Tuesday, October 20, 2015

"Baptism saves you"


20 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. 21 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 (1 Pet 3:20-21, ESV).

1 Pet 3:21 is a favorite prooftext for sacramentalism. Let's consider the various permutations of this issue:

1. For the record, I think the NT teaches the rite of water baptism. I'm not opposed to that. 

2. Sacramentalists fail to grasp the nature of symbolism. They suppose that if baptism was "merely symbolic," the NT would describe it differently. But symbolism operates on a representational principle, where you can substitute the sign for the significate. In symbolism, the emblem takes the place of the thing it symbolizes. Therefore, whatever is true of the significate can be said of the sign.

For instance, when the cross is used to symbolize the redemptive work of Christ, we ascribe anything and everything to the cross that's actually true of the atonement. But that isn't meant to be taken literally. We aren't saved by a piece of wood. 

So the NT would use the same descriptions for baptism and communion whether or not these were "merely symbolic." 

3. Water is a flexible theological metaphor in Scripture. Water can be a source of life. Water can be a source of death.

Water is a direct source of life in terms of drinking water; water is in indirect source of life in terms of crop irrigation.

Water is a direct source of death in terms of drowning, or an indirect source of death in terms of Nile crocodiles. 

Water is a cleansing agent. By extension, water represents ritual purification. 

Finally, it's possible that the ancients associated water with birth via amniotic fluid. 

4. Let's grant the sacramentalist interpretation of 1 Pet 3:21 for the sake of argument. If so, that passage is still fraught with complications and ambiguities:

i) Does that mean baptism necessary for salvation? Can you be saved apart from baptism? 

ii) Does that mean baptism sufficient for salvation? Is baptism alone all you need to be saved? 

iii) What baptism saves you? 

a) Does the efficacy of baptism depend on the mode of baptism (e.g. immersion, sprinkling)?

b) Does the efficacy of baptism depend on the intent of the officiant? 

c) In the case of adults, does the efficacy depend on the intent of the candidate? 

d) Does the efficacy of baptism depend on the orthodoxy of the officiant? Is baptism performed by a heretic valid or invalid? 

e) Does the efficacy of baptism depend on words as well as the action (e.g. a Trinitarian formula)?

f) Can a layman perform baptism, or must it be a church officer?

So even if you think baptism conveys saving grace, that leaves many crucial questions unanswered. 

5. Concerning baptisma:

i) BDAG offers the following definitions: plunging, dipping, washing, water-rite, baptism. 165b. 

ii) That's a fairly rare word in NT usage. By my count, it's only used about 20 times.  

And out of that, most occurrences refer to John's baptism. Another few denote "baptism" as a metaphor for martyrdom. 

Only three or four occurrences are generally thought to denote Christian baptism (Rom 6:4; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; 1 Pet 3:21). 

That's a very thin database from which to derive belief that baptisma is a technical term for the Christian sacrament. Technical terminology can be established by stimulative definitions or stereotypical usage. But three or four occurrences hardly amounts to stereotypical usage. 

iii) Moreover, the appeal to these three or four passages is circular, for unless you already know that baptisma is a technical term for the Christian sacrament, there's nothing in the context that demands that meaning, and, indeed, there are contextual factors which may militate against that meaning. We need some independent lexical evidence to establish usage. 

6. There's no reason why Rom 6:4 can't be figurative. Certainly the passage contains other metaphors. Christians didn't physically die with Christ at Calvary. And they weren't physically buried with Christ. So this is vicarious language.

It seems arbitrary to insist that it refers to literal baptism, but not to literal death or literal burial. So I think it's at least as likely, if not more so, that this trades on picturesque imagery. 

7. Likewise, it's unclear that Eph 4:5 refers to Christian baptism. 

a) For one thing, if Paul is referring to the sacraments, why single out baptism to the exclusion of communion? 

b) It might instead denote Spirit-baptism or symbolic death (e.g. martyrdom). 

8. Concerning Col 2:12:

a) That may not even mention baptisma. The textual tradition is divided.

b) Even assuming that baptisma is the original reading, since Paul is using circumcision here as a theological metaphor, there's no presumption that he uses baptism literally. 

Paul isn't treating baptism as the new covenant counterpart to circumcision. Rather, circumcision carries over into the new covenant as a theological metaphor ("circumcision of Christ"). 

Put another way, in this passage he uses "baptism" and circumcision as synonyms. But if one is figurative, why not both? 

