For those curious as to why certain Protestants (not all) reject the “baptismal regeneration” reading of 1 Pet 3:20-21, here is an example from a recent commentary on 1-2 Peter:
At first glance, it might appear that Peter regards
baptism as a means of salvation. However, in light of verse 21, the ritual does
not remove moral filth from Christians in such a way that they do not need to
be concerned about how they live after being baptized (Jobes 2005: 336).
Baptism rather, in part, is a pledge (NRSV translates eperōtēma as
‘appeal’) to God that one will commit to live in right relationship with him
following his or her baptism (1 Pet. 4.2). While eperōtēma has as its
principle meaning ‘appeal’, ‘question’ or ‘inquiry’, the verbal noun and the
verb from which the words derives are frequently used in the papyri as part of
contractual language and can be understood to mean the pledge one takes to
uphold the terms of the agreement (Achtemeir 1996: 270-71). Fulfillment of this
pledge results in having a good conscience before God (1 Pet. 3.21). For Peter,
‘baptism’ represents the whole process by which the gospel comes to people,
they accept it in faith, and then live out their faith in obedience to God.
While baptism does not save a person, the resurrection of Jesus Christ does (1
Pet. 3.21). (David R. Seal, First and Second Peter: An Oral and Performance
Commentary [Readings, A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield: Sheffield
Phoenix Press, 2023], 84)