Part 11

Is Salvation by Jesus or by Grace or by Faith or through the Means of Grace?

 Peter 3:4–7 (ESV) —  They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.”  For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,  and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.  But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. 

What Is The Cause Of Our Salvation? 

The last few months we’ve began to explore just how it is that we receive the Holy Spirit. Two months ago I began to show from Scripture the truth that we receive the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace. Last month we began to look at the Scriptural testimonies related to Baptism as a Means of Grace and the gift of the Holy Spirit that is attached to it (Acts 2:38). 

Baptism saves lost sinners (1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5-6) and delivers them from the domain of darkness into a new life with Christ (Colossians 1:13-14). Everyone who belongs to Christ in this manner has been given the gift of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9-11) and retains that gift unless they forsake it by leaving the faith (Hebrews 10:26-29). 

And yet, despite those clear Scriptural testimonies, the simple phrase “baptism saves” is massively controversial in the world of Evangelical Christianity. Many people will quickly argue that the idea “baptism saves” is a form of works-righteousness. I’ve heard arguments that saying “baptism saves” means “baptism is the good work you do to be saved.” It’s even quite common to hear preachers boldly say “baptism doesn’t save anyone” which I would think would be a terrifying thing for a Christian to say, given the fact that such a statement directly contradicts 1 Peter 3:21. Nonetheless, I’ve heard it said boldly and often. 

What retort do they give to support their view? The response I usually hear is “only God saves” or “only Jesus saves.” While those statements are true, they neither contradict the truth that “baptism saves” nor support the statement that “baptism doesn’t save anyone.” The preachers who teach that “God saves, therefore baptism doesn’t” have fallen into a gross error of reasoning, which we will explore further. 

This is a fantastic example of why we have to be cautious about allowing our logic to be the foundation of our theology. “God saves so therefore baptism doesn’t” is a logical axiom that sounds both 1.) reasonable and 2.) very spiritual and devout. To to the casual observer something so logical and spiritual seems almost irrefutable. Since 

1 Peter 3:21 does directly refute it though, the choice between believing that Baptism saves or believing that “baptism doesn’t save anyone” is a choice between the solid rock of Christ’s teachings or the sinking sands of invented human doctrines and customs (Matthew 7:24-27). 

Supposed Contradictions That Aren’t

Dr. Millard Erickson is a Baptist theologian that has written a few systematic theology textbooks. I will admit that the version of his work I’m reading is not his latest (he’s issued an updated version), but I doubt very much he has changed his views on this. 

In the 1986 edition of his “Christian Theology” he addresses 1 Peter 3:21 on page 1098 and 1099 and his treatment of the passage is regrettable. First, he employs the same kind of awkward reasoning that Dr. Wayne Grudem does (which we discussed last month). He describes baptism as an “act of faith acknowledging dependence upon [God].” (Erickson, Christian Theology, p.1099). Erickson also applies the same faulty definition of ἐπερώτημα as the ESV translation and Dr. Grudem. The same question applies to Erickson’s teaching as Grudem’s: If they are already believers, what do they need to be saved from? If they are enlightened enough by the Holy Spirit that they are appealing to God, why would they need to receive the Holy Spirit?

Erickson and Grudem both deny the natural message of 1 Peter 3:21 which is that baptism imparts a spiritual salvation (rather than a physical salvation; like through flood waters). Erickson’s argument is not nearly as nuanced as Grudem’s however. He avoids making his doctrine as obviously self-refuting as Grudem’s by keeping his writing on it very short and terse. This, however, has the odd effect of being less than convincing. Perhaps because of that, Erickson finishes his treatment of 1 Peter 3:21 with the old standby: “The real basis of our salvation is Christ’s resurrection” (Erickson, p.1099). 

In seminary, we called that a Jesus-juke. 

Erickson’s argument boils down to this: “1 Peter 3:21 can’t mean that baptism saves because only Jesus saves.” He is asserting that there is a logical contradiction between the natural meaning of 1 Peter 3:21 (which is “Jesus saves”) and Erickson’s statement that “the real basis of our salvation is Christ’s resurrection.” If this contradiction is a true contradiction, then we must deny that baptism saves, because who would ever deny that Christ’s resurrection is the basis of our salvation?

 Erickson exposes his own error in that pithy sentence, through his use of the word “basis”. It’s certainly true that a “real basis of our salvation is Christ’s resurrection”, (Erickson p.1099), but Peter is not talking about the ultimate basis of salvation in 1 Peter 3:21, and neither are we when we say “baptism saves.” 

When we, and Peter, say “baptism saves” we imply that it is a means of salvation, similar to how the Ark was a means of physical salvation for Noah. Christ’s resurrection is obviously a basis of our salvation, but as we will see, it’s probably not good to assert it’s the basis. 

There is, in fact, no contradiction in affirming that both “Jesus saves” and “Baptism saves”. One is a statement of “meritorious cause” or as Erickson calls it “basis” (actually, it’s massively debatable if Erickson has rightly identified the true “basis” of our salvation. More on that later). Meanwhile, “baptism saves” is a statement of “instrumental cause”, or as the Apostle Peter calls it “the means.” 

Since the statements “Jesus saves” and “baptism saves” (if they are rightly understood) are talking about different levels of causality, they cannot contradict any more than a bird’s flight-path can contradict that of the moon’s orbit. 

Baptism Saves, But Not Apart From Christ

I suppose it could be argued in return that when we teach that “baptism saves” people are likely to misunderstand that truth and start treating baptism as meritorious cause instead of the instrumental cause or the means of salvation. This complaint is not a far-fetched one. Many former Christians believe “I’m baptized, therefore I’m good” as if the rite of baptism eliminates any need for them to continue in repentance and faith.

The saving power of baptism does not in any way contradict the saving power of Christ’s Cross. Or His resurrection. Or continued faith. 

Lutheran theology, when taught correctly, has never taught that baptism is a good work that saves you apart from the meritorious work of Christ. Nor has Lutheran theology ever taught that baptism merits your salvation or magically calls it into existence. Our confessional documents all hold that Christ is the meritorious cause of our salvation (though they don’t use such needlessly philosophical language) and they forcefully denounce anyone who teaches otherwise (even if they claim to be Lutheran).   

All throughout the time of the reformation there were some who taught that faithful works apart from grace saves (the papists and the anabaptists) or that grace apart from faith saves (the Zwinglians and Calvinists), and the Lutherans were consistent in their denunciation of these false teachings. Grace and faith are not contradictory forms of salvation. Neither are baptism and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

If anyone teaches that baptism saves as if by magic, we will and must denounce that teaching as a contradiction of the true and saving faith of the Gospel. But the simple truth remains: when the Scriptures (and Scripturally based theologians) talk about baptism saving, they do so because baptism is an instrument of salvation not a meritorious cause (something that earns it) of salvation. Baptism is a Means (not a basis) that God uses to convey and communicate His grace. It’s a tool that God uses; not because God needs a tool in the way I need a tool to remove lug nuts, but because the use of the tool is a blessing to us. The Means of Grace give us greater certainty about the state of our salvation because through them God gives us something objective and outside of us to know and recognize His saving work. 

Is “Means” or “Instrumental Cause” a Legitimate Biblical Category? 

Again, I can imagine that someone will argue “all this discussion of causes is overly philosophical and alien to the Bible.” To a small degree I sympathize with someone who would make that argument. The Bible is not a textbook on Aristotelian or Platonic metaphysics, so why should we have to use philosophical categories like meritorious and instrumental causes to explain this stuff? 

Well, I will grant the point that you’ll never find the Bible say “nono, this is an efficient cause and so you must not treat it as a final cause.” The Bible doesn’t employ that kind of unapproachable, philosophical language (the kind which is quickly bloating this article). The purpose of the Bible is not to make sure your metaphysics is on-point. The purpose is to reveal Christ and His salvation, so the Bible gives us no more metaphysics than is necessary to accomplish that task. 

So some people might say “the Bible doesn’t talk about Means of Grace or any other Means, so stop making stuff up.” That, however, would also be an error. The Bible does talk about means, and the Bible often assumes that different causes might be at work to bring about the same effect. For example, when discussing both the creation and purification of the world, Peter writes this-

2 Peter 3:5–6 (ESV) —  For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,  and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 

This is not a discussion of the Means of Grace/Salvation, but it is a discussion of God’s activity in the world. This is a clear Bible verse showing that a discussion of “Means” is not alien to the Bible. God often interacts with His creation through means. In fact, God almost always interacts with creation through means. When He doesn’t, we call it a miracle, and even then, miracles usually have means (think: the kid with the fish and bread).

Fascinatingly, the “Means” God employed to cleanse (read: destructively flood) the world is here also credited with creating it. While Peter doesn’t use all the philosophical terminology, this passage teaches that the Word of God is the efficient cause while the water is the instrumental. The water created. The Word created. The Word created through the water. 

Jesus saves. Baptism saves, not because baptism earns salvation, but because Jesus saves through baptism. 

What is the “Real Basis” of Our Salvation?

So, let’s revisit the “real basis” of our salvation, because there’s a lesson to be learned there. Is it accurate to say that the “real basis” of our salvation is the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth? 

Ironically enough, the resurrection might not even be the most “basic” of causes. In fact, when comparing causes 1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism saves “through the resurrection”. The Holy Spirit, through Peter, actually presents “the resurrection of Jesus” as a method used by God to work for us the salvation that baptism gives. “Baptism saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” is a literal and true simplification of 1 Peter 3:21. In 1 Peter 3:21, the grammar of what the Holy Spirit wrote through Peter says the basis of salvation is actually baptism and the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a method of accomplishing it. True, it was the only possible method of accomplishing it, but even in 1 Peter 3:21, it’s not described as the basis. 

That may seem theologically absurd at first, since it seems like it puts baptism in front of the meritorious work of Christ, but when we understand further what baptism accomplishes, and the perspective from which Peter is describing this work, it makes sense. Peter isn’t speaking about salvation as if he’s a disinterested third party. He is not describing salvation like a cosmic observer would, but rather he’s explaining salvation from our viewpoint. 

The Holy Spirit elaborates, from this same perspective, through Paul- 

Romans 6:4 (ESV) —  We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 

Baptism unites you with Christ, and once united to Him, the benefits of His death and resurrection give you salvation. We should not think of this as “steps” to salvation or anything like that. This is all one thing; one salvation. Still, there are different aspects of it, and one of those aspects to our salvation is that Baptism unites us to Jesus Christ. The fact that we now live our lives hidden in Christ (Colossians 3:3) is somehow more basic to our salvation than His resurrection, probably because His resurrection would do nothing to save us if we didn’t actually receive it’s benefits and blessings. Peter describes all of that from the perspective of the believer. 

But, the rabbit hole goes even deeper if we care to explore it. If we turn to Ephesians 2, there we might find reason to argue that the true basis of our salvation is not even baptism or Christ’s resurrection but simply the fact that God loved us (verse 4). Perhaps also it could even be argued that God’s desire to display “the immeasurable riches of His grace” (verse 7) is even more basic than that. 

Theologians have argued to no end about how to understand God’s most basic principle. Similarly, they go in circles trying to assert the cause of His activities toward us: is it His glory or His love? I might, on the basis of verse 4, be tempted to argue that it’s His love toward us since that motivated Him toward us even while we were dead in our trespasses and sins, but I will also gladly acknowledge that His glory seems to be basic to His nature and actions.

 The point is this:  arguing about what truly is the basis can become rather circular and, for all practical reasons, pointless when we allow it to. Rather than trying to figure out an order of operations, what Christians should do is this: affirm what the Bible affirms and deny what the Bible denies. 

Our salvation, which includes the gift of the eternal and life-giving Holy Spirit, is by grace through faith according to the merit of Jesus Christ and received through the Means of Grace. While every one of those statements speaks to a “cause” of our salvation, not one of them contradicts the other. So please, brothers and sisters, don’t be led astray by pious sounding calls that “only Jesus saves.” That truth is absolutely true, right up to the point that it is used to deny something that the Bible affirms. 

Baptism saves, and with salvation comes the gift of the Holy Spirit.