6. Which brings us to 1 Pet 3:21. 

i) Unless baptisma is a technical term for the Christian sacrament of initiation, there's no presumption that that's what it means here. To translate the word as "baptism" is prejudicial. 

ii) In what respect is baptism comparable to Noah's flood? Noah's family weren't saved by water, but from water. They were saved in spite of water. But those who espouse baptismal regeneration or baptismal justification hardly think we are saved despite the rite of baptism. 

iii) Moreover, Noah's family never got wet. If that's analogous to baptism, then it's dry baptism. Surely, though, the sacramentalist considers contact with water to be a basic element of baptism. 

Admittedly, analogies have disanalogies. But where's the parallel? 

iv) What if, instead of "baptism," we render v21 as:

Washing (dipping, plunging), which corresponds to this, now saves you.

Because the generic usage doesn't specify baptism, it invites a figurative interpretation. Resurrection is the antithetical parallel to death. So baptisma may symbolize Christ rescuing us from spiritual death (by drowning) via our participation in the Resurrection. 

4 comments:

  1. A useful summary, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 2. Does the N.T. assume the the sacraments are just symbols? If sacramentalists assume the reality why can you just assume they are merely symbols? The N.T does not say the cross saves us, but Christ on the cross saves us. The N.T. states that baptism now saves us. Those are clear texts. We can accept them as is or as the above post tries to do is to simply explain things away.
    3. Water gives life with the Word and the water in our baptism. It also means death to the old adam as he is drowned in the waters of baptism.
    4.i) Does that mean baptism necessary for salvation? Can you be saved apart from baptism? No. The Word of God can convert a sinner. The Spirit can work apart from the waters of Baptism, but this is the normal scenario. (Infant baptism)

    ii) Does that mean baptism sufficient for salvation? Is baptism alone all you need to be saved? Baptism saves. It gives us Christ and all his benefits and grants us faith to trust the promises of Christ. Faith is then nourished by the Word, the Lord's Supper, and the absolution we receive as members of the church.

    iii) What baptism saves you?

    a) Does the efficacy of baptism depend on the mode of baptism (e.g. immersion, sprinkling)? No. Though Sprinkling would be a prefered choice.

    b) Does the efficacy of baptism depend on the intent of the officiant? No.

    c) In the case of adults, does the efficacy depend on the intent of the candidate? We approach adults as the N.T. church would have. They are expressing faith so we baptize and catechize them. We trust the Spirit has produced faith in them through the Word.

    d) Does the efficacy of baptism depend on the orthodoxy of the officiant? Is baptism performed by a heretic valid or invalid? No.

    e) Does the efficacy of baptism depend on words as well as the action (e.g. a Trinitarian formula)? We should confess a Trinitarian Baptism as we are placing the name of God of the candidate for baptism. Lutherans will accept other baptisms except from if from certain hereodox charismatic sects or cults like the Mormons or Jehovah's witness.

    f) Can a layman perform baptism, or must it be a church officer? Yes, but it would be prefered if the local pastor would be the one to baptize and they will be the pastor of the baptized.

    I will come back for the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 5. I don't get trying to nail a point with the word and how many times it is used. There should be clear enough evidence with 4 usages relating baptism and salvation to drive home a point. The most clear and plainest reading of the texts should be accepted.
    6. There is a literal death in baptism( the old adam, and a new life is given as we are united to Christ by baptism and given faith to trust the promises of God.
    7. The context doesn't reach to the Lord's Supper. It is enough for Paul to stress our unity in that we have 1 Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one Father. The fact that baptism is placed in this context would highlight the importance placed on baptism and its connection to faith, and our unity with the Lord and the Father.
    8. I do not think this passage demonstrators anything different that Luke records in Acts, John in his Gospel, or Peter. Baptism kills the old adam and grant us life and faith in Christ.
    9. Noah's family passed through the waters of death in the Arc and were brought to new life. We to pass through the waters of death in baptism and are raised to new life in Christ. The water does not save us, but the Word of God (the promises) united to the Word save us as we are united to Christ. Again, Lutherans do believe that people can be saved apart from the waters of Baptism because we do believe in that the Word of God can bring new life to men. We trust God at His Word. He saves through Baptism and He can save through His Word.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve,
    If you have time to read this, what do you think of the way Tim Kauffman interpreted Justin Martyr on baptism - I actually appreciated it; that it is not so clear as baptismal regeneration. (and he seeks to show other early church fathers did not hold to baptismal regeneration.)

    http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/08/17/that-he-might-purify-the-water-pt1/

    That's only part 1. He did 5 more articles on the early church and baptismal regeneration.

    ReplyDelete