NESHY

Since this may be targeting me, here is a response, given with love and respect: Baptism saves. Amen. A wonderfully true statement. And also, Cornelius in Acts 10 (and so many others) speak in tongues before they get in the water. I see this over and over in my ministry. People get saved and give all the fruits of regeneration in the catechetical process, prior to baptism. Adherents of baptismal regeneration generally acknowledge this can happen. E.g., Johann Gehard: "when therefore they are baptized who have already been regenerated through the Word, as a seed, they have no need of regeneration through baptism, but in them baptism is a confirmation and sealing of regeneration." So with Aquinas, many others. In such cases we can STILL proclaim, "baptism saves." There is no mental gymnastics in saying, "baptism saved Cornelius." An event can be salvific in a non-causative sense, but rather in a representational/sealing/confirming sense. This is similar to how the O.T. precursor to baptism is spoken of (e.g., Paul is speaking of PHYSICAL circumcision in Rom. 2:29). ALL thoughtful proponents of baptismal regeneration acknowledge that language can be used like this (Gerhard, Aquinas, many others). The ONLY question is whether the Corneliuses are the norm or the exception. What should NOT be in dispute is that we can say baptism saved Cornelius. That is acceptable language. No gymnastics involved. Thus, simply referencing I Peter 3:21 and then deriding those who don't hold your interpretation of the passage is not productive. What would be productive is an ARGUMENT for a specifically CAUSAL interpretation of the verse. This would involve, naturally, explaining the Cornelius scenarios, your position on circumcisional regeneration, etc. As a final note, not taking seriously an argument for sola scriptura based on anything here is unfortunate, since it's a completely separate topic. Someone could be mistaken on baptism and still give a good argument for sola Scriptura. And to ward off a potential reaction from others: no, baptism is NOT "just a symbol" (it's a rich means of grace).