A Primer on Roman Catholicism; Baptism (pt. 2)

ligonier.org ^ | John Gerstner

[Gamecock]

If the lost person is persuaded that the Roman way is the Christian way, his first duty is to be baptized. The Calvinist, however, says that once the person understands that the Christian way is the true way which he ought to accept, he neverthelesss is incapable of accepting it. Rome differs drastically there. She maintains that the enlightened unconverted person can see the truth of the Roman way and can decide to be baptized. The Protestant says the person can see the truth of the Reformed way and the need of baptism; but he can also see that “seeing the way” does not qualify him for baptism. According to Rome, seeing the truth of the Roman way does qualify him for baptism. According to Reformed doctrine, seeing the truth of the Reformed doctrine, including the necessity of water baptism, does not of itself alone qualify that person to be baptized.

What is the essential difference here? You see the two traditions are viewing the sinner as lost, but one of them says he is able to save himself by submitting to baptism. The other says he is not able to save himself by submitting to baptism. Rome says to the person, “Be baptized and you will be born again into the kingdom of God.” The Calvinist says to the person, “Be baptized at this time and you will be bringing yourself under additional judgment of God by taking a sacrament you are not yet qualified to receive.” Rome thinks a person even in his unregenerate state is qualified to receive baptism. Reformed Protestantism says that, in his unregenerate state, he dare not take the sign of baptism.

Do we Reformed charge Rome with heresy at this point? We certainly say she is wrong. But do we charge her with deep heresy for urging the unregenerate to be baptized in the name of the Trinity? We certainly do, because we claim that baptism is a sign of sin having been washed away, and that this person has not had his sin washed away because he has not yet had saving faith. Rome replies to that by saying he has not had the forgiveness of his sins as yet—that is true— but if he will receive baptism he will be born again and thus receive the forgiveness of sins by faith.

So for Rome, the baptism of an adult is not the sign of his sins having been forgiven, but the way by which his sins are to be washed away. The Reformed faith is saying, in contrast, that baptism can be administered to an adult person only if that person has professed faith and received the forgiveness of sins. Rome is saying that baptism is not a sign of the forgiveness of sins but a means to it. We are saying it is not a means to it but is only a sign when other means to salvation have occurred.

Now what are these other means of salvation to which we refer that Rome denies at this stage? The other means of salvation, and indeed the only means of salvation which we Protestants find in Holy Scripture, is the converting or regenerating work of the Spirit of God. When God has regenerated a person, and thus brought that person by the new birth into adoption into the family of God, then and only then is he to receive the baptismal sign of such membership. It is appropriate then, and only then, to be baptized. Prior to that experience, it is hypocritical for him to claim the cleansing of sins symbolically when he does not claim them actually or experientially.

Rome thinks of the candidate for baptism as an unregenerate son of the devil at the moment he receives baptism. She does not always make this clear to those whom she baptizes. But doctrinally speaking, that candidate for baptism, even though he has had a long catechumenate, is still an unregenerate child of the devil. It is that servant of Satan who is being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at a Roman font. Such baptism does not signify that he is God’s child, but assumes, in fact, that he is a child of the devil, at that point in time.

However, Rome says, the moment the water is applied in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that person is transformed into a child of God. We admit that is theoretically possible. A person could be an unregenerate child of the devil and yet it could be God’s plan to persuade him to come to baptism and thus become (by the Holy Spirit’s regenerating work at the time of baptism) a child of God. There are Protestants who believe that as well as Roman Catholics. Why do the Reformed differ with it? We do differ with it drastically. The question right now is, what right do we have to differ with it? I will not now ask what right Rome has to teach and practice it. I rather ask the question, How can we Calvinists and Evangelicals be sure that the Roman way of bringing a person into the kingdom of God is erroneous?

There are several arguments we present to demonstrate the error of the Roman view of baptism. The first is this: If a person is a child of the devil, loves the darkness and hates the light, and hates the Christ who is the light of the world, he cannot gladly accept baptism. In truth, he wants nothing to do with the God he hates as a sinner against Him. He is a bondservant of sin. He will not go happily to something God is supposed to have established which is actually going to make him something he does not want to be.

