1 Peter 3:21 — Baptism Necessary?

“Even Peter says that baptism (water) is necessary for salvation. He says, ‘Baptism now saves you.’ The Bible says what it says and means what it means.”

Growing up in a tradition that taught the necessity of baptism as a requirement for salvation entailed hearing the above statement whenever the topic of baptism inevitably surfaced. For this short note, unless otherwise clarified, I am referring to water baptism whenever baptism is mentioned. This delineation is essential because discussions on this subject hinge on whether the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:15–18) and the commanded ordinance of Christ (Matthew 28:19) are the same event or the effectual sign of a thing (the Holy Spirit’s regeneration) signified.

Among several verses used as proof texts, my focus today is on the oft-repeated passage in 1 Peter. This passage is often quoted without its original intent and the surrounding context, similar to James 2:24.

“Baptism now saves you.”

Instead of,

“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…”

• 1 Peter 3:21 (ESV)

Many argue that the verse clearly teaches that baptism saves; therefore, baptism is necessary in order to be saved. [A] In their book ‘Baptism in the Early Church’ Professors Stander and Louw make the following comment when examining Cyprian and other third-century fathers,

“This is in line with the thinking of the time namely, that baptism makes one a believer, and therefore the correct form of baptism should be observed. As such we are to note a significant shift in theology: ‘baptism’ causes belief instead of ‘baptism symbolizes belief’ as was the opinion among the earliest Church Fathers.” [1]

My aside here is to illustrate when this shift in thought seemingly began to occur in relation to God’s inward working through the Holy Spirit and baptism. In essence, both sides agree that baptism saves — the question is HOW baptism saves and whether the outward working we do in being baptized is necessary for our justification before God.

The preceding context in Peter illuminates what is being taught, and it is important we give him his full context to avoid taking him out of context as we are so often inclined to do. Baptism which corresponds or signifies what?

“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.”

Peter’s preceding statement brings much more clarity, for he sees Noah’s salvation through the ark as a type or foreshadowing of the baptism celebrated by the church. But what does he mean by seeing Noah’s salvation from the flood as a foreshadowing for baptism? What does he mean by saying that baptism saves?

Here is where Stander and Louw’s point is helpful. Without Peter’s full teaching, one can conclude that the water saves ‘ex opere operato’ (by the work worked/done) or that baptism saves through the intricately detailed process of being administered *by the right people*. This is quite clearly where many in the third-century church stood — baptism caused belief or salvation instead of signifying belief. [2][B]

We go to Peter — seeing what he taught as a foreshadowing of our baptism.

“…in which a few, that is eight persons, were brought safely through water.”[C]

We note here that the floodwaters were not the instrument of salvation for Noah and his family. Instead, it is God’s instrument of judgment. Water was not the source of salvation but of judgment. Making water the instrumental cause of Noah’s (bodily) salvation flips the picture Peter uses for our baptism upside down. Noah was saved from water through the ark.

The corresponding key, then, is not water but the ark.

Some might say that Peter teaches that baptism saves, not to remove dirt from the body but to cleanse sin from the soul. We would do well to see that Peter could have easily taught this notion here, but he didn’t. [D]

“…not as a removal of dirt of the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience…”

Peter is teaching here not how baptism causes salvation but what baptism signifies. And what baptism signifies is the appeal (some translations say ‘pledge’ or ‘response’) to God from the heart.

“The baptismal act is expressing an act of the soul.” [3]

The emphasis is not on water doing its work, but water representing an act of faith from the soul. The emphasis is not on the outward working, the ceremonial act of baptism, not the washing of the body or actions of it — that is not the part that saves you. But the inward position of the heart. Peter is quite clearly teaching that the work of baptism we do has not power within itself, it does not work ‘ex opere operato,’ nor does it’s working cause a good conscience or the forgiveness of sins.

It is our response and expression, from a ‘good conscience’ to what God has done. [E]

To come back to the instrument of salvation for Noah. Just as the instrument of salvation was not the water for Noah, neither is the water of baptism ours. In baptism, the instrument for our salvation is not the water — but our ‘good conscience.’

Noah’s instrument of (bodily) salvation was the ark. His soul’s response to God was the building of the ark (verse 20b). If Noah had not believed that God was going to send the flood, he would not have built the ark.

The faith worked within us by the powerful work of the Holy Spirit is effectual, it does not come back void. In the same manner, to those who argue, ‘What if someone was justified before God through faith but didn’t want to get baptized? Would they be saved?’ misses the point. If someone professes faith but does not live fruitfully as God teaches the faithful will, then ample reason is present to question the validity of that person’s faith. God promises He will sanctify those He has justified (Philippians 1:6). If a man rejects baptism, then it is fairly obvious the Holy Spirit has not inwardly baptized him.

Peter’s phrase ‘good conscience’ appears earlier in this chapter, in verses fifteen (where it is defined) and sixteen (where it is labeled). Our ‘good conscience’ is ‘honoring Christ as Lord. It is this spiritual position that gives ‘the reason for hope within us.’

“…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.”

The work of Christ (his life, death, and resurrection) is the ‘ark’ by which we are saved from the ‘flood of death/sin’ that baptism signifies (1 Peter 4:4b, Romans 6:4). And we are not simply saved from deaths hold on us through sin, but even from the evil authorities of this world. [4] Which is why Peter announces just how sovereign Christ is — even over his enemies.

By our ark (Christ), we are saved through the ‘good conscience’ worked in us by God, our baptism is our appeal to God for that which He has accomplished.

Our baptism saves us for that which it effectually symbolizes. The righteousness we have by faith (Romans 4:11)[F].

Notes:

[A] Those holding to the necessity of baptism usually argue semantics here, saying that God can save people in exigent circumstances who are not able to be baptized.

[B] Council of Trent Canon 8: “If anyone says that grace is not conferred by the sacraments ex opere operato but that faith in God’s promises is alone sufficient for obtaining grace, let him be anathema.”

See also Alexander Cambell, a founder of the Churches of Christ restorationist movement, “I do earnestly contend that God, through the blood of Christ, forgives our sins through immersion (baptism)— through the very act and in the very instant.” Cambell argued that a person is not clean until they are physically washed. The clearly visible marker between the state of nature and the state of grace is the act of baptism. No one has any proof of the forgiveness of sins until baptism. No one has ever received pardon of sin by faith only. He taught that water baptism, with faith as the principle of action, is the means through which God by the power of the blood of Christ imparts remission. [5]

[C] Some translations use the word ‘by’ instead of ‘through’ here, such as the KJV. But the Greek word is δι’, which is more accurately translated as ‘through.’ That aside, even using the word ‘by’ does not change the overall context.

[D] For those objecting that Peter does in Acts 2:38, see Note.

[E] The Greek word used as ‘appeal’ or ‘response’ is ἐπερώτημα — occurring only once in Scripture here, which means as is commonly translated, but perhaps an even greater translation is ‘answer.’ It is our answer to God for our clean conscience. Our works are our response to God’s work in us.

[F] Heidelberg Catechism Q & A 72

Q. Does this outward washing with water
itself wash away sins?

A. No, only Jesus Christ’s blood and the Holy Spirit
cleanse us from all sins.1

1 Matt. 3:11; 1 Pet. 3:21; 1 John 1:7

Bibliography

[1] Stander and Louw, Baptism in the Early Church. (United Kingdom: Reformation Today Trust, 2003), pg. 115

[2] Grudem, Systematic Theology II — An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. (USA, Zondervan, 2020), pg. 1204

[3] John Piper, Does Baptism Save You? 1 Peter 3:21–22, Youtube

[4] Ibid

[5] Foster, Dunnavant, Blowers, and Williams, eds., Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), pg. 58–59