Response to Charles Pritt of Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE) on Baptism (June 10, 2012 Sermon)

[Update July 3, 2012: I altered a few sections for clarity.  Also, I should note that I cribbed the format of this post--pictures and all--from one of my favorite blogs, Shameless Popery, written (mostly) by Joe Heschmeyer.]

The video clip below is from the June 10, 2012 Sermon at Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE) given by Pastor Charles Pritt.  (Pritt is the music minister at LBC, which makes his sermon all the more impressive.  As a professional musician myself, I appreciate a musician who is passionate about God.) In this sermon, Pritt tackles some difficult verses from 1 Peter 3, and I am happy to report that at some points, Pritt's interpretation of these verses (especially in regard to Baptism) fits very closely with a Catholic understanding of Baptism.  Praise be to God!  I admire all the Pastors at LBC (so much that I would love for us to be able to worship together with one mind and heart!), and I admire Pastor Pritt's efforts to follow God's Word in 1 Peter 3 to the best of his understanding.

I.  Introduction

That said, it is important for Catholics (perhaps even Catholics who now attend LBC but who are reconsidering returning to the Catholic Church) and even for Pastor Pritt to see (1) how denying baptismal regeneration forces one into an uncomfortable interpretive dilemma when getting to verses like 1 Peter 3:21 and (2) how the Catholic teaching on Baptism makes greater sense of this passage than the Baptist interpretive tradition within which Pastor Pritt developed his sermon.

In the clip below, I recommend starting just before the 18-minute mark, when Pastor Pritt deals most directly with Peter's teaching that "Baptism...now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21).  If time allows, I strongly encourage you to listen to the entire sermon, which contains many wonderful truths, most especially that it is Christ's death and resurrection that saves us.  (Catholics assert that it is in Baptism that the salvation won for us on Calvary is applied to us by Christ.)

Here is the passage under discussion (1 Pet. 3:18–21 NKJV; emphasis mine):

¹⁸ For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, ¹⁹ by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison,²⁰ who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. ²¹ There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Here is the same passage in a slightly more reader-friendly translation (NAS):

¹⁸ For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; ¹⁹ in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, ²⁰ who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. ²¹  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, 

And here is what Pastor Pritt has to say about these verses (begin around 17:50):

II.  Noah's Salvation and Our Salvation: Through Water

The most challenging aspect of 1 Peter 3 for Baptists is v. 21: "Baptism...now saves you."  This verse alone would seem to end the debate.  Baptism now saves us.  Or does it?

Before trying to answer this question and examining Pritt's interpretation, let's list the data found in the passage itself:

• Peter refers to the days of Noah, when eight people were saved by water in the Ark.
• Peter almost off-handedly (without argument or explanation) says that Noah's salvation was a type of Baptism, which saves you now.
• Peter clarifies that we are saved not by washing off of filth from the flesh but through the appeal of a clean conscience to God, through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Notice that Peter directly connects Noah's salvation and Baptism in the text.  Yet, Pritt begins by connecting Noah's salvation with "what Christ did for us" (forward to 21:30).

There is an important element of truth here: the salvation experienced by many in the Old Testament (Noah, Abraham, Moses and the Israelites, etc.) points toward the salvation we receive from Christ in the New Testament.

Yet, "what Christ did for us" does not result in the salvation of every human being since (and before) Calvary.  Somehow, the salvation won for us must be applied so that individuals can be born again into Christ's body.  Something must take place that causes us to become "new creations in Christ" (2 Cor. 5:17).  Put differently, Catholics and Baptists agree that we are saved by the merits of Christ's passion, death, and resurrection alone.  The difference between us seems to be in how we believe the grace of Calvary is applied to our souls.

It is this question that Catholics believe is addressed by Peter's letter.  Peter claims that "baptism...now saves you...through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ."  As Paul writes in Romans 6:3, we are "baptized into his death" (a verse Pritt looks at later).