Second, it misrepresents God’s attitude toward the sinner. According to the Scripture, as even Rome admits, men are fallen and under the wrath of God. If they are not delivered, they must go eternally to suffer the torments of the damned at the hand of God. So God wants nothing to do with this person except to give him the wages of his sin, which is eternal death. But in the Roman picture of things, he is coming voluntarily and even gladly anticipating the presence of the God he hates. Meanwhile, God, who hates him with a wrath which will destroy him forever, is presumably standing there ready to convert him against his spiritual desires. That is, the sinner wants nothing to do with God. And yet here he is virtually standing and saying, “Baptize me, God, make me the kind of person who loves and serves You.” That is simple hypocrisy on the part of an unregenerate sinner. Rome is playing the role of promoting hypocrisy by urging this person to come to baptism, and simultaneously suggesting that God is pleased with him even as he sinfully comes before he is regenerated.

Rome can’t have it both ways. She can’t say that men are fallen servants of the devil under the wrath of God who is going to punish them eternally, then at the same time say that God is well disposed to them and pleased to have them come as hypocritical sinners into His presence and receive His sacrament of baptism.

By contrast, in the Reformed view the person has been born again. He is a child of God. He is coming to Christ for the symbolic cleansing of his guilt. God has regenerated him and forgiven him and is now giving him the sign of the washing away of his sin. That is very appropriate and suitable and compatible with the doctrine of Holy Scripture and Protestantism (and even of Catholicism, if it were consistent with its view of unregenerate man).

A third indictment of Rome for this practice is that she has no ground for believing that every time baptism is administered to someone that person is born again. She does champion the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. She does teach that the sacraments “work” ex opere operato in their very administration.

The Bible does not teach any such doctrine. It nowhere says that everyone who is baptized is born again. It does teach that the born again should be baptized. It nowhere teaches that adults not born again should be baptized, or that, being baptized, they will be born again.

Rome tries to counter this with the contention that in Titus 3:5 baptism is represented as the washing of regeneration. “He saved us, not because of righteous things we have done, but because of His mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior.” That text refers to the washing of rebirth or the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit, to be sure. It does not say that the washing of baptism is the washing of rebirth. Rome reads that into it. The text simply says, “He [God] saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.” Now the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit is by no means the same thing as baptism with water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Rome will say, “Granted, it is not the same thing, but is the text not saying, when it refers to washing, that the Holy Spirit through baptism creates the new birth and renewal?” We say, “No, not at all.” It simply says that God saves us by the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. We admit that the word washing does sometimes suggest the rite of baptism. But it does not say it. Washing and baptism are not necessarily identical. It is true that baptism is a kind of washing. But every washing is not necessarily baptism. Every water baptism is not necessarily washing. The washing in Titus 3:5 is qualified by rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. Even Roman Catholics admit that baptism can occur without rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, and that rebirth and renewal can occur without baptism. That is the reason they say a person (be he a priest or some other person in an emergency) must have a sincere intention when he administers baptism. Presumably, if he does baptize in the triune name with a serious intention, then it “works.” God regenerates. Without a sincere intention, baptism presumably does not work.

What I am observing here is that Rome admits that the baptism could occur without a sincere intention and no change would happen. As soon as you add a human factor, such as intention, you are adding something to the Titus text. Titus simply says we are saved by washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. It says nothing about baptism. It says nothing about intention. It says nothing about the Trinitarian formula. It says nothing about water. It simply refers to the washing. It simply refers to rebirth and renewal.

Rome appeals to John 3:5: “No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” This, Rome falsely teaches, is baptismal regeneration, by means of which a person is translated out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear Son. But John 3:5 says this no more than does Titus 3:5. It simply says that one is born of water and the Spirit, obviously meaning born of water as well as the Spirit. John 3:3 had already said it was necessary to be born of the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God. One can be born of the Spirit. It is meaningless to say that washing with water creates a new spirit. Even those who teach the error of baptismal regeneration do not believe that. They deny any “magic” in the water. So new birth is a work of the Spirit, not of water. Why then is water mentioned in John 3:5? Obviously, baptism is associated with being born of the Spirit. It does not regenerate but is inseparable from it. How? One born of Christ professes Christ. His first confession is receiving the sign (baptism) of being a Christian. If he does not confess Christ he is not a Christian (Romans 10:9).

