Let’s find out, starting with its Greek.
καὶὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦνσῴζει βάπτισμα, οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν, δι’ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
Although the verb ἐπερωτάω is common enough in the New Testament and wider literature, the passive cognate noun ἐπερώτημα is very rare. However based on early papyri that we got(i.e such as in P.Oxy. 9.1200, the registration of a deed dated to 266 CE,and in P.Oxy. 9.1208, the public acknowledgement of a contract of sale in 291 CE) it carries the sense of a contract or covenant, perhaps also equivalent to the Latin applicatio ad patronum, whereby one entered into a client–patron relationship.
Also at issue is how one should take the genitive συνειδήσεως.If objective, then it would refer to the pledge of a Christian to maintain a good conscience, but if subjective, it would be the good conscience from which a Christian makes a commitment to God in baptism. The present consensus seems to be in favor of an objective genitive, with the ἐπερώτημα understood as consisting of the commitment or ‘pledge’ made at baptism to preserve a good conscience, that is, mindfulness of God or proper conduct, in one’s subsequent life.
For instance see:
Achtemeier, 1 Peter,pp.271–72; Elliott, 1 Peter,p.681. Also taking it as an objective genitive, referring to the baptizand’s pledge to maintain a good conscience, are Reicke, Disobedient Spirits,p .185; J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (BNTC; London: Black, 1969), p. 162; Roger Omanson, ‘Suffering for Righteousness’ Sake (1 Pet 3:13–4:11)’, RevExp 79 (1982), p. 444; Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter, trans. John E. Alsup (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 258; R. T. France, ‘Exegesis in Practice: Two Samples’, in I. H. Marshall (ed.), New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 275. However, Michaels, 1 Peter,p.216, holds out for a subjective genitive.
On this reading the συνείδησις ἀγαθή refers to the content of the ‘pledge’ undertaken at baptism. Hence, the view of baptism as a formal and public contract with subsequent binding force on the parties involved
So wait a minute here, Baptism is like signing a deal to enter into a relationship with God? Isnt that different from views that see baptism as something done after this relationship is entered into?