Baptism

Objection: Why do Catholics believe in the necessity of baptism, as if it was anything but symbolic? The Bible is clear we can do nothing to earn our salvation. We are saved through faith.

It is quite true that the Bible does teach that we can do nothing to earn our salvation (cf. Eph 2:8-9). But then again, so does the Catholic Church. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life. (CCC #1996)

We are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. However, that is quite different from stating that Christ does not work through material means in communicating to us His grace, such as through the sacraments. And, as we shall see, Scripture teaches that we are initially incorporated into Christ through the sacrament of faith, baptism (though there are exceptions to the general rule).

The first thing that should be cleared up, however, is that baptism is not a "work" done to "earn" salvation (which is merely a caricature of the Catholic position). This is easily shown by the fact that it is not a "work" at all (unless one is prepared to state faith is a "work"- more on that below). For one thing, a person receives baptism. That is to say, they are passive recipients of the sacrament, and aren't "doing" anything in the first place, other than placing their faith in Christ and allowing themselves to be recipients of His grace through baptism.

Of course, if one defines as a "work" anything that a human being does in the process of salvation, then in that sense, ironically faith itself is a "work", since quite clearly a person is "doing" something. (In fact, when Jesus was asked by a multitude what they must do to be doing the works of God, he replied  "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." cf. Jn 6:28-29). But no one would pretend that faith is a "work" done to  "earn" salvation, even though there a person is actively doing something. Yet if that is the case with faith, how much more obvious is merely being a passive recipient of baptism not a "work" meant to earn salvation! 

After all, a person cannot baptize himself, but can only receive baptism from another. Specifically, Catholic theology holds that a person receives baptism from Christ Himself, in that it is Christ who actually imparts baptism through the ministration of a human minister [1].  Such a manner of reception is not an accident, for it emphasizes the gratuitous nature of the gift of salvation from Christ. We cannot save ourselves, but can only receive salvation as a gift from our Savior. This is, of course, made even more abundantly clear in the case of infants who are baptized, since they clearly are not doing anything to “earn” salvation.

The key point to remember, however, is that (as the necessity of faith clearly demonstrates) while salvation is unmerited, it is not unconditional (which is why we are not universalists). In short, baptism is not a work done to "earn" salvation. 

What the Catholic Church does say, however, is that the baptismal waters are a material means that Christ uses as a channel to impart His grace unto us and incorporate us into His body. (Of course, as with all the sacraments, the material aspect is not the only part of the sacrament, since other factors, such as faith, are involved. But since the necessity of faith is not disputed, I do not dwell on it at the moment.). And that is where the real controversy lies. Can Christ, in fact, impart His grace to us through material means (like the sacraments, such as baptism), if He so chooses? Does matter have anything to do with our salvation? That is the question. And I would maintain that, yes, matter is essentially involved with how we are saved.

Indeed, it is at the heart of the Gospel message. For how was our salvation accomplished for us by Christ in the first place? It was not solely through some "spiritual" means, but through the quite material means of the warm, sticky blood of Christ shed for us on the cross (cf. Heb 9:14). There was nothing purely "spiritual" about that, needless to say. In other words, our very redemption depended on God working through means of matter.

Christianity is not Gnostic, after all. It is the Gnostics who thought that God only works through "spiritual" means. As a matter of fact, the Gnostics had such a dread of God "dirtying" Himself with matter, that they went so far as to deny that God created the material universe at all (which creation they attributed to a "demiurge"). It goes without saying they therefore denied the Incarnation. Thus, we see Gnostics teaching that our Lord only appeared to have a body, and so was not really crucified. It was such early heretics that the Apostle John referred to as being of the spirit of "antichrist" (1 John 4:2-3). Christianity, on the other hand, maintains the opposite position.

So the question is not whether Christ uses matter in saving us. The very heart of the Gospel message clearly affirms that He did. The question is only whether He continues to do so in communicating to us such salvation which He won, such as when it comes to Baptism, or whether Baptism is merely symbolic. I believe Scripture teaches the former. Baptism specifically (and the sacraments in general) are, in fact, only extensions of the principle established by the Incarnation.

Moreover, such is more in keeping with our human nature as well. We are not disembodied spirits, after all, like the angels, but are composed of both body and spirit. That is the unique role that human beings play in the universe. That is to say, we are where the material and the spiritual intersect. On the last day, when we are resurrected, our bodies will share in the salvation Christ won for us no less than our spirits will. It is quite appropriate, therefore, that how God applies to us His grace would reflect that fact. And again, I believe Scripture teaches this to be so.

