Baptism

“There is an antitype which now saves us–baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
-1 Peter 3:21

What? Baptism saves us? Sign me up!

Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life.

Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the same cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”. That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

I hope you see what I am doing. In this succession of verses (which I didn’t reference for better flow of thought; the references are at the bottom), it seems fairly apparent that no, the simple physical act of baptism is not what saves us. After all, all the Israelites were baptized but they were hardly all saved. The baptism that saves us seems to be our death and burial and resurrection with Christ — in other words, as far as I can see, His work imputed to us. I don’t mean to say the physical act is unnecessary; it is, after all, commanded in the Great Commission itself. But I do mean that having the physical sacrament administered isn’t a guarantee of salvation. And, based on the little parenthetical insertion, I don’t think St. Peter ever meant anyone to imply that.

St. Peter says that baptism is an antitype–that is, it is the real thing of some earlier type. Interestingly enough, the earlier type is Noah and those on the ark. And not all those on the ark were of the city of God (Genesis 9:25). Maybe I am reading too much into it, but it seems to me that St. Peter is saying that baptism, the antitype, is a covenant thing just like the type. But it is not an empty symbol: it is a sign of death and resurrection in Christ. To whom much is given, much is required.

(Romans 6:3-4, 1 Corinthians 10:1-5, Romans 9:6-8)

Posted at 1:07 am EST on the 11th of December 2008 by V. K. Blake.

Under Theology as

There are 5 replies.
 
  1. V. K. Blake says on December 18th, 2008 at 3:42 am

    I’m glad to see everyone agrees with me.
    As long as you’re not going to comment you could at least cover my commentless shame with another post.

  2. J. R. Ahern says on December 19th, 2008 at 3:07 am

    Ah. Sorry. Exams, you know. But your post simply couldn’t get away with tacit assent. :-P

    In the midst of chemistry, algebra II, political philosophy, and Greek conditionals, I really can’t respond to this adequately. Suffice it to say, you have sufficiently explained what St. Peter does not mean – he doesn’t mean that baptism is an assurance of salvation – but you have not explained what he does mean. You did go so far as to say that he means baptism is a covenant type, but why, then, would he say that it saves us? And if we should not trust his language of salvation and redemption here, why should we trust it anywhere else, like in the passages that define justification by faith? Can we explain those away and throw out the certainty Luther had in salvific language that now renders him admiration even from the Papacy?

    Which just means, why salvation here and not there? Why Paul and not James? Why Zwingli and not St. Peter?

  3. V. K. Blake says on December 20th, 2008 at 1:02 am

    I think in my head this post was longer than it came out on paper.
    The point was not that the verse about Peter is not about salvation…
    I don’t know how to say it better than I already said it; “The baptism that saves us seems to be our death and burial and resurrection with Christ — in other words, as far as I can see, His work imputed to us. ”
    That because of this: “(not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God)” The only way I know to get a good conscience toward God is through Christ.

  4. J. R. Ahern says on December 21st, 2008 at 9:16 pm

    Well, again, I’ll say this and probably get immediately proven wrong by some Scripture because I haven’t done my homework. But, be that as it may, I suppose my question is not why the Peter verse isn’t about salvation, but why it isn’t apparently about baptism. If he says baptism saves us, and you’re denying that on a literal level, then “saves” or “baptism” (or “us”, I suppose) must be defined as something other than literal. Why are you defining baptism, then, as our death and burial and resurrection with Christ?

    And, if you already mentioned an answer to this in your post, I’m sorry. I really did read it, but perhaps I’m not getting all the contextual implications since I don’t know very much about this issue.

  5. V. K. Blake says on December 24th, 2008 at 8:13 pm

    Yes, Okay, I think I see what you’re asking for. What you want is for me to justify my definition of Baptism using Peter, not Paul, no?
    I think maybe I did not quote far enough back.
    “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us–baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..”

    First, I’m not going to pretend to understand the part about preaching to spirits in prison; that is a something for a much better theologian than me. So if I am wrong, and the whole passage hangs on that point, then I have no case.

    Second.Peter, just like Paul, talks about Christ’s death and resurrection. As far as I can tell, the flow of Peter’s argument is this:
    Christ suffered for our sins,
    He died
    He rose, through the Spirit
    By whom he also preached in the days of Noah, who was saved through water.
    NOW, there is an actuality of all that, Baptism
    Which is not the physical water, but an answer of a good conscience
    Which, just like before, is through Christ’s resurrection.

    It starts and ends with Christ’s resurrection, and I think “now there is an antitype” refers back further than just the preceding verse.

    I’m not sure if that made any more sense than it did the first time. ^_^