So, while Pritt's first interpretive step (in the video above) changes the accent from baptism to "what Christ did for us," this reading isn't fundamentally opposed to 1 Peter or Catholic teaching.  Catholics happily agree that our salvation is through what Christ did for us.  We group Baptism under that heading: it is Christ who baptizes us.  It is Christ who applies the grace of Calvary to our souls in Baptism.

III.  Parallels between Noah's Salvation and the Sacrament of Baptism

In the sermon, Pritt points out some good parallels between Noah's salvation and our salvation in Christ, including that "we are rescued from wickedness...saved from spiritual death...and the judgment of sin destroys the wicked."  Pritt then draws a connection between the ARK that went through the flood and JESUS who went through the crucifixion.  

Most Catholic commentators would add that the Ark also represents the New Testament Church.  Here, I think a both/and approach is ideal, and in fact, I rather like the connection Pritt draws between the Ark and Jesus.  Whereas during the time of Noah, Noah and his family were saved and everybody else destroyed, Christ actually allows himself to be destroyed so he might rise again to win the victory over sin and death.  Similarly, Christians must die to sin so that through Christ we can be resurrected to new Life.  

As much as I like the connection between the Ark and Christ, there is much to be gained by thinking of the Ark as a type or precursor of the NT Church, which is saved through the waters of Baptism.  The Ark/Church connection does better justice to the text of 1 Peter itself.  In the NT reality being compared to Noah, we are saved by Baptism through the resurrection of Christ: "Baptism now saves you."  The "WE" being saved is the church--the people to whom Peter is writing--not Christ.  So, the Ark, that held the covenant family of God during the time of Noah corresponds to the Church, which holds the covenant family of God in the NT (see 1 Tim. 3:15).

Because Pritt puts the accent on "what Christ did for us" rather than the more specific idea of "baptism" (by which I still mean the ritual involving water), he misses some rather important parallels.  For starters, when Peter evokes Noah, the entire story of Noah is called to mind, and this story involves far more than being saved by water.  In fact, if those flood waters had never resided, Noah and his family would have eventually perished as well.  After the flood waters reside, Noah sends out a dove, which is a symbol of the Holy Spirit.  This dove returns to Noah carrying an olive branch, a symbol of peace with God.  After making land-fall, God enters into a covenant with Noah and his family.

How do these aspects of the story find their parallel in the "baptism" that now saves us?  Well, if by "baptism" Peter is referring to the ritual involving water...quite a lot!  Both Noah's salvation and Baptism involve water.  Both Noah's salvation and Baptism involve the Holy Spirit.  Both Noah's salvation and Baptism involve finding peace with God.  Both Noah's salvation and Baptism involve entering into the Covenant family of God.

Tim McClure, Noah and the Dove

From this text alone, one could derive a nearly-complete theology of Baptism: Baptism is a saving act involving water and spirit that causes us to die to sin and be born with a clean conscience in a state of friendship with God as a member of his covenant family, all through the merits of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

One connection highlighted above (and missed by Pritt) is key: that Noah's salvation involved water AND a dove.  Likewise, Baptism involves not only water but the Holy Spirit as well.  In other words, Catholics believe that Baptism saves us not because we are taking a bath but because the Holy Spirit works in and through the waters to regenerate our souls.  The water is a powerful sign and symbol of the interior action being accomplished in us by the Holy Spirit.  Again: Baptism, according to Catholics, involves an inseparable connection between water AND spirit.

Alex Sokolov, Crossing the Red Sea

Notice that this connection between water and Spirit is found all throughout the Bible!  The first creation (in Genesis 1) emerges from the Spirit hovering over the waters; we become new creations in Christ through the water and spirit of Baptism.  We see water and Spirit in Noah's salvation; Peter explicitly connects this picture with the water and Spirit of Baptism.  We again see water and the Spirit (in the form of Wind) at the salvation of the Israelites as they escaped bondage (sin) by passing through the Red Sea (Exodus 14).  When Jesus is baptized, the Spirit descends, again in the form of a dove, and a voice from heaven declares a family relationship with Jesus: "this is my beloved son."  And then, Jesus turns to Nicodemus (who approaches Jesus in a state of spiritual darkness) and tells him: "you must be born from above...you must be born of water AND Spirit" (John 3:3-5) And after this message, what do the apostles go out and do: baptize!  Water and Spirit: What God has joined together...

