Classic Compass archive image

Is Catholic Biblical? Does Baptism Save us?

In my “Journey” series, I mentioned wrestling with the question: Do catholic and biblical go together? One of the key aspects of this exploration was understanding the significance of baptism.

What Do You Mean by Catholic?

When I use the word ‘catholic’, I mean the ancient and continuing, shared and historic practices and theology of churches that claim to be catholic. I don’t mean particular Roman Catholic practices or theologies. Many people are used to catholic being the same as Roman, but as Anglicans, we use it to mean historic, universal, and apostolic. I’ll use it here in that sense. I’m not defending everything the Roman Catholic church believes here, only the ancient, catholic basic beliefs of Christians. Let me start with baptism because that’s such a key issue.

Sponsored

Baptism Explained

The catholic or universal faith sees baptism as the means God uses to wash away sin. To bring about new birth, regeneration, and to seal a person with the Holy Spirit. To bring a person into the body of Christ in the new covenant and to bring about the death, burial, and new life of the person in Christ. Many people immediately see all of that as unbiblical. Yet, almost all of these phrases are taken directly from the New Testament.

Apostolic Teaching on Baptism

First, Saint Peter

For example, Saint Peter wrote,

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 good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 3:21

Many pastors today would not stand up during a baptism and say, “Baptism now saves you,” which is exactly what Saint Peter wrote. Does he mean that baptism without faith (merely pouring water on the head) saves us? No. But in some sense, he believed that God uses baptism to save people.

Peter also preached that one purpose of baptism is for the forgiveness of our sins and filling with the Holy Spirit.

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 2:38

Next, Saint Paul

Again, there are many disquieted churches if the pastor quoted those words, “be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” and you will “receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” For some reason, people have decided that baptism can’t be the way God has chosen to apply the forgiveness of our sins and to give us the gift of the Holy Spirit. Why not? Peter the apostle believed that.

This happened because many churches started teaching, a few hundred years ago, that baptism is something we do. If that’s the case, then we’d be saving ourselves and forgiving our sins by receiving baptism. We would be, in a sense, forcing God to send us the Holy Spirit. Baptism would be a choice I make, a good work I do. If that were true, then Peter’s sermon on baptism would be odd. The only way to read Peter’s views is to understand that he thinks baptism is something God does.

St. Paul said that, too. It’s not something we do, for it is something God does. The sacrament for the apostle Paul is the divine gateway where God makes us members of the body of Christ, gifting us the Holy Spirit.

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:13

Baptism is the great Christian equalizer; we all enter the body of Christ in repentance. We died to our old selves. Believers don’t bring our social status, our wealth, our privileges, or their sins. We forsake these; baptism is the place where God stripm that away. It humbles us then lifts us up to a new life. For Paul, if you have been baptized, God has done this, and you are called to live into it.

He also believed that it was in baptism itself that we are crucified with Christ:

We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Romans 6:4

Baptism is not merely symbolic for Paul. The phrase “by baptism” means “through means of baptism.” It’s an ‘instrumental’ word. Baptism is the instrument whereby God does those things. Scholars agree that Paul meant it that way. God uses baptism to bury us into Christ’s death and to then raise us to new life in Christ. Paul didn’t write, “God raises you to new life, and then has you undergo baptism to symbolize what he’s already done in reality.” He says that God uses baptism to accomplish raising us to new life.

Baptism: A Sign of the Covenant

Paul teaches that baptism is the sign of the new covenant, just as circumcision is the sign of the old covenant. In the old covenant, God looked at the heart of the people. He wanted them to love him and to have a covenant relationship with him. He gave them an outward sign of that covenant. This sign sealed and delivered the blessings of the covenant. In other words, God used this sign to deliver his covenant blessings to the people. Paul says that baptism is our new circumcