Catholic Baptism vs. Protestant Baptism

[Mannyfit75]

Catholic Baptism supported in Scripture:

I. Born Again in Water Baptism

John 1:32 - when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).

John 3:22 - after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus’ teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.

John 4:1 - here is another reference to baptism which naturally flows from Jesus’ baptismal teaching in John 3:3-5.

Acts 8:36 – the eunuch recognizes the necessity of water for his baptism. Water and baptism are never separated in the Scriptures.

Acts 10:47 - Peter says “can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people…?” The Bible always links water and baptism.

Acts 22:16 – Ananias tells Saul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” The “washing away” refers to water baptism.

Titus 3:5-6 – Paul writes about the “washing of regeneration,” which is “poured out on us” in reference to water baptism. “Washing” (loutron) generally refers to a ritual washing with water.

Heb. 10:22 – the author is also writing about water baptism in this verse. “Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” Our bodies are washed with pure water in water baptism.

2 Kings 5:14 - Naaman dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, and his flesh was restored like that of a child. This foreshadows the regenerative function of baptism, by water and the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 44:3 - the Lord pours out His water and His Spirit. Water and the Spirit are linked to baptism. The Bible never separates them.

Ezek. 36:25-27 - the Lord promises He will sprinkle us with water to cleanse us from sin and give us a new heart and spirit. Paul refers to this verse in Heb. 10:22. The teaching of Ezekiel foreshadows the salvific nature of Christian baptism instituted by Jesus and taught in John 3:5, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 22:16.

 

[Mannyfit75]

II. Baptism is Salvific, Not Just Symbolic

Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Many Protestant churches are now teaching that baptism is only a symbolic ritual, and not what actually cleanses us from original sin. This belief contradicts Scripture and the 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church.

Acts 2:38 - Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual.

Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus said “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved.” Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.”

John 3:3,5 - unless we are “born again” of water and Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The Greek word for the phrase “born again” is “anothen” which literally means “begotten from above.” See, for example, John 3:31 where “anothen” is so used. Baptism brings about salvation, not just a symbolism of our salvation.

Acts 8:12-13; 36; 10:47 - if belief is all one needs to be saved, why is everyone instantly baptized after learning of Jesus?

Acts 16:15; 31-33; 18:8; 19:2,5 - these texts present more examples of people learning of Jesus, and then immediately being baptized. If accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior is all one needs to do to be saved, then why does everyone in the early Church immediately seek baptism?

Acts 9:18 - Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin. This is a powerful text which demonstrates the salvific efficacy of water baptism, even for those who decide to give their lives to Christ.

Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins,” even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul’s acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.

Acts 22:16 - further, Ananias’ phrase “wash away” comes from the Greek word “apolouo.” “Apolouo” means an actual cleansing which removes sin. It is not a symbolic covering up of sin. Even though Jesus chose Paul directly in a heavenly revelation, Paul had to be baptized to have his sins washed away.

Rom. 6:4 - in baptism, we actually die with Christ so that we, like Him, might be raised to newness of life. This means that, by virtue of our baptism, our sufferings are not in vain. They are joined to Christ and become efficacious for our salvation.

1 Cor. 6:11 - Paul says they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, in reference to baptism. The “washing” of baptism gives birth to sanctification and justification, which proves baptism is not just symbolic.

Gal. 3:27 - whoever is baptized in Christ puts on Christ. Putting on Christ is not just symbolic. Christ actually dwells within our soul.

 

[Mannyfit75]

III. Infant Baptism

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with “He who does not believe will be condemned.” This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a “believer’s baptism.”

Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and be baptized…” Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Tradition / Church Fathers
I. “Born Again” Means Water Baptism

For Christ also said, ‘Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: 'Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well…And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow…And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone…And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61 (A.D. 110-165).

“Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,–as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.” Theopilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 2:16 (A.D. 181).

" ‘And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it 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 new-born 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.’" Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).

 

[HailMary]

Thank for those points. Excellent references.

 

[believers]

I see you’ve taken every verse out of context and blended it with your own Catholic interpretation.

Why don’t we start with the baptism of John then work our way to the baptism of the Holy Ghost by Jesus.

You posted…
Acts 8:12-13; 36; 10:47 - if belief is all one needs to be saved, why is everyone instantly baptized after learning of Jesus?
ANSWER: That’s because it is the baptism of the holy ghost.

Remember, Paul said in 1Cr 1:17, "For Christ sent me NOT TO baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.)

