In response to allyn's verses quoted earlier:
1 Peter 3:21 the Bible says:
"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"
It is not the water that does it (note that it is water that removes physical dirt) but the appeal to God for a good conscience. He is referring to immersion in Christ’s death and resurrection.
Yes, and immersion is an inseparable part of that "appeal" (
eperotema in the Greek)
Acts 22:16
"And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name"
Paul was recounting what Ananias told him after his conversion. The phrase “wash away your sins” should be connected with calling on His name, not baptism. I believe that Paul was converted when he said "Who are you, Lord? Despite his question, He knew who it was and was convinced and was His at that moment.
Baptism is a form of calling on His name: "wash away your sins, calling on his name". Wash your face, using soap, make disciples, baptizing them...etc. "for Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved".
Acts 2:38
"And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"
“and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” is a parenthetical phrase, i.e.: "And Peter said to them, "Repent, (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins"
This is an old Baptist argument. The parenthesis is an invention. The people at Pentcost who heard Peter say this had already repented in the sense of changing their mind about the Christ. "They were pricked in their hearts and inquired what they must do". A beter translation would say "be reformed" (i. e. turn your life around) rather than repent. Peter was telling them exactly what the great commission says: be baptized and follow Jesus.
The old argument insists that "for" (that the Greek preposition
eis here means "because of"). As noted in a lengthy article in the Theological Dictionary appendix.
eis has never been shown to have a causitive meaning. In every case it is used it makes sense if it is translated "into, toward, for", etc. It is a word indicating progression.
Mark 16:16
"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."
This verse may prove the opposite; it is belief that saves. Baptism is simply the outward symbol of the inward reality. Otherwise the second clause would say “but he who has disbelieved or he who has believed but was not baptized shall be condemned.”
And why would Jesus think someone would be baptized who did not believe? He took it for granted that they would not, just as the Pharisees refused John's baptism. And does bare belief of facts save, apart from a faith that motivates one to obey step #1 in becoming a disciple?
I think that many of the references like those noted above can be explained by the fact that in the very early church baptisms almost always occurred very close in time to actual conversion, so much so that they were almost synonymous, and so much so that it might appear that the baptism is doing the saving.
And how do you explain the obvious sense of urgency regarding baptism in the conversion narratives?