1 Peter on baptism

On his web site, David Bayly offers some thoughts on the Reformed baptism debates and 1 Peter. Since he quotes me (without naming me), it might be helpful to put down a couple of responses.

First, he claims that those who are advocating what he calls a “new perspective on baptism” and a “return to biblical language” about baptism “are perched precariously on knife?s edge between Roman Catholic and Baptist views of the sacrament.” He suggests that in the end we come out closer to Rome than to Baptist. Without going into detail here, I have tried to show in various places (especially my dissertation, The Priesthood of the Plebs ; also, “Baptism and the ‘Real Me’” in Credenda/Agenda, 14.5) that “Catholic” and “Baptist” views of baptism operate in the same framework, accepting a very similar semiotic theory in which signs are inert and have to be supplemented by something more to be effective. My goal (imperfectly and haphazardly achieved no doubt) has been to challenge the common assumptions of “Catholic” and “Baptist” views, their common acceptance of a “semi-Marcionite sacramental theology.”

Second, to challenge Bayly offers a reading of 1 Peter 3:20-21. He notes correctly that Peter’s statement does not end with the claim that “baptism now saves you.” Verse 21 goes on to say that baptism does not save “by the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience.” He suggests that Peter’s point is that baptism is not a “physical act which itself accomplishes spiritual goals.” Later, he writes that “the totality of Biblical language in 1 Peter 3 includes language which clearly and specifically spiritualizes the act of baptism?tying the physical act to a deeper spiritual reality and even deprecating the physical act.” The spiritual reality is the “appeal to God for a good conscience.” Thus, “According to Peter, baptism is essentially spiritual. The physical speaks of deeper spiritual reality.”

Throughout this argument, Bayly translates the flesh/conscience distinction in 1 Peter 3 into a “physical act”/”spiritual reality” contrast. In making that translation, he is assuming the kind of semiotic theory that I have tried to challenge – the notion that, as David Jones put it, “what matters” in the sacrament is not the sign but the spiritual reality signified. The “physical/spiritual” contrast, as well as the “sign/thing” distinction that goes with it, need to be defended, not just assumed. To repeat, Bayly’s formulation assumes the same underlying semiotic as “Catholic” sacramental theology.

Further, though he notes that the word in verse 21 is “flesh” rather than “body,” he fails to see the implications of that observation. Throughout the NT (especially in Paul), the word “flesh” is lined up with Adam, the old covenant, the elementary things of the world, circumcision, Judaism; and it stands over against Spirit, which is itself aligned with Last Adam, the new covenant, maturity, the Christian faith and the Christian church. Peter’s contrast of “flesh/conscience” is found also in Hebrews 9:13-14, where it clearly is a temporal contrast of old and new and not a cosmological contrast of physical/spiritual or an anthropological contrast of inner/outer. A covenantal contrast makes more sense in 1 Peter 3 than the physical/spiritual, for who would be tempted to think that physical cleansing of dirt was the point of baptism? Peter is not disparaging the physical act; he’s telling his readers that Christian baptism is not like Hebrew baptisms in removing uncleanness from flesh. Rather, Christian baptism is an appeal to God for a good conscience.

Third, what is the force of that last phrase? Bayly explains it this way:
“Baptism is thus physical prayer, enacted prayer, an appeal for God to grant the spiritual reality behind the physical act. This verse, taken in its totality, presents so vastly different a view of baptism from that which advocates of the ‘plain language of Scripture’ view claim, it is hard to believe they?ve read or considered the whole verse.”

Well, now. For the record, I have read the whole verse, and I don’t see the “spiritual/physical” contrast there. But I’ll grant Bayly’s interpretation of “appeal” (a hapax that is difficult to translate and interpret) for the sake of argument. Even on Bayly’s interpretation, the parenthetical qualifier in verse 21 has to be a qualification to and not a contradiction of the main statement of the verse, which is “baptism now saves you.” The “appeal” as a physical prayer must be an explanation of how baptism saves, not a disguised way of saying that baptism doesn’t save after all. With this I assume Bayly would agree.

But how does baptism “save” as an “enacted prayer” to grant the thing that the sign points to? Apparently, because God will answer the prayer. Baptism saves in that it asks God for cleansing, and God answers favorably. Does God answer everyone who makes this appeal in baptism favorably? No. Rather, those who trust God to answer the prayer enacted in baptism are saved. When faith is added to baptism, baptism saves. If that’s what Bayly means, he’s not far from the kingdom. If that’s not what he means, I’m not sure how the qualifier avoids becoming a cancellation.

Fourth, Bayly includes an extensive quotation from Calvin, and concludes that Calvin as well as Scripture are against me and mine. As I’ve recently explained at length on this site, I do not pretend that my sacramental views are identical to Calvin’s (though in certain fundamental ways my views are consistent with Calvin’s).

Fifth, Bayly concludes his post with this: “The sacrament of baptism includes two things: the washing of water and the washing of the soul by the blood of Christ. They are not identical. Nor are they necessarily linked. And to attribute to the water alone the power it signifies, to say, ‘Baptism saves,’ without adding the negative and positive qualifying statements of Peter is to deny not only Calvin but, more importantly, the plain language of Scripture. Baptism is not a washing of filth from the flesh. It is a faithful appeal to God for the spiritual washing of a good conscience through inclusion in the death and resurrection of Christ.”

I agree that saying “baptism saves” without qualification is misleading. That’s why I’ve never said it (nor, to my knowledge, has anyone else, ever). My concern with this last formulation (and with several others in Bayly’s post) is that it lends itself to a Baptist interpretation. If baptism saves as an enacted prayer, then baptism is a human act. But that goes contrary to the Reformation insistence that baptism and the Supper are first of all acts of God, gifts to be received by faith. Perhaps Bayly sees 1 Peter 3 as only one dimension of baptism, and would find a more theo-centric conception in other passages.