vs. Jason Engwer
Jason Engwer is a prolific Protestant anti-Catholic apologist and webmaster of the site, Triablogue. He used to interact with me from 2000 to 2010 or so and then promptly stopped. I continue to critique his material, if I think there is educational value in doing so. Maybe one day he’ll decide to start dialoguing again. In any event, I’ll continue to do what I’ve done these past [nearly] 33 years as a Catholic apologist, and if I see that he makes some dubious claim against a Catholic position, I’ll respond, provided it is substantive enough to be worth addressing.
*****
I’m replying to Jason’s article, “Does baptism save?” (Tribalblog, 9-3-23). His words will be in blue.
1 Peter 3:18-21 (RSV) For Christ also died for sins once for all, 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; [19] in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, [20] who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved 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 clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Obviously [baptism saves] (1 Peter 3:21). It’s remarkable that so many Evangelicals deny it or try to avoid saying it. What they ought to do, instead, especially when it’s so evident what the people asking them the question are up to, is say something like, “Yes, baptism saves, but in the sense of sanctification, not justification.” That’s the context in which Peter was writing. The surrounding context is primarily about sanctification, such as “good behavior in Christ” (3:16) and “suffering in the flesh” as Christ did (4:1). There’s a reference to a good conscience in 3:16, which is about sanctification, and verse 21 refers to a good conscience, which makes more sense if both passages are addressing sanctification. . . . context favors a non-justificatory interpretation of “saves” (as in Matthew 8:25, 1 Timothy 4:16, Hebrews 5:7, 9:28, 1 Peter 3:20, etc.).
I’ve never heard this argument. It’s new to me. Maybe it has been out there; I’m simply saying that I am completely unfamiliar with it (and I’ve debated about baptism probably more than twenty times). Rather than claiming that baptism does nothing except make a public pronouncement of belief (the usual low church evangelical view, which I once held, myself), Jason contends that, sure, baptism saves (per 1 Peter 3:21, which plainly states that, after all), but it’s only in the “non-justificatory” sense of sanctification, or an increase of righteousness, rather than heaven-attaining, delivering, soul-redeeming, justifying salvation.
In so doing, Jason redefines the standard (though granted, not 100% exclusive) meaning of “salvation” in Scripture in order to evade what appears to be clear teaching in this passage. He gets an A for cleverness and inventiveness and an E for effort, but it just won’t fly, as I will now demonstrate. He attempts to make an argument from context. But the phrase “good behavior in Christ” (3:16) was part of an entirely different preceding thought: one of the classic biblical statements on evangelism and apologetics: “Always be prepared to make a defense . . ,” which is to be done “with gentleness and reverence” (3:15): an approach that helps keep one’s “conscience clear” (3:16) and is described by Peter as “good behavior”.
As for conscience being mentioned again, five verses later in 3:21, the thought appears to be in both cases that there are things that we can and should do (among many things) that will help form a good Christian conscience in us. In 3:15-16 it’s evangelizing properly, with love; in 3:21 it’s baptism: also a good work that we decide to do (if we are above the age of reason). That much is certainly a common motif in the two passages, but 3:15-3:16 doesn’t make reference to salvation. And simply because both mention “conscience” does not prove that the word “saves” here is referring only to non-salvific (as Protestant believe) sanctification.
1 Peter 4:1 and its reference to Christians who have “suffered in the flesh” is also a different thought from what preceded it: presumably why someone thought that it was different enough to make it the first sentence of a new chapter, since the New Testament didn’t originally have chapters. They were added by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, around the year 1227.
If we are to use the method of searching for related words in unrelated portions of the epistle, we could just as well also search for “save” and “salvation.” Goose and gander . . . Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (one-volume edition) does just that, commenting on the Greek word sṓzō (Strong’s word #4982), as used by Peter in his first epistle, as follows:
In 1 Peter believers are kept for salvation, will achieve it, and are to grow into it (1:5, 9; 2:2). It is the gift of eternal glory. The prophets inquired about it (1:10). The verb occurs only in the quotation in 4:18 and in 3:21, where, with a reference to the last judgment, it endorses both a present and a future. (p. 1136)
Not a word about supposedly non-salvific sanctification there. Likewise, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon defines the word as specifically used in 1 Peter 3:21 and many other verses, as “to make one a partaker of the salvation by Christ.” Thayer’s lengthy exposition on sṓzō never mentions sanctification or holiness or righteousness; i.e., the descriptions typically used for the peculiar Protestant concept and process of sanctification. Neither Kittel nor Thayer (scholarly experts on biblical words, and on their meaning in specific passages) help Jason’s case for a “sanctification” interpretation of sṓzō in this verse. It’s a novel and desperate, special pleading effort.
Noah was already saved in the sense of justification when the flood occurred. His salvation in the flood context was of a different nature, as Peter’s readers were saved through baptism in a non-justificatory manner. The parallel with Noah and the flood is vague under either reading, but makes somewhat more sense if Peter’s focus is on sanctification rather than justification.
The analogy is not about Noah’s own justification, but about the metaphorical parallel of a physical occurrence in the Old Testament having to do with being delivered and about water, compared to baptism. I wrote about the passage in a dialogue on baptism, dated 13 March 2002:
This is a typical Hebraic parallelism or what is called “types and shadows”; very common in Scripture. In the Old Testament, when “salvation” was mentioned, it usually referred to winning a battle, being saved from an enemy, having one’s life or town saved, etc. In other words, “physical salvation.”