Before getting into the positive scriptural evidence, however, I should point out that many verses are often alleged to show baptism is unnecessary by showing how we are justified by "faith", and no mention is made of baptism. That is true, but I would also note that such passages are generally written in a context contrasting the Gospel with justification by the works of the Mosaic law. It is therefore quite likely that "faith" in this context is simply shorthand for the entire Christian plan of salvation (faith, repentance, baptism, etc.), just as "circumcision" is likewise often used in the same epistles as shorthand for the whole Mosaic law, and not just circumcision. This especially seems to be so when taking into account that Scripture in other places (often in the same epistles!) expressly states the necessity of baptism.

Or, to give another example, it would in that respect be no different to how the book of Acts often makes reference to baptism being done "in the name of Jesus" or some equivalent, as a shorthand to distinguish it from other Jewish baptisms or the baptism of John the Baptist. However, such shorthand is not in opposition to the actual formula for baptism being "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt 28:19). So, too, "faith" being used as shorthand would not be in opposition to the necessity of baptism as well, which other passages of Scripture do emphasize, and which the inspired writers take for granted that their audiences understand to be the case.

Even apart from that, however, there is no reason to pit "faith" against "material means" (such as baptism). Recall the woman in the Gospels who had an issue of blood twelve years (cf. Mark 5:24-34). She was healed of her affliction, according to Jesus, because "thy faith hath made thee whole" (v. 34). And yet her faith was not "faith" in some vague sense, but rather faith that Christ would heal her through material means. "For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole." (v. 28)

Similarly, when Naaman was healed of his leprosy (cf. 2 Kings 5), he was healed through the waters of the Jordan River. Such washing was not a "work" done by Naaman to "earn" his healing, but rather the appointed means through which God chose to heal him. Naaman simply expressed his faith in God through the means God Himself established.

Such stories parallel the Catholic position on baptism. We express our faith in Christ's own promise that He will heal our fallen state through the material means He Himself established for the reception of His grace won by His sacrifice on the cross.

But how do we know He established baptism for this purpose? Easy: because that is what Scripture teaches.

If you were to ask many non-Catholics why Christians are baptized in the first place, many would say something along the lines of it being done as a testimony before others of the salvation we have already received, that it is only symbolic, or something similar. But the question arises: where does Scripture itself teach that position? That is something quite legitimate to ask. The answer, however, is that nowhere does Scripture teach that.

On the contrary, there are many verses that reflect the Catholic position instead. To give just a few examples, take the very first sermon recorded in the book of Acts, preached on the day of Pentecost itself. When the crowds asked what they must do to be saved, Peter answered "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38). Later on in Acts, Paul was told to "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16). So we see from these two passages that baptism is connected with the forgiveness of our sins, for one thing. Indeed, such "washing" of Baptism is alluded to in other passages of Scripture as well (cf. 1 Cor 6:11; Eph 5:26; Tit 3:5). Also, Acts 2:38 indicates we receive the Holy Ghost in baptism.

In Romans, Paul shows how it is through baptism we are united to Christ. (This shows that the "faith" which the Apostle so strongly emphasizes in the early chapters of that epistle is not in opposition to the necessity of sacraments like baptism as well.) He writes:

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. (Rom 6:3-8)

Concerning the intimate connection between faith and baptism, working together in uniting us to Christ, he also writes to the Galatians (3:26-27):

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Notice how Paul parallels faith with baptism in those two verses in "putting on Christ". He also makes the same point as he did in the above passages when he writes to the Colossians (2:11-13):

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.

We see, therefore that baptism and faith are two sides of the same coin.

That we are incorporated into the body of Christ by baptism as well as faith he declares to the Corinthians:

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:12-13)

The Apostle Peter quite bluntly states that baptism "saves" us:

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21)

In other words, though baptism saves us, as Peter quite explicitly writes, the efficacy of baptism is not due to us simply being washed in water, but rather because such physical baptism is a response of faith ("the answer of a good conscience toward God"), rooted in the resurrection of Jesus Christ for our justification (cf. Rom 4:25). Again, the intimate connection between faith and baptism is noted.

And then we see the teaching of our Lord Himself. In Mark 16:16, we read:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

In this passage Christ explicitly connects salvation with baptism.