So, when Peter connects the salvation experienced by Noah to our salvation by Baptism, he is connecting two things that share the elements of water and Spirit, a connection that is supported at key covenant-making moments throughout the Bible.

Yet, this is not the reading of 1 Peter 3:21 that Pritt offers.  Further, the two interpretations he does offer seem to contradict one another.  Both are based on an a priori assumption that Baptism understood as a ritual involving water does not save.

IV.  Interpretation #1: Baptism Does NOT Save Us

This reading of 1 Peter 3:21 is most common among Baptists.  According to Interpretation #1, Baptism is understood as the religious ritual involving water commonly referred to as "baptism."  In this reading, the ritual of water baptism does not save.  This interpretation strains 1 Peter 3:21 since this verse, frankly, literally says the exact opposite of the Baptist interpretation of the verse.  How does Pritt arrive at an interpretation of a verse that in fact says the opposite of what the verse itself says?

He does so by pitting water AGAINST the Spirit and by pitting Baptism AGAINST the saving work of Christ.

Thus, when Peter says baptism saves us and then adds the addendum that washing off dirt from the flesh does not save us, Pritt understands Peter to be making a sudden shift or self-correction from what he just said.  It is as if Peter is making two contradictory statements in sequence:
1.  Baptism...now saves you.
2.  No, wait, Baptism does not save you because no mere washing can save.  It is the pledge of a clean conscience through the resurrection of Christ that saves.  Baptism is a mere external ritual that accomplishes only an external washing.  You see? Peter denies that an external washing saves!

One problem with this reading is it doesn't explain why statement #1 ("baptism now saves you") was made in the first place.  Even though this reading still doesn't explain why Peter initially states that "baptism...now saves you," the opposition between external ritual and internal regeneration assumed by most Baptists (and seemingly assumed by Pastor Pritt here) allows him to accent the addendum and then move on to say "aha! it is the appeal of a clean conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ that saves...NOT Baptism!" (I hope you can see the wedge between ritual and internal regeneration in action that undergirds Interpretation #1)

How does Pritt and other Baptists solve the dilemma?  By suggesting that baptism is a sign that points to or "pictures" the saving work of Christ and our salvation in Christ.  According to Baptists, our baptism is a proclamation of our having confessed Christ with our lips and accepted Him with our hearts.  In this reading, then, when Peter says "baptism now saves you," he really means that "what baptism points to [Christ's saving work] now saves you."

At the end of the day, this position is actually not far from what Catholics believe.  Catholics do believe that Baptism is a picture of Christ's saving work.  Catholics believe being immersed in (or sprinkled with) water does picture the regenerative action of Christ on our souls.  

The difference is that Catholics believe that Christ actually does these things to us during and through Baptism!  We don't disagree that it is Christ's saving work that now saves us.  We simply assert that Baptism is Christ saving work, and not simply a human ritual devoid of Christ, the Spirit, and God's grace.  In other words, Baptism for Catholics is infinitely higher than an empty human ritual, because God himself works through it.

Here is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it (paragraphs 1215–1216; quoting Justin Martyr and St. Gregory of Nazianzus): 

St. Gregory of Nazianzus

This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God." "This bath is called enlightenment, because those who receive this [catechetical] instruction are enlightened in their understanding. . . ." Having received in Baptism the Word, "the true light that enlightens every man," the person baptized has been "enlightened," he becomes a "son of light," indeed, he becomes "light" himself: Baptism is God's most beautiful and magnificent gift....We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace since it is given even to the guilty; Baptism because sin is buried in the water; anointing for it is priestly and royal as are those who are anointed; enlightenment because it radiates light; clothing since it veils our shame; bath because it washes; and seal as it is our guard and the sign of God's Lordship.

