Question From a Protestant

[guanophore]

Yes, water baptism should be done for every Christian. But it is the thing that saves us or is it symbolic of the one who saves us? It seems to me the water baptism is an outward act symbolizing an inward reality.

"If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

– Jesus (John 14:15-17)

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.

Col. 2:12 - in baptism, we literally die with Christ and are raised with Christ. It is a supernatural reality, not just a symbolic ritual. The Scriptures never refer to baptism as symbolic.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Do you not agree that baptism with water washes away sins? Do you not think that the Holy Spirit is given at baptism?

Well, i think it is the Holy Ghost who washes away your sins and mine, not the act of baptism. Don’t you?

…and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.
– St. Peter (1 Peter 3:21)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

1 Peter 3:21
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

The Bible clearly teaches us that baptism saves us. It is not merely a sign - baptism is necessary part of our salvation.

Now, this was being taught from the begging of Christianity and the “symbolic” doctrines are something completely new. Let me show you what some of the Early Church Fathers said on this topic.

I added the emphasis to those passages you quoted to raise the question: Is it the water that saves us from hell or the (1) Repentance, (2) calling on the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, (3) pledging in good conscience to live our lives for our blessed Lord and Savior, and (4) receiving the Holy Ghost and eternal life as a gift from the Father though faith in Jesus Christ?

 

[jmcrae]

Well, i think it is the Holy Ghost who washes away your sins and mine, not the act of baptism. Don’t you?

We believe that the Holy Spirit does this at the time that we are being baptized. The Sacrament of Baptism is the “pipe” through which the Holy Spirit comes and washes away our sins.

…and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.
– St. Peter (1 Peter 3:21)

I don’t know what translation you are using, but the Vulgate has "21 Cuius antitypum, baptisma, et vos nunc salvos facit, non carnis depositio sordium sed conscientiae bonae rogatio in Deum, per resurrectionem Iesu Christi, " which is translated as “Its [referring to Noah’s Ark] counterpart, Baptism, now saves you also (not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry of a good conscience after God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;”

This phrase, “not the putting off of the filth of the flesh,” doesn’t mean that there is no water, but rather, that the water of Baptism is not used for bathing - it is only poured over the person three times; he is not supposed to be taking a shower in it.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Please do not misunderstand me. I’m not saying Catholics should not be baptized with water. I’m asking whether it is this act, or what it represents, that saves us from hell.

 

[jmcrae]

I added the emphasis to those passages you quoted to raise the question: Is it the water that saves us from hell or the (1) Repentance, (2) calling on the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, (3) pledging in good conscience to live our lives for our blessed Lord and Savior, and (4) receiving the Holy Ghost and eternal life as a gift from the Father though faith in Jesus Christ?

If we lack any one of these four, we cannot be saved - they are all equally important.

 

[jmcrae]

Please do not misunderstand me. I’m not saying Catholics should not be baptized with water. I’m asking whether it is this act, or what it represents, that saves us from hell.

Without the act itself, we do not have what it represents.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…“Its [referring to Noah’s Ark] counterpart, Baptism, now saves you also (not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry of a good conscience after God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;”

This phrase, “not the putting off of the filth of the flesh,” doesn’t mean that there is no water, but rather, that the water of Baptism is not used for bathing - it is only poured over the person three times; he is not supposed to be taking a shower in it.

Isn’t the first Pope saying, here, that it is not the washing with water that removes our sins but the repentance and commitment to live our lives for our blessed Lord and Savior? Isn’t this why the Catholic church has teens go through Confirmation (as i went through) so that they will repent of a life committed to sin and put their faith in and make a commitment to live their lives for Him?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Without the act itself, we do not have what it represents.

How do you know this is true?

 

[MilesXpisti]

Isn’t the first Pope saying, here, that it is not the washing with water that removes our sins but the repentance and commitment to live our lives for our blessed Lord and Savior? Isn’t this why the Catholic church has teens go through Confirmation (as i went through) so that they will repent of a life committed to sin and put their faith in and make a commitment to live their lives for Him?

That’s precisely the point, I think. The water does not remove soil from the body but from the soul, the soil being the stain of original sin, which is atavistic and codemns man to physical death. The water baptism is a symbolic Sacrament that is derived of a pledge of good conscience toward God, but that does not remove the necessity of water as the proper matter of the Sacrament. Moreoever, in John 3 giving the requirements of rebirth, as both water and spirit. Now many Protestants argue that this is the “water” of natural birth, or amniotic fluid but this makes little sense to me. Is it universal that man is born in such a way? If so, this would seem like a moot requirement. That would be like saying that if man should learn to walk, he must have two legs and learn from one who has walked before.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I hope you will all see i’m not trying to win some kind of debate, here. I’m looking for the truth by asking questions to see if what you believe is true. The answers you all give me i will consider carefully to see if they stand up to my questions.

I’m using what is called the Socratic Method. Like Socrates i’m interested not in proving i’m right but in seeing whether others are wrong.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

That’s precisely the point, I think. The water does not remove soil from the body but from the soul, the soil being the stain of original sin, which is atavistic and codemns man to physical death. The water baptism is a symbolic Sacrament that is derived of a pledge of good conscience toward God, but that does not remove the necessity of water as the proper matter of the Sacrament. Moreoever, in John 3 giving the requirements of rebirth, as both water and spirit. Now many Protestants argue that this is the “water” of natural birth, or amniotic fluid but this makes little sense to me. Is it universal that man is born in such a way? If so, this would seem like a moot requirement. That would be like saying that if man should learn to walk, he must have two legs and learn from one who has walked before.