Mar 16:16
He that BELIEVETH and is baptized (refers to the baptism of the Holy Ghost) shall be saved; but he that BELIEVETH NOT shall be damned.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I see you’ve taken every verse out of context and blended it with your own Catholic interpretation.

Why don’t we start with the baptism of John then work our way to the baptism of the Holy Ghost by Jesus.

You posted…
Acts 8:12-13; 36; 10:47 - if belief is all one needs to be saved, why is everyone instantly baptized after learning of Jesus?
ANSWER: That’s because it is the baptism of the holy ghost.

Remember, Paul said in 1Cr 1:17, "For Christ sent me NOT TO baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.)

Mar 16:16
He that BELIEVETH and is baptized (refers to the baptism of the Holy Ghost) shall be saved; but he that BELIEVETH NOT shall be damned.

Nope. they are not taken out of context. I intrepret Holy Scripture in the Light of the teaching of the Church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).

Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), “We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]” (CCC 1257).

The Christian belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is so unshakable that even the Protestant Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He wrote: “Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted” (Large Catechism 4:6).

Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through “baptism of blood,” martyrdom for Christ, or through “baptism of desire”, that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism.

Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized” (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).

As the following passages from the works of the Church Fathers illustrate, Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Hermas

“‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’” (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).

Justin Martyr

“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . 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 Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Tertullian

“Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away from the water!” (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).

“Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (ibid., 12).

“We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost” (ibid., 16).

 

[Mannyfit75]

“Symbolic” Baptism Just Won’t Wash
Karl Keating:

Your “Bible Christian” friends believe in baptism, but they do not believe in it as you do. Catholics understand baptism to be regenerative. It removes the stain of original sin and infuses sanctifying grace into the soul. Eastern Orthodox and many mainline Protestants think likewise, but Fundamentalists and Evangelicals disagree.

They say baptism is merely a sign that one has “accepted Christ as Lord and Savior” and therefore has become a Christian. It is the acceptance that matters. Undergoing baptism indicates to Christians that you are now one of them, but you would be one of them even if you never were baptized. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals call baptism an ordinance, a practice that Christ ordered his Church to perform, even though it does not effect a real change in the recipient.

This understanding leads to scriptural difficulties for those who think baptism does not rise above the symbolic. “He saved us . . . by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit . . . so that we might be justified by his grace” (Titus 3:5–7). This “washing of regeneration” is baptism. It actually does something to us. It regenerates, says Scripture.

The conjunction of water and the Holy Spirit brings us to John 3:5: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” The Catholic Church understands this combination to represent the water of baptism that brings to us the Holy Spirit, which is to say his grace. “Bible Christians,” avoiding the plain sense, say that Christians misunderstood this verse from the earliest years right up to the Reformation. Instead of “water and the Spirit” being read as a unit (baptism), they should be read independently: water (baptism) and the Holy Spirit (accepting Christ as Lord as Savior). Only the second is functional; the former is decorative—commanded by Christ but nevertheless not really doing anything to the recipient.

Turn to Acts 2:38, where Peter says, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Notice the sequence: First comes repentance; then comes baptism—which effects the forgiveness of sins—and then, as a consequence of that forgiveness and therefore of baptism, comes the gift (the grace) of the Holy Spirit. This verse makes sense only if it is understood as saying that baptism is not a mere symbol. If baptism were just an ordinance and not a sacrament, why would Peter bother to include it in his instruction?

The head of the apostles is supported by Paul, who said to the Corinthians that “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified” (1 Cor. 6:11). By washed he was not referring to the Corinthians’ bathing practices, because sanctification and justification are not dependent on hygienic practices. The verb meant that they had been baptized, and it was their baptism that brought them, for the first time, a state of sanctification and justification. Baptism changed them internally, spiritually, as it changes us.

 

[believers]

Nope. they are not taken out of context. I intrepret Holy Scripture in the Light of the teaching of the Church.

So how does one get baptized with the Holy Ghost? For starters, they have to BELIEVE in the preaching of the cross. Now, how do you suppose a new born baby can believe? Well… they can’t. Therefore, they cannot be baptized with the Holy Spirit. However, they can be water baptized. Which means you still have a very serious sin problem.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Is Baptism Merely a Symbol?

by Kenneth J. Howell

OBJECTOR: I heard the most absurd thing the other day—a Catholic said baptism is necessary for salvation. That certainly can’t be true, because the Bible says in Acts 4:12 that Jesus is the only “name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

CATHOLIC: Baptism is necessary for salvation because 1 Peter 3:21 also says “baptism . . . now saves you.” Jesus as the only Savior uses the waters of baptism to save people from their sins. Further, our Lord once said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).

