It is good to hear from you again. You have very thoughtful and kind responses, which I greatly appreciate.
I agree with one of your main points: Baptism without faith is useless! No amount of "want-to" (will-power) or "good deeds" can merit one's salvation (
John 1:12-13; 6:28-29). We are in desperate need of God's grace and mercy, upon which we rely through faith. Without such faith, we are doomed (
Hebrews 11:6).
You have referenced
I Peter 3:21, which I think is a very powerful passage in answering your original question; however, I am somewhat concerned by your understanding of it. Maybe I have misunderstood you, but do you believe that this verse teaches that baptism is
not a requirement for our salvation? We need to examine the parts you underlined more closely. But, whatever they mean, they cannot negate the first part of the verse:
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 (I Peter 3:21 - NKJ)
Of all the possible interpretations of Peter's parenthetical comment on
how baptism saves us, we
cannot adopt an interpretation that
dismisses the
fact that
"baptism now saves you". Does your interpretation of the middle part contradict the first part? Do you believe that baptism does not save us?
To explain Peter's parenthetical statement regarding the method of baptism's salvation, you should know there is some debate among commentators, which is evidenced by the variety in translations. There are several Bible versions, which contain translations similar to the NKJ, which you and I have been referencing:
KJV,
NLT, and
WEB (
RWB). However, others translate it differently, which offers a completely different interpretation:
And 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 (I Peter 3:21 - NAS)
Translations that offer a version similar to this are:
ESV,
NAB,
NAU,
NRS, and
RSV. The
ASV and
ERV uses the word
"interrogation", while Young's literal translation (
YLT) uses
"question", both of which could support a similar interpretation. This seems a better translation given the lexicons and dictionaries, like Strong's, which you referenced previously:
How can we question, demand, earnestly seek, crave, or intensely desire a good conscience from God, if we already have it?
For completeness, a few others use the word,
"pledge", which Lenski supports:
NIV,
CSB, and
NET.
The variety reflects the difficulty of interpreting the Greek, but it may also reflect the dangerous impact of the otherwise clear interpretation upon one's cherished beliefs.
Here's the question that has been debated: Is baptism a response that arises from one's already good conscience (i.e., saved before baptism), or is baptism a form of seeking a good conscience from God (i.e, saved at baptism)? Now we could discuss the Greek in detail, but I think it unnecessary. Consider our earlier "common-sense" question: Can we pick an interpretation for the ambiguous second half of a verse that contradicts a clear first half of the verse? How can we interpret the last part to mean that we are saved before baptism, if immediately prior Peter clearly states that baptism saves us?!
How does this harmonize with previous answers? Peter clearly states that baptism saves us. That is a staggering point, so he elaborates: Baptism's power does not arise from the ceremonial washing, but it arises from one's manifested desire for salvation, which of course, only has power through Christ's sacrifice and resurrection. This passage from Hebrews seems to explain a similar point:
For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:13-14)
Notice how the sprinkling of animal blood from OT sacrifices put away the filth of the flesh, but the blood of Christ cleanses the conscience! Is this not the point being made in
I Peter 3:21? It would be a comparable mistake to associate the power of the Jesus' blood to outward cleansing, just as it would be to associate the power of baptism with outward cleansing. ... The only question that remains is this, "When do we come in contact with Christ's blood?". Recalling previous passages:
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 also should walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4)
Paul says that we come in contact with His death at baptism. We are buried with Christ in baptism; therefore, we come in contact with His blood at baptism. Again, after baptism we are spiritually raised to walk a new life. How is that possible, if we were already walking a new life before baptism? What is being put to death at baptism, if we were saved beforehand?
In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses ... (Colossians 2:11-13)
Notice Paul's comparison between baptism and "spiritual" circumcision. He says that this spiritual procedure is performed by Christ. Before this procedure, we are
"dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh". However, after baptism (spiritual circumcision), we are
"made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses". Again, according to Scripture, at what point are our sins forgiven and are we made alive?
Finally, if we are still inclined to dismiss baptism as the point at which sins are forgiven, we still have to wrestle with these passages:
'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' (Acts 22:16)
Paul clearly already believed in Jesus. He had
demonstrated his faith through constant prayer and fasting for 3 days! Yet, his sins remained, and baptism was proscribed as the means to wash his sins away. Also, notice how baptism is linked with
"calling on the name of the Lord". Do you think this call upon the Lord could be
"an appeal for a good conscience from God" (
I Peter 3:21)? Remember,
"calling upon the Lord" follows belief (
Romans 10:14), so it cannot be equated with faith. It is something that comes
after faith, like baptism! ...
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:37-38)
The interesting thing about this verse is that the Greek for
"for the remission of sins" is identical to that used by Jesus:
"For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:28)
Was Jesus blood required for us to be forgiven, or did He die because we had already been forgiven? Remember, the original language is identical to
Acts 2:38.
In closing, you mentioned that there was no ceremonial power in baptism to save. I agree, because I believe that is the point of
I Peter 3:21. Baptism is not magic. It's power comes from God who mercifully bestows forgiveness based on Jesus' sacrifice
at the point of our baptism. God chooses the time and place to forgive our sins and recognize us as His children. Just because God sets a requirement, we should not think the requirement has the power. It does not. God holds the power. ... For an alternative comparison, consider faith. What is so special about faith? There is no power in faith. God does not have to respect faith, but He does. What about repentance? Is there any power to bestow salvation in repentance? Again, no. The power comes from God, Who respects our repentances and grants another chance. What about confession? You previously mentioned a prayer that you taught sinners to offer in conversion? Did you believe there was power in that prayer? No. The power always resided in God. Could it be that baptism is occasionally eyed prejudicially, in a way that is inconsistent with how we view the other requirements for salvation?
About baptism being associated with "dyeing", I am unaware of any evidence that associates baptism with a "marking". The Greek word means immersion. The reference you provided shows that quite well (Strong's). If you look closely at the definition, you will see that
bapto is associated with dying, not
baptizo. Furthermore, your reference says not to confuse the two: They are different.
There is a very rich theology (faith-only) that has been constructed over many years that dismisses baptism as being generally required for our salvation. It sounds very consistent, and it has some support from Scripture, although the verses may be taken out of context. Please be very careful here. In this alternate theology, baptism is just an outward sign of one's pre-existing salvation. It serves to mark those who are already saved. In other words, according to this doctrine, people are saved before baptism. In churches that support this theology, baptisms are conducted once a month or so, instead of immediately upon one's desire to repent and be converted - because there is no urgency. In such cases, the only judgment feared is that of man. However, that is contrary to the above passages and the very spirit of Christianity (
Matthew 6:1-6; 10:28). Are you accepting this view?
Oh, you had another point: What if you were "stolen away" on your way up the stairs to the baptistery? As an answer, please consider this question, "What if you died on your way to hear preaching, where you would have believed and been saved?" Does that mean belief is unnecessary? For any requirement, we can imagine an emotional, hypothetical situation that challenges judgment against the imaginary person, thereby encouraging dismissal of the requirement. However, the first mistake in these questions is volunteering to stand in God's shoes! He is the Judge. We are the preachers and teachers. Our job is to proclaim what He has said. He will sort out the rest. ... Could there be exceptions? Sure, that is His prerogative. However, it would be very presumptuous on our part if we decided to guess at His judgments and establish a new plan based on our guesses, especially if our guesses contradicted His clearly revealed will. In the country, we call this, "whittling on God's end of the stick". :-) Don't let someone trick you into doing this.
Well, I have been somewhat more "confrontational" this time, but it is only because I see you becoming more comfortable and settled. Please recall from
Acts 19:1-6, that those who were baptized for the wrong reason had to be baptized again. Their first baptism was not sufficient! Their first baptism used the right medium (water). Their first baptism focused on the right person (Jesus), but yet the first was still ultimately unprofitable. They had to be baptized again! Paul only bestowed the Holy Spirit
after they were baptized correctly. How effective will baptism be for you, if you do it for the wrong reason? What if you are not baptized
"for the remission of sins", as were those ancient saints (
Acts 2:37-38)? God ultimately makes that decision, but are you willing to make any presumptions in the meantime?
Please understand I am questioning you only because I care for you, and I am concerned. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.
BTW, although this has been more lengthy, it is still brief in some ways. Would you be open to studying with someone in person, who might could communicate with you more personally and immediately? Although I think we are discussing the Bible quite well via email, I can't help but wonder if it would be more effective for you talk with someone face to face. If you tell me your city, I can check if I have a friend in your vicinity. If I know someone close to you, and if you are willing, I would simply forward you the contact info and leave it up to you to meet them over coffee or something. You would be in complete control.
May God help us to have a supreme love of the truth,
m273p15c