What a beautiful summation of the Catholic understanding of Baptism, delivered to us from the fourth century!

In a nutshell, Pritt assumes in Interpretation #1 that by "baptism," Peter has in mind the ritual involving water.  (This definition of baptism is required to be able to then argue that the ritual is an external sign that points to our salvation that presumably occurs at some previous point in time.)

V. Interpretation #2: Baptism DOES Save Us.

As you can see from the heading, Interpretation #2 seems to directly contradict Interpretation #1.  In #1, Baptism does not saves us.  In Interpretation #2, it does.

What gives?

In Interpretation #2, Pritt suggests that the baptism referred to by Peter is a "spiritual Baptism," something that apparently occurs completely separately from the "water Baptism" that does not save.  

This interpretation fits a growing trend to read any reference to baptism that suggests baptismal regeneration as being a "spiritual" baptism or immersion into Christ.  This approach is taken by Pritt in regard to 1 Peter 3:21 as well as Romans 6 (which claims we are "baptized into Christ's death"). 

Notice how both Interpretations flow from the wedge placed between water and spirit in denying a priori the very possibility of baptismal regeneration.  Once the wedge is in place, you get the possibility of "water Baptism" and "Spirit[ual] baptism." 

Well, Catholics would joyfully affirm that spiritual baptism does save us.  In other words, in its most basic form, Pritt's Interpretation #2 is compatible with a Catholic understanding of Baptism.

Catholics, once again, simply affirm that water baptism always involves the Spirit.  The Bible always connects water and Spirit, and Catholics do so with regard to our theology of Baptism.

Further, I see no basis for separating spiritual baptism from water baptism, and I'll try to give some more arguments for this position below.

For now, simply note that this Interpretation #2 is not compatible with Interpretation #1 since they start from different definitions of "baptism."  In other words, it is impossible to reconcile these two interpretations because they start from fundamentally different assumptions about what the author literally meant by the word "baptism."  Certainly it is possible to build off the literal meaning of a text (to achieve a spiritual or analogical meaning, for instance), but these higher meanings can never contradict the literal meaning on which they are based.

That said, Interpretation #2 is compatible with the Catholic understanding of Baptism; it simply fails to connect the two things that are inseparable throughout the Bible: water and Spirit. 

Also, note that Pritt offers no basis in the text itself for deciding which understanding of Baptism Peter had in mind when he wrote "baptism...now saves you."  Did Peter have in mind the empty ritual that doesn't save, or the spiritual baptism that does?

VI.  Developing a Biblical Understanding of Baptism

Without a clear basis to know how Pritt understands the word "baptism" when it occurs in Scripture, it is difficult to dialogue much further with Pritt's sermon.  It would seem that anytime the Bible speaks of baptism as something connected to our salvation, Pritt could say that "baptism here really is referring to spiritual baptism" or "baptism there is simply another word for immersion."

The Catholic, and I believe Biblical, position on baptismal regeneration is supported by three fundamental interpretive keys:

1. Baptism, unless the context clearly suggests otherwise, is to be understood in the NT as referring to the ritual of baptism involving water and the Spirit.  This interpretive principle is supported by the practice of the early church as recounted in the NT and in the writings of the early church fathers.  Just think: John the Baptist baptized in water.  Jesus was baptized in water and the Spirit descended.  Jesus says we must be born again...of water and spirit.  Jesus sent the apostles out to baptize, and on Pentecost, 3,000 new believers (along with their families) were baptized in water.  So, the entire Biblical context and practice of the early church makes definition #1 of "baptism" to be the very thing that comes to any Christian's mind when they hear the word "baptism."  In fact, this understanding of baptism is so normative that strongly suggests that phrases such as the "washing of regeneration" (Titus 3:5) refer to Baptism.
2. Baptism involves water AND spirit (John 3:5).  Thus, Baptism has the potential to be soul-saving and sin-forgiving.  Acts 2:38: "Repent and be baptized...for the forgiveness of sins."  Baptist theology denies that baptism can cause the forgiveness of sins, despite Peter's clear teaching during the first sermon ever preached.  (NB: Baptism is not opposed to faith, repentance, etc.  Rather, Baptism is the very action of faith on the part of the believer...and the response of Christ in Baptism is to perform the "circumcision made without hands.")
3. Baptism applies the saving work of Calvary to our souls.  Baptism is Christ's work that we participate in.  It is not a human work done apart from Christ or God's grace.  In other words, no Catholic believes that Baptism replaces the work of Christ on the Cross, as if trying to be saved by Baptism is to try to bypass being placed under the blood of Jesus shed for us on the Cross.  Never!!  Baptism is the very means by which Christ produces within us a "circumcision made without hands" (Col 2:11), which Paul immediately links to...you guessed it: Baptism!  

These Biblical interpretive principles make it quite easy to come to grips with 1 Peter 3:21.  But they also explain the enormous weight put on Baptism elsewhere in Scripture.  During the Great Commission, for instance, Jesus Christ himself leaves the apostles with the command to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).  Isn't this a bit shocking?  Shouldn't Jesus have said to make disciples by getting people to accept Him into their hearts?  Why the emphasis on Baptism if it is merely an empty ritual, and why make it seem like the very process of making disciples rests on baptizing them?  The Great Commission not only supports baptismal regeneration; it practically requires it to make sense!  Similarly, when Paul writes to the Ephesians that there is "one faith, one Lord, one Baptism" (Eph. 4:5) he acknowledges the importance of Baptism by placing it alongside other essential components of our salvation.  

VII.  What did the First Christians Believe?

Justin Martyr

The earliest Christian pastors, some of whom were even appointed by the apostles and their immediate successors themselves, believed in baptismal regeneration.  For them, baptism was more than an empty ritual but was something that actually imparted saving grace.  They believed that the waters of baptism were holy because of the presence of the Holy Spirit.

For instance, writing around the year 150 A.D., Justin Martyr reports:

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61)

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, writing near the end of the second century (around 190 A.D.) writes:

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (Fragment 34).

Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of John the apostle (along with Ignatius of Antioch).  Note that both Justin and Irenaeus tie water and spirit together, Justin by his reference to the Trinity and to the third chapter of John's Gospel, and Irenaeus to this same chapter.  We clearly see here the existence of an interpretive tradition that has its roots in the very teaching of the people who wrote the Scriptures being interpreted.

Ignatius's writings also contain implicit nods toward baptismal regeneration, and the importance of baptisms being conducted by the bishop.  Given that Ignatius was chosen to replace Peter when the chief apostle made his final voyage to Rome, the apostolic pedigree of baptismal regeneration is solid.

Add to that the following: if the early church universally denied baptismal regeneration, then where is the outcry when the heresy of baptismal regeneration was hoisted upon the Church almost immediately after the death of the last apostle?  And why were the apostles so quick to appoint people to important positions of leadership who obviously held baptismal regeneration if this doctrine was not part of the apostolic faith?

VIII. Conclusion

I began this essay pointing out that the Catholic understanding of baptismal regeneration makes verses like 1 Peter 3:21 much easier to interpret.  In fact, the Catholic understanding of baptism is the only understanding that allows one to see a glorious and harmonious convergence between Scriptures and the life and teaching of the early church.  If the faith was truly left once for all with the saints (Jude 3), then we would expect to see a continuity of faith and doctrine between the early church and Christians today.  In regard to Baptism, this continuity of doctrine can be traced back to the earliest Christian teachers and even to the apostles themselves!  As Peter put it so well: "baptism now saves you."

Baptist readers: what do you think?  I invite you to share your thoughts, questions, and counter-arguments in the comments section below!