OBJECTOR: But that’s impossible. Baptism is a symbol of our faith in Christ. It is not the Savior himself. The Catholic doctrine confuses the symbol and the reality.

CATHOLIC: The Catholic doctrine of baptism unites the symbol and the reality. It is because of the union of the symbol—water—with the reality—the Holy Spirit—that the apostle Peter can say, “baptism now saves you.” It is the same idea as Jesus said in John 3:5, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Being born of the water and the Spirit is an explanation of what he says in verse 3, “Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

OBJECTOR: But surely Jesus is not speaking here of baptism. Either he is speaking metaphorically or he is referring to the “water” that comes out during natural birth. He is saying that a person must be born twice: once naturally and once spiritually.

CATHOLIC: So you would agree that Jesus meant a spiritual birth, or regeneration, when he spoke of “being born of the Spirit”?

OBJECTOR: Yes, when he spoke of “being born again,” he used the Greek word anothen, which means both again and from above. He intended to draw on the systematic ambiguity of the word to show that a supernatural birth is involved in being born again.

CATHOLIC: I agree. But tell me: When does a person have this experience of “being born again” or “being born from above”?

 

[Mannyfit75]

OBJECTOR: When he believes on Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.

CATHOLIC: Then what is the purpose of baptism in your view?

OBJECTOR: It is an outward symbol of that regeneration of the heart. It has no other function.

CATHOLIC: So when Jesus said that you must be “born of water,” what was he referring to? Natural birth? That would be equivalent to him saying that you have to be a human being to enter the kingdom—as opposed to being an animal or something else—which seems unnecessary. It seems more natural to read his words as meaning that you have to be “born of water” in some deeper sense.

OBJECTOR: Like I said, it’s possible that he was speaking metaphorically. Perhaps he was referring to the promise in Ezekiel 36:25–26: “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you.”

CATHOLIC: That is a beautiful verse. It expresses exactly what we Catholics believe takes place in baptism. We sprinkle water on the person and God gives that person a new heart.

OBJECTOR: Notice that Ezekiel 36:25 does not say that we will sprinkle clean water on a person. God says “I will sprinkle clean water on you.” So this cannot be talking about baptism, since baptism is us doing the action, not God.

 

[Mannyfit75]

CATHOLIC: You tend to place separations and divisions in biblical texts. We Catholics believe that when we baptize a person, God is baptizing the person through our hands, our agency. Notice that Ezekiel 36:25–26 says that God gives the sprinkled person “a new heart” and “a new spirit.” Isn’t this the same as what Jesus says when he speaks of being born again of the water and the Spirit? Furthermore, when Ezekiel says that the person will be cleansed from all impurities and idols, isn’t this the same kind of cleansing that Ananias told Paul when he said, “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his [the Lord’s] name” (Acts 22:16)?

OBJECTOR: Look, we agree that God cleanses the heart. I just don’t believe that baptism effects that cleansing, because water has no power to do something spiritual like forgive sins. To be baptized is an act of obedience to God that portrays the inner cleansing of the heart.

CATHOLIC: We don’t believe that water has some inherent power to forgive but that Christ’s presence in the water is what brings about the forgiveness. It is a symbol, as you say, but it is also more than a symbol. Otherwise, what Ananias said to Paul makes no sense, “be baptized and wash away your sins.”

OBJECTOR: I don’t believe that the washing away of sin is inherently connected to baptism. Ananias said, “Be baptized and wash away your sins.” He didn’t say “be baptized and through this wash away your sin.” I already said that the waters of baptism are a symbol or sign of the inner spiritual reality.

CATHOLIC: Yes, I know. But there is even more. In the Bible, physical things could represent spiritual realities because they also contain those realities. Take the pillars of cloud and fire along with the tent of meeting (tabernacle) in the Old Testament. It was not merely a sign of God’s presence among the children of Israel; it embodied God’s presence. That is why Exodus tells us that when the pillar of cloud or fire descended on the tent of meeting, the people bowed down and worshiped. These symbols carried the realities they indicated.

It is this same way with baptism. If we read the Bible in the proper historical meaning of the times, we see that people believed that water could carry a spiritual reality like forgiveness of sins and the presence of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Mannyfit75]

OBJECTOR: I don’t know if you are right in how you see ancient times. But assuming that you have understood them correctly, it is still possible that those ancient people were wrong in their views and that we are now in a better position to know the true meaning of baptism.

