Why do we get all these posts irrelevant to the thread question: What happens to unbaptized believers?
ὕδατος. 21 ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα,
Your translation is off. There is no word "to" before which (ὃ = ho). Translate antitupon as an adverb (with BDAG Lexicon), neuter adjective used as adverb. Antitupon-ish-ly, antitypishly, after a corresponding figure (BDAG says "correspondingly"). The core of the statement is (water) "which saves you." But the core statement is modified by "after a corresponding figure."
I can't see any way to make antitupon the subject of "saves." If so, it would read "[the] water [of Noah's flood], which antitype saves, namely baptism." But the water of Noah's flood is not baptism. The statement would be calling the water of the flood an antitype which saves, then explaining it as baptism. But such is not the case.
Literally then: water, which after a corresponding figure saves you, (namely) baptism.
Water baptism is a picture of salvation, not its substance. And it cannot be its substance as so many, many times salvation is offered just for believing, having faith, without any reference to baptism. Moreover, human baptism is a human work. Man is not saved by human works.
Why do we get all these posts irrelevant to the thread question: What happens to unbaptized believers? Could it be that the water-works heretics have no scripture to demo any bad outcome to unbaptized believers?
also to [error!] which an antitype doth now save us -- baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ
ὕδατος. 21 ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα,
Your translation is off. There is no word "to" before which (ὃ = ho). Translate antitupon as an adverb (with BDAG Lexicon), neuter adjective used as adverb. Antitupon-ish-ly, antitypishly, after a corresponding figure (BDAG says "correspondingly"). The core of the statement is (water) "which saves you." But the core statement is modified by "after a corresponding figure."
I can't see any way to make antitupon the subject of "saves." If so, it would read "[the] water [of Noah's flood], which antitype saves, namely baptism." But the water of Noah's flood is not baptism. The statement would be calling the water of the flood an antitype which saves, then explaining it as baptism. But such is not the case.
Literally then: water, which after a corresponding figure saves you, (namely) baptism.
Water baptism is a picture of salvation, not its substance. And it cannot be its substance as so many, many times salvation is offered just for believing, having faith, without any reference to baptism. Moreover, human baptism is a human work. Man is not saved by human works.
Why do we get all these posts irrelevant to the thread question: What happens to unbaptized believers? Could it be that the water-works heretics have no scripture to demo any bad outcome to unbaptized believers?