[SharpRightTurn]

“So for Rome, the baptism of an adult is not the sign of his sins having been forgiven, but the way by which his sins are to be washed away. The Reformed faith is saying, in contrast, that baptism can be administered to an adult person only if that person has professed faith and received the forgiveness of sins.”

Luke’s understanding of this seems to be closer to what the author says is the RC position: in Acts 22 Ananias told Paul of Tarsus, after Paul had had his encounter with the Lord on the road to Damascus, “Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name” (verse 16).

Why would this have been said if Paul’s sins had already been washed away at the point of faith?

[Pyro7480]

Besides, there’s nothing else in the NT that indicates the existence of the Roman Catholic church at the time it was written. It’s history doesn’t even begin until some 300 years after the death of Christ.

Just because the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" doesn't explicitly appear in the NT doesn't mean it didn't exist.

[metmom]

Starting at the beginning.....

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5

Salvation is through faith in Christ, not faith in baptism.

Works don't save one. Membership in a church doesn't save one. Only faith in Christ, the one who died in our place can do that. He extends forgiveness to those who come to Him, who are born again.

Jesus own words in John 3:14-18 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

[Pyro7480]

Luke’s understanding of this seems to be closer to what the author says is the RC position: in Acts 22 Ananias told Paul of Tarsus, after Paul had had his encounter with the Lord on the road to Damascus, “Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name” (verse 16).

Why would this have been said if Paul’s sins had already been washed away at the point of faith?

Good question!

[metmom]

There’s nothing in the NT at all that establishes the hierarchy of the RCC.

There’s no recognition of Peter as being any more special an apostle than any of the others, even though the opportunity for that occurs at the Council of Jerusalem.

Peter leaves no instructions about himself of filling his alleged position after his death in his epistles.

[metmom]

The thief on the cross had no opportunity to be baptized after his profession and yet Jesus said that he would be in with Christ in paradise.

[Pyro7480]

There’s no recognition of Peter as being any more special an apostle than any of the others, even though the opportunity for that occurs at the Council of Jerusalem.

The fact that St. Peter is mentioned more often in the Gospels than any other Apostle points to his special position.

Peter leaves no instructions about himself of filling his alleged position after his death in his epistles.

That wasn't the point of his epistles. The fact is that early Christian writers recognized Petrine primacy.

[Pyro7480]

That’s called baptism of desire.

[Salvation]

From a non-Catholic site?

[Ike]

Comparing “Calvinist” baptism to Roman Catholic baptism is an apples/oranges comparison to begin with. Catholics believe in the real presence of the Spirit in the elements (in this case, the water); Calvinists do not. The sacrament holds the mystery of the presence for Catholics, which one cannot understand completely; whereas, for the Calvinist, the act is symbolic and must therefore be understood.

[markomalley]

Baptism is a sacrament of God's grace, instituted by Jesus Christ. It is an integral part of the Christian's regeneration in Christ.

It is commanded that all those who believe and will be saved will be baptized.

For example:

• Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
  
  Note the use of the word, "AND"
  
  
• 1 Pet 3:21 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
  
  Note that Peter indicates that Baptism now saves you (in a similar manner as climbing in the Ark saved Noah, et al).
  
  
• Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
  
  Note Paul saying that we were buried with Christ in baptism. That is the initial "step" as it were. All the other areas where, in his epistles, he establishes an identification with Christ hang upon this one.
  
  
• Col 2:12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
  
  Again, your death with Christ in baptism is the precursor to being raised with him through faith.

Wish I had more time right now, but those are just a couple of the fundamental scriptures on the matter.

Let me quote Martin Luther:

IV.
HOLY BAPTISM
__________

The Sacrament of Holy Baptism:
The Simple Way a Father Should Present it to His Household
 

I.

Q. What is Baptism?

A. Baptism is not just plain water, but it is water contained within God's command and united with God's Word.

Q. Which Word of God is this?

A. The one which our Lord Christ spoke in the last chapter of Matthew:

Go into all the world, teaching all heathen nations, and baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

II.

Q. What does Baptism give? What good is it?

A. It gives the forgiveness of sins, redeems from death and the Devil, gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, just as God's words and promises declare.

