you COULD also note no other faith community has this at least as dogma, and that it's quite late). You don't hold that YOU are mandated to quote a Scripture that says "There is no dogma of the Assumption of Mary", they are teaching the dogma, it is THEIR responsibility to confirm it. But Catholics are at least honest: it's not taught in Scripture and they don't claim it is.









MennoSota,


Thanks for your support!

Thank you for quoting so many Scripture, showing that none of them contain this Dogma of Credobaptism that an Anabaptist invented in the late 16th Century. Yup, you are right on target, it's not in Scripture (or Tradition, or in the Rule of Faith or any Council or ANYWHERE AT ALL until some German Anabaptist dreamed it up, NOT because of any Scripture since it's not there but because he was a radical synergist and held that God cannot act on those under the age of X, those under that age cannot do their part in spiritual blessings); it's just Anabaptist tradition, a very new tradition of one denomination group. I appreciate you weighing in, even if Arthur has not (at least yet).



A blessed Easter season to all!


- Josiah





.

 

[atpollard]

Those are the passages MC referenced. What does the text in each passage actually say. No interpretation, just observation. What do you observe about water baptism? Is there any water stated? Perhaps, perhaps not. How does the passage inform our understanding when we observe what it says...and doesn't say?
The exercise of observation is good for the soul. Try it with the passages MC referenced and I posted.

Actually, this is the sort of stuff that I live for ... it is just how I am wired.

1 Peter 3:18-22 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you"
Before looking at the "now saves you" part of the verse, the first part that jumps out at me is "which corresponds to this". I want to know what EXACTLY is "this"?
The obvious answer from the context of what was said is "this" is the eight people "brought safely through water" in the ark. Now my preference for the literal (God says what he means and means what he says, unless there is a reason to think otherwise) sees more differences than similarities between Noah-ark-flood and sinner-baptism-water. Noah stayed dry while the sinner gets wet. Noah was 'good' and the sinner is 'bad'. Noah survived the flood and the sinner is supposed to die in baptism. So the question in my mind becomes "What gives?"

The surrounding context provides a hint ... "being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" and "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God". This is not speaking about physical matters, but spiritual matters. I have found that spiritual truths are often best understood through the lens of "typology". So let's look at Noah as a typology: Many people were evil. The whole world was destined for destruction. God chose a few (eight) to save. The water was God's judgement which washed the earth by killing all the evil men. God closed the door and protected Noah from his wrath and then made a covenant to never again judge the world by a flood. Looking at the "Baptism ... (which) now saves you ... as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" through this typology, we are the world that faces condemnation. The water is God's judgement that destroys all sinful men and washes us clean. Jesus Christ is the ark that allows us to survive the 'flood' (without the ark, Noah would perish and without Jesus, we will perish). The Holy Spirit (that we receive) is the promise of God that He will never again send a "flood" (judgement) to destroy us.

So that's what I see those verses saying.

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]


You SAID (many times) you want to discuss (and just as many times that you won't).

You SAID I must limit everything to a narrow definition of Credobaptism (as you defined). And I agreed.

You SAID if I gave my position, you would (finally) enter into discussion and talk about Credobaptism (one of the Baptist dogmas you have been parroting).

So far, you've ignored it (again; yet again).

Let's try one more time:




I hold that there is no biblical prohibition against baptizing people in chronological time before they state that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. I reject the late 16th Century invention of Credobaptism (in all its aspects, but you want to limit it to this one, I believe) in part because it is missing in the Bible (as well as nearly 1600 years of Christianity); it is not taught in the Scriptures.

Now, I admit, it SEEMS that MOST of the examples of baptisms that happen to be exampled in the NT appear do fit this, but we cannot show that they all do. And, like you, I reject the rubric that we MUST do whatever is exampled in the Bible and CANNOT do what is not exampled in the Bible, so this is an irrelevant point.

Now, if you have a verse or verses (previously kept secret) that state we are forbidden to baptize any who has not previously, in chronological time, given statement that they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, or one(s) that we are mandated to require such, then now present it. But perhaps you only have verses that prove MY point: the dogma isn't there.



Now, I might add, you reject the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary, not because you have any verse that proves it wrong but because you note that the RCC has no verse that proves it true (you COULD also note no other faith community has this at least as dogma and that it's late). You don't hold that YOU are mandated to quote a Scripture that says "There is no dogma of the Assumption of Mary", they are teaching the dogma, it is THEIR responsibility to confirm it. But Catholics are at least honest: it's not taught in Scripture (and they don't claim it is).




.

You are right. There is no law against water baptizing anyone or anything. You can baptize a rose if you want to. In fact, florists dip roses every day. You can walk down the street and sprinkle water on anyone while chanting "in the name of the father, the son and the holy ghost." There is no law against it. You can go on to your porch and smoke a cigar while drinking a bottle of vodka. There is no law against it.
1 Corinthians 6:12 “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything.
1 Corinthians 10:23-24 “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.

Josiah, is it good to teach parents and little children that they are saved by the water baptism they received as infants so that they have no change of life from the atheist or pagan living around them?
Would you go up to your neighbor and preach the gospel of "I will water baptize you and have faith for you. You don't need to have faith until you go through a church class on confirmation over the next decade. Until then, my faith that you are going to heaven, shown by my baptizing you, will be enough."???
Would you do that?
Josiah, there is no law that says you cannot do such a thing.
By what arbitrary measurement do you determine you can believe for one human but not for others? Do you just make it up in church counsel and determine that at the age of X the person can no longer be baptized unto salvation by another person having faith for them? What is that arbitrary age in your church? At what age must the person confess their own faith before you will baptize them? Is it 4, 8, 10, 12, 15, 18, etc,? Or is a person baptized without expression of faith, by the faith of another person, at any age?
There is no law against it, Josiah? What arbitrary dogma have you created from outside of scripture?

Now, sticking with scripture, do you observe any pattern in baptism displayed in the Bible? Do you see any instance where another person having faith for someone else lead the Apostles to baptize the faithless person? I dare you to answer this last question with a yes or no. If yes, show scripture. If no, then explain how you came up with the arbitrary system that has no biblical evidence.

 

[Albion]

Now, sticking with scripture, do you observe any pattern in baptism displayed in the Bible? Do you see any instance where another person having faith for someone else lead the Apostles to baptize the faithless person ?

Yes! We have been over this dozens of times already.

 

[MennoSota]

Actually, this is the sort of stuff that I live for ... it is just how I am wired.

1 Peter 3:18-22 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you"
Before looking at the "now saves you" part of the verse, the first part that jumps out at me is "which corresponds to this". I want to know what EXACTLY is "this"?
The obvious answer from the context of what was said is "this" is the eight people "brought safely through water" in the ark. Now my preference for the literal (God says what he means and means what he says, unless there is a reason to think otherwise) sees more differences than similarities between Noah-ark-flood and sinner-baptism-water. Noah stayed dry while the sinner gets wet. Noah was 'good' and the sinner is 'bad'. Noah survived the flood and the sinner is supposed to die in baptism. So the question in my mind becomes "What gives?"

The surrounding context provides a hint ... "being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" and "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God". This is not speaking about physical matters, but spiritual matters. I have found that spiritual truths are often best understood through the lens of "typology". So let's look at Noah as a typology: Many people were evil. The whole world was destined for destruction. God chose a few (eight) to save. The water was God's judgement which washed the earth by killing all the evil men. God closed the door and protected Noah from his wrath and then made a covenant to never again judge the world by a flood. Looking at the "Baptism ... (which) now saves you ... as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" through this typology, we are the world that faces condemnation. The water is God's judgement that destroys all sinful men and washes us clean. Jesus Christ is the ark that allows us to survive the 'flood' (without the ark, Noah would perish and without Jesus, we will perish). The Holy Spirit (that we receive) is the promise of God that He will never again send a "flood" (judgement) to destroy us.

So that's what I see those verses saying.

I will note that you, like all of us, tend to add interpretation to our observation.
All I ask is for serious observation at this point. (Arsenios calls this "tedious.") The skill of inductive Bible study is the ability to observe, observe, observe. I had a professor give an assignment. He stated: "For the next class, I want 50 observations from John 3:16." It was one of the hardest assignments to try find 50 observations. I was reduced to observing a word, a preposition, a noun, etc. But, the process revealed that in order to really know something, you have to dig deep in observation. Any biologist knows this. If you want to know the inner workings of a muscle, you have to observe at many different levels before you can say you understand how the muscle functions. Macro down to micro. My quest is to have us work through that process.
Thank you for the initial observations. I will not respond to your interpretation, though others might.