Finally, in one of the most famous stories in the Bible, we read of the Pharisee Nicodemus visiting Jesus, in which Jesus tells him of the necessity of being "born again". Yet what does Jesus mean by being "born again"? Jesus explains in John 3:5:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (ESV)

"Water and the Spirit". Those two are mentioned together by Christ in connection with one single birth, that of being born again (in contrast to our natural birth) [2]. In other words, as all the early Christian writers held [3], we are born again in baptism. That is because (as we see from the rest of Scripture) we are given new life through the sacrament of baptism (since through baptism our "old man is crucified" as Paul states in the passage from Romans quoted above.) As other passages quoted above show as well, we are incorporated into Christ through baptism. And so, by being "in Christ" through baptism, what Paul wrote to the Corinthians applies: "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature" (2 Cor 5:17). Thus, we are truly "born again". Such belief in Christ, manifested through baptism, results in our having "everlasting life” (John 3:16).

The one passage that some may wonder about is the baptism of Cornelius and those with him, who first received the Holy Spirit before being baptized (cf. Acts 10:44-48). However, that is quite clearly an exception that proves the rule. For God made an exception to the general rule precisely in order to show Peter and the Jews that were with him that Gentiles could indeed be baptized and received into the Church (which was quite a shock for the Jewish Christians; cf. Acts 11:1-3; 17-18). Due to such exceptional circumstances, God worked in an exceptional manner. But one cannot use an exception to a general rule to argue against the rule itself. Moreover, notice that as soon as Cornelius and those with him did receive the Holy Spirit, immediately Peter commanded for them to be baptized.

Given the evidence from above, I think the Catholic position on baptism is in accordance with Scripture. I also like the observation of my friend Michael Conrad, which summarizes the scriptural teaching presented above:

By faith, through baptism we receive God's regenerating grace, and are born anew. It is at the moment of baptism when all these things are accomplished, not after reciting a sinner's prayer, which is not itself ever even mentioned in Scripture.

That is, in fact, an irony that is not often realized. Reciting a "sinner's prayer" (as many "Bible Christians" do) is never taught in Scripture (praiseworthy as it may nevertheless be in many respects- and I don't mean to criticize it, since there is much to be said for it, of course. From a scriptural perspective, it is more accurate to say it is incomplete rather than erroneous.) Instead, Scripture teaches the Catholic position that (normally speaking) faith in Christ is joined with baptism in order for us to be "born again".

Now, there are all kinds of nuances that must be made to the above paragraphs. Questions arise about those who have faith but never are water baptized for whatever reason (for instance, those who have "baptism of desire", whether explicit or implicit, or "baptism of blood", i.e., unbaptized martyrs). Also, there are questions about infant baptism, or any of a myriad of other questions. Obviously, those are separate questions that need to be dealt with, requiring nuanced responses, and which I am unable to get into in this piece, which is long enough as it is. In the above paragraphs, my main goal was simply to show what the normative relations between baptism and the grace won for us by Christ's shed blood on the cross are, not the exceptions or other details. (That there are exceptions, I fully realize, however; God is not bound by the sacraments He Himself established.) In that respect, I think it quite clear that baptism is not merely symbolic (though, as with any other sacrament, it is a symbol as well).  Rather, it is intimately connected with salvation, being a channel of applying to us the grace won for us by Christ on the cross.

In short, the Catholic teaching on baptism, far from being unbiblical, is rather in full accordance with what Scripture teaches on the subject, as well as corresponding to what historic Christianity has always taught and practiced.

Notes

____________

[1] See the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium, 7.

[2] That "water and the Spirit" refers to baptism is also made clear by the surrounding context. The prior mention of "water" and "Spirit"  only a couple chapters earlier in John's gospel (1:32-34) referred to Jesus's own baptism at which the Spirit descends on him (though of course Jesus underwent baptism, not of necessity, since he is the Son of God, but rather to "fulfill all righteousness", as we read in Matthew 3:15). In addition, immediately after John relates Jesus's discourse to Nicodemus, the evangelist notes Jesus's disciples baptizing (4:1-2).

[3] For some examples of the connection between baptism and being "born again" in the writings of the early Christian writers, see https://www.catholic.com/tract/born-again-in-baptism

In addition, even today it is not only Catholics who hold to this teaching. Most Christians do, including many Protestants. Even Martin Luther himself taught the necessity of baptism, and its saving power (for instance, in his Large Catechism). One may disagree with Luther, of course, but his example at the least proves that it would be rash to accuse those who believe in its necessity of, for instance, attempting to “earn” salvation. For certainly it is safe to say that Luther did not believe in that.