Q. What are these words and promises of God?

A. Our Lord Christ spoke one of them in the last chapter of Mark:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be damned.

III.

Q. How can water do such great things?

A. Water doesn't make these things happen, of course. It is God's Word, which is with and in the water. Because, without God's Word, the water is plain water and not baptism. But with God's Word it is a Baptism, a grace-filled water of life, a bath of new birth in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul said to Titus in the third chapter:

Through this bath of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that we, justified by the same grace are made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.

IV.

Q. What is the meaning of such a water Baptism?

A. It means that the old Adam in us should be drowned by daily sorrow and repentance, and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, in turn, a new person daily come forth and rise from death again. He will live forever before God in righteousness and purity.

Q. Where is this written?

A. St. Paul says to the Romans in chapter six:

We are buried with Christ through Baptism into death, so that, in the same way Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, thus also must we walk in a new life.

I think my fellow Catholics would agree that he had a fairly orthodox view on Baptism.

[HarleyD]

Wow. It seems like such a simple view. A person either makes a decision to be baptized or God gives a person the desire to follow in obedience.

Catholics seem to make everything difficult.

[Gamecock]

Yup.

[HarleyD]

There isn't anything wrong with this person's analysis. You posted a bunch of gobblygook and make the insinuation that this author is spreading falsehood. Well, nothing you posted reflect anything different from what is posted in the article.

According to the article...

Rome thinks a person even in his unregenerate state is qualified to receive baptism. Reformed Protestantism says that, in his unregenerate state, he dare not take the sign of baptism.

According to your post if one spouse wants to be baptized in the Catholic Church, and another doesn't believe, that unbelieving person is covered as well.

Another case in point is this from your article...

Another necessary condition is repentance for past sins, and a fixed determination to avoid all sin in the future.

So we see that there are conditions one must meet in order to be baptized and then the people must "avoid" sin. What a hoot. Does this include pedeophile priests? The Reformer doesn't put on conditions but baptism springs from a regenerated heart. And, it shouldn't come as any surprise, we believe that you still can fall into deep sin after you become a Christian (but not to the point of losing your salvation).

You're articles don't really shed any new light as all these issues are addressed above. They are a little unseemly in your inference the author is wrong. Where precisely would you disagree with him?

[small voice in the wilderness]

I’m curious. Just what IYHO was Paul saying regarding water baptism in 1Cor.1:14,16,17?

[HarleyD]

I’m curious. Just what IYHO was Paul saying regarding water baptism in 1Cor.1:14,16,17?

This particular verse?

1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Paul's mission was not to baptize but to open people's eyes to the gospel:

Act 26:16-18 But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles--to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

This is not to say that Paul did not baptize in which he mentions that he did baptize at least some people. But Paul's mission was to open the eyes of the people. Once people's eyes are opened, they want to be baptized.

Baptism is an outward act showing an inward change.

[small voice in the wilderness]

So water baptism was necessary for remission of sins according to Acts 2:38 (Peter). And NOT necessary according to 1Col.1:17.(Paul)

Were they preaching the same gospel?

[HarleyD]

Water baptism does not save you if you wish to rely upon that as a mode of salvation. It is the act of repenting and confessing your sins before and accepting Christ to cover those sins that saves you. And this can only be done if God grants your eyes to be opened and your ears to unstopped to see and hear the gospel. IF God has done that for you, then the evidence of that changed heart is to be baptized.

There is no difference between Acts 2:38 and what Paul talks about in 1 Cor 1:17 that I can see.

[small voice in the wilderness]

I don’t know, they seem very different to me. Peter definitely said repentance and baptism were necessary. He was following Christ’s great commisssion.(Matthew 28:19,10; Mark 16:15-18; Luke 24:44-48; and John 20:10-23). And yet Paul thanks God that he baptized none of the Corinthians, except Crispus and Gaius. Paul was either NOT following the great commission given by Christ or he had another program given to him by Christ.

[delacoert]

All that is fine and it is hopefully noted and understood that:

1242 In the liturgy of the Eastern Churches, the post-baptismal anointing is the sacrament of Chrismation (Confirmation). In the Roman liturgy the post- baptismal anointing announces a second anointing with sacred chrism to be conferred later by the bishop Confirmation, which will as it were "confirm" and complete the baptismal anointing.