Then would you say it is impossible for someone to become a Christian and receive the Holy Ghost prior to being baptized?

 

[jmcrae]

Isn’t the first Pope saying, here, that it is not the washing with water that removes our sins but the repentance and commitment to live our lives for our blessed Lord and Savior?

Not exactly.

What he is saying here is that the water of Baptism is water of spiritual regeneration; not bath water. But it’s not “spiritual water” - it’s real water, as we see in the passages provided by previous posters, especially the one where the Ethiopian points out a body of water by the road on which they are travelling, and Philip then baptizes him in it.

The effect of this real water is not to wash dirt off of our skin, but to wash our souls clean of sin. This water is made able to do this by the action of the Holy Spirit working through the Sacrament of Baptism, which includes both the words and the water.

Isn’t this why the Catholic church has teens go through Confirmation (as i went through) so that they will repent of a life committed to sin and put their faith in and make a commitment to live their lives for Him?

Hopefully, our Catholic children have not lived lives committed to sin, and ideally, they have very little to repent of if they have been raised in good Catholic homes, and their parents have been keeping their Baptismal promises to raise the children to know and love Jesus and His Church.

The Sacrament of Confirmation is their final initiation into the Church Militant. They become “soldiers of Christ” and their “weapons” are Wisdom, Understanding, Knowledge, Right Judgement, Courage, Piety, and Awe of the Lord. These gifts come from the Holy Spirit. The anointing is real anointing, with real oil of salvation, put on by a real Bishop.

 

[MilesXpisti]

Then would you say it is impossible for someone to become a Christian and receive the Holy Ghost prior to being baptized?

To be acted upon by it? No. To receive the indwelling of it, yes. Of course, the natural response to this would be the case of John the Baptist, who was filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother’s womb. But this is unique for a number of reasons: first and foremost, it’s John the Baptist, the man who prepared the way for Christ and was himself a proponent for the necessity of baptism. Secondly, the Sacrament of Baptism had not been initiated, because Christ and His Covenant had not been established.

 

[jmcrae]

Then would you say it is impossible for someone to become a Christian and receive the Holy Ghost prior to being baptized?

For the purpose of opening the Church to the Gentiles and thus making it Catholic, the Holy Spirit came to certain Gentiles and then revealed them to Peter and the others, so that they could then be baptized. But this was in order that the Church would begin to include the Gentiles - if it had not happened in this way, then the Church would still be a tiny offshoot sect of Judaism.

God Himself can work outside of His own Sacraments, but we the Church must obey what He has commanded us to do (that is, use the Sacraments) and assume that He does not ordinarily work outside of them, any more than He ordinarily works outside of the laws of nature to create miracles.

 

[MilesXpisti]

Then would you say it is impossible for someone to become a Christian and receive the Holy Ghost prior to being baptized?

Also, we must look at the prefiguration of the Ark of the Covenant as the necessity of baptism. The Ark was a vessel for the spirit of God as are we upon baptism, and the Ark was prepared of the purest materials, which is only fitting for something to carry the Spirit of the Most High. Would it be fitting for an unclean vessel, one not afforded the cleansing of the Sacramental Baptism, to receive Our Lord, thus?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

To be acted upon by it? No. To receive the indwelling of it, yes. Of course, the natural response to this would be the case of John the Baptist, who was filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother’s womb. But this is unique for a number of reasons: first and foremost, it’s John the Baptist, the man who prepared the way for Christ and was himself a proponent for the necessity of baptism. Secondly, the Sacrament of Baptism had not been initiated, because Christ and His Covenant had not been established.

So, you would say that after our Lord rose from the dead and commanded his followers to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, it was impossible to receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

 

[jmcrae]

So, you would say that after our Lord rose from the dead and commanded his followers to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, it was impossible to receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

For the purpose of opening the Church to the Gentiles and thus making it Catholic, the Holy Spirit came to certain Gentiles and then revealed them to Peter and the others, so that they could then be baptized. But this was in order that the Church would begin to include the Gentiles - if it had not happened in this way, then the Church would still be a tiny offshoot sect of Judaism.

God Himself can work outside of His own Sacraments, but we the Church must obey what He has commanded us to do (that is, use the Sacraments) and assume that He does not ordinarily work outside of them, any more than He ordinarily works outside of the laws of nature to create miracles.

 

[MilesXpisti]

So, you would say that after our Lord rose from the dead and commanded his followers to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, it was impossible to receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

Without the sacrament of baptism, I would say that this would be the case, yes.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Also, we must look at the prefiguration of the Ark of the Covenant as the necessity of baptism. The Ark was a vessel for the spirit of God as are we upon baptism, and the Ark was prepared of the purest materials, which is only fitting for something to carry the Spirit of the Most High. Would it be fitting for an unclean vessel, one not afforded the cleansing of the Sacramental Baptism, to receive Our Lord, thus?

Does not the Catholic church teach that the Holy Ghost can cleanse a soul without water? Why is physical H2O required to remove the sin from a non-material soul?