CATHOLIC: I suppose that’s theoretically possible, but in the case of baptism I don’t think that we know better than the ancients. There seems to be unanimous agreement among the Church Fathers on this matter. They all believed that baptism was more than a symbol. They said that it brought about the forgiveness of sin as implied in Ananias’s statement to Paul. Further, they often quoted Titus 3:5 in connection with baptism, “He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit.”

OBJECTOR: But that verse shows my point. It is the “renewal in the Holy Spirit” that saves us, not baptism.

CATHOLIC: Agreed. The Holy Spirit renews our hearts. But notice how Paul connects that renewal with the washing of regeneration. Why would he talk about “washing” unless he was referring to the only washing that Christians were familiar with, that is, baptism?

That’s how the Church Fathers viewed it. For example, Proclus, one of the Eastern Fathers said, “God bestows salvation through baptism, offering baptism as a common grace for all.” This is echoed by Hippolytus who said, “If we become divine after rebirth in baptism through water and the Holy Spirit, we shall also be co-heirs with Christ after the resurrection of the dead.” It was the common faith of all Christians that baptism is a life-giving sacrament.

OBJECTOR: Even if all ancient Christians believed the way you say, that still doesn’t mean that we should believe the same way they did.

CATHOLIC: For Catholics it does. We believe that a unanimous teaching among the Church Fathers carries a binding force for the Church today. For us it is a matter of corporate humility and a willingness to listen to the Church of Christ throughout the ages. But even if you don’t agree with that methodological rule, I still think that your symbolist understanding of baptism fails to explain why Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River.

OBJECTOR: Jesus was baptized “to fulfill all righteousness,” as he says to John the Baptist in Matthew 3:15. Now, clearly, Jesus did not have to be forgiven of any sin (cf. Heb. 4:15). So in what sense was he fulfilling all righteousness? He was giving us an example to follow.

CATHOLIC: Yes, Jesus certainly did not need to be forgiven. And he no doubt wanted us to follow his example. But here again I think you are reading the biblical text in a reduced fashion.

OBJECTOR: Then what do you think Jesus’s baptism meant?

CATHOLIC: Jesus was baptized to make all the waters in the world holy and usable for baptism. His presence in the Jordan sanctified the natural element of water so that it could carry the forgiveness that only his person can convey. This view is also common among the Church Fathers as expressed by Maximus the Confessor: "When the Savior washed, all water for our baptism is made clean, purified at its source for the dispensing of baptismal grace to the people of future ages. Christ is the first to be baptized, then so that Christians will follow after him with confidence.

 

[Mannyfit75]

So how does one get baptized with the Holy Ghost? For starters, they have to BELIEVE in the preaching of the cross. Now, how do you suppose a new born baby can believe? Well… they can’t. Therefore, they cannot be baptized with the Holy Spirit. However, they can be water baptized. Which means you still have a very serious sin problem.

Read the other post I posted.

 

[believers]

OBJECTOR: I don’t know if you are right in how you see ancient times. But assuming that you have understood them correctly, it is still possible that those ancient people were wrong in their views and that we are now in a better position to know the true meaning of baptism.

CATHOLIC: I suppose that’s theoretically possible, but in the case of baptism I don’t think that we know better than the ancients. There seems to be unanimous agreement among the Church Fathers on this matter. They all believed that baptism was more than a symbol. They said that it brought about the forgiveness of sin as implied in Ananias’s statement to Paul. Further, they often quoted Titus 3:5 in connection with baptism, “He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit.”

OBJECTOR: But that verse shows my point. It is the “renewal in the Holy Spirit” that saves us, not baptism.

CATHOLIC: Agreed. The Holy Spirit renews our hearts. But notice how Paul connects that renewal with the washing of regeneration. Why would he talk about “washing” unless he was referring to the only washing that Christians were familiar with, that is, baptism?

That’s how the Church Fathers viewed it. For example, Proclus, one of the Eastern Fathers said, “God bestows salvation through baptism, offering baptism as a common grace for all.” This is echoed by Hippolytus who said, “If we become divine after rebirth in baptism through water and the Holy Spirit, we shall also be co-heirs with Christ after the resurrection of the dead.” It was the common faith of all Christians that baptism is a life-giving sacrament.

OBJECTOR: Even if all ancient Christians believed the way you say, that still doesn’t mean that we should believe the same way they did.

CATHOLIC: For Catholics it does. We believe that a unanimous teaching among the Church Fathers carries a binding force for the Church today. For us it is a matter of corporate humility and a willingness to listen to the Church of Christ throughout the ages. But even if you don’t agree with that methodological rule, I still think that your symbolist understanding of baptism fails to explain why Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River.

OBJECTOR: Jesus was baptized “to fulfill all righteousness,” as he says to John the Baptist in Matthew 3:15. Now, clearly, Jesus did not have to be forgiven of any sin (cf. Heb. 4:15). So in what sense was he fulfilling all righteousness? He was giving us an example to follow.

CATHOLIC: Yes, Jesus certainly did not need to be forgiven. And he no doubt wanted us to follow his example. But here again I think you are reading the biblical text in a reduced fashion.

OBJECTOR: Then what do you think Jesus’s baptism meant?

CATHOLIC: Jesus was baptized to make all the waters in the world holy and usable for baptism. His presence in the Jordan sanctified the natural element of water so that it could carry the forgiveness that only his person can convey. This view is also common among the Church Fathers as expressed by Maximus the Confessor: "When the Savior washed, all water for our baptism is made clean, purified at its source for the dispensing of baptismal grace to the people of future ages. Christ is the first to be baptized, then so that Christians will follow after him with confidence.

That’s a new one. Jesus’ baptism made all the waters in the world holy? That’s completely unscriptural.

 

[Mannyfit75]

That’s a new one. Jesus’ baptism made all the waters in the world holy? That’s completely unscriptural.

It’s Scriptural and ancient Christian Tradition supports it. The Didache written in 40-70 A.D gives instruction for the need of Baptism.

The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, “Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.

The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings. Hippolytus of Rome said, “If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available” (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]). Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, “he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring” (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).

Cyprian advised that no one should be “disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace” (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done “with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner” (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the water “not much (or not at all) the cleaner.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

Baptismal Grace

Few truths are so clearly taught in the New Testament as the doctrine that in baptism God gives us grace. Again and again the sacred writers tell us that it is in baptism that we are saved, buried with Christ, incorporated into his body, washed of our sins, regenerated, cleansed, and so on (see Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1–4; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–22). They are unanimous in speaking of baptism in invariably efficient terms, as really bringing about a spiritual effect.

Despite this wealth of evidence, Protestants are almost equally unanimous in rejecting this truth. In general Protestants regard baptism as something like an ordinance: an observance that does not itself bring about any spiritual effect but merely represents that effect. Its observance may be required by obedience, but it is not necessary in any further sense—certainly not for salvation.

This view requires Protestants to explain away all the New Testament passages on the nature of baptism as figurative language. It is not baptism itself, they assert, but what baptism represents, that really saves us. Yet the language of the New Testament on this point is so uniform that they cannot even dredge up a couple of “proof-texts” on baptism to support this view or their figurative reading of all the other passages.

There is one text that Protestants occasionally mention. In 1 Corinthians 1:14–17 Paul wrote that he was glad that he himself had baptized so few of the Corinthians, since they could not say that they were baptized in his name; and he went on to say, “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel. . . .”

Needless to say, this passage doesn’t say anything about baptism only representing spiritual realities, or not really saving. It doesn’t say anything about how those who accepted Paul’s preaching of the gospel were then saved. Paul didn’t write, “For I was not sent to baptize but to pray with people to accept Jesus as their personal Savior” (or even “to lead people to faith”). Paul didn’t pit faith against baptism.

Nor did he pit preaching against baptism. He would hardly have contradicted the great commission in Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Paul’s point was not that God didn’t want him to baptize, only that preaching was the driving force of his evangelistic ministry.

In short, Paul’s remark doesn’t remotely support the Protestant view of baptism, or justify a figurative interpretation of all the other passages. Yet this is the closest thing to a Protestant proof-text!

The early Fathers were equally unanimous in affirming baptism as a means of grace. They all recognized the Bible’s teaching that “[In the ark] a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:20–21, emphasis added).

Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, “From the beginning baptism was the
universally accepted rite of admission to the Church. . . . As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins . . . we descend into the water ‘dead’ and come out again ‘alive’; we receive a white robe which symbolizes the Spirit . . .the Spirit is God himself dwelling in the believer, and the resulting life is a re-creation. Prior to baptism . . . our heart was the abode of demons . . . [but] baptism supplies us with the weapons for our spiritual warfare” (Early Christian Doctrines, 193–4).

 

[believers]

It’s Scriptural and ancient Christian Tradition supports it. The Didache written in 40-70 A.D gives instruction for the need of Baptism.

The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, “Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.

The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings. Hippolytus of Rome said, “If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available” (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]). Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, “he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring” (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).

Cyprian advised that no one should be “disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace” (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done “with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner” (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the water “not much (or not at all) the cleaner.”

If it’s scriptural… then where is it in the Bible. Book, Chapter, and Verse please.