This became a metaphor for spiritual salvation later on, in New Testament thought (or the parallel between physical death and spiritual death; losing one’s life and losing one’s soul). So here, Peter makes the same sort of analogy. The eight persons in Noah’s ark were saved through water (i.e., primarily saved from drowning). The water of the flood symbolized baptism that now saves you also.
Baptism saves us spiritually, not physically. In no way can water baptism be thought to save us physically, so in order to maintain the symbolism Peter is referring to, we must conclude that it saves us spiritually (baptismal regeneration). The “symbolism” referred to is the parallel between the Flood and water baptism. It is not referring to a symbolic baptism.
This is proven by the clause “this water,” which refers back to the preceding clause, “saved through water” (referring to the Flood and Noah’s ark). As Noah and his family were saved through water, so Christians are saved by baptism, not merely “symbolically saved,” or “doing a symbolic ritual after being saved,” which makes no sense of the passage and twists the parallelism itself.
Likewise, we see a similar analogy when Jesus talks about the “sign of Jonah” (Matthew 12:38-41). He compares Jonah’s being swallowed by the fish with His Resurrection, after being “in the heart of the earth” (i.e., as Jonah appeared when it would be thought that he was dead, so would Jesus). This is another comparison of a physical “salvation” or near-miracle, with an event of great spiritual import. Jesus wasn’t saved like we are but He conquered death, just like we can, in Him.
We can conquer spiritual death, by means of Jesus’ redemption on the cross. So it is another instance of comparing an Old Testament physical event with a New Testament occurrence of spiritual significance. Peter ties in the Resurrection of Jesus with water baptism, by showing that the former provides the power for the latter. St. Paul does the same thing:
Romans 6:3-4 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (cf. 8:11; 1 Cor 15:20-23; Col 2:11-13)
That reading also makes more sense of Peter’s references to faith as justificatory without any reference to baptism elsewhere . . .
If we’re talking about Peter’s complete teaching on baptism, then we also have the following texts:
Acts 2:38-41 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (cf. 9:17-18; 1 Corinthians 12:13: both associate the Holy Spirit with baptism)
Mark is widely thought to have been derived from Peter, too. So we have this passage there:
Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
So Peter teaches that baptism offers forgiveness of sins (a key part of regeneration), brings about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, “saves” (twice), and is the criterion for “souls” being “added” to the Church and/or to salvation. All of this is relevant in discerning Peter’s overall view. It’s not as Jason is contending.
. . . and his references to Cornelius’ prebaptismal justification as normative (Acts 11:15-17, 15:8-11).
Catholics don’t believe that what we regard as initial justification and baptism are absolutely identical, so this is a non-issue. The fact of distinction doesn’t disprove baptismal regeneration,. no matter how hard Jason wished that it would. The baptism passages have to be addressed in their own right.
People are born again in the context of preaching (1 Peter 1:23-25), which is distinct from the later context of baptism (1 Corinthians 1:17).
Again, Jason is playing the “either/or” game. These things aren’t mutually exclusive. “You have been born anew, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God” (1 Pet 1:23) simply doesn’t exclude baptism. Being forgiven and receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) also certainly have to do with being “born anew” too, and Peter connected both with baptism in the first sermon of the Church age on the day of Pentecost.
Why discuss justification as much as chapter 1 does, with all of its references to being born again and such, without mentioning its culmination in baptism, if we’re born again, justified, and such in the context of baptism?
That’s a fair question. A good answer might be to note that the Bible writers don’t (and arguably can’t) always cover every base, every time they talk about a large topic like salvation, in the same way that Paul could wrote all of the following without ever mentioning the Bible:
Ephesians 4:11-15 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, [12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, [13] until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; [14] so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. [15] Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,
Elaborating upon the point that not everything has to be in every Bible passage, I wrote in my 1996 book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism:
If the Greek artios (RSV, complete / KJV, perfect) proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture in 2 Timothy, then teleios (RSV, mature manhood / KJV, perfect) in Ephesians would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors, teachers and so forth for the attainment of Christian perfection. Note that in Ephesians 4:11- 15 the Christian believer is “equipped,” “built up,” brought into “unity and mature manhood,” “knowledge” of Jesus, “the fulness of Christ,” and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the “perfecting” of the saints than 2 Timothy 3:16-17, yet it doesn’t even mention Scripture.
Therefore, the Protestant interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves too much, since if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to synthesize the two passages in an inclusive, complementary fashion, by recognizing that the mere absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. Thus, the Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching. This is precisely the Catholic view. Neither passage is intended in an exclusive sense. (p. 16; Bible version names abbreviated)
We could also flip Jason’s argument around and note that in searches in the New Testament for the possible proximity of baptism to sanctification, holiness, and righteousness (the overall term and hallmarks of sanctification), nothing comes up except the verse about Jesus’ baptism, where He said, “it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness” (Mt 3:5). That’s one instance where we know for sure that it has nothing to do with sanctification, since Jesus didn’t need to be sanctified at all. Thus, we get refutations of Jason’s view at every turn. The more it is examined, the worse his “case” is seen to be.
The many biblical passages that teach sacramental, regenerative baptism clinch the case for the Catholic view.
***
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
***
Photo credit: Photograph by Kai Stachowiak [PublicDomainPictures.Net]
***
Summary: Protestant evangelical apologist Jason Engwer addresses the question, “does baptism save?”, contending that “saves” in 1 Peter 3:21 refers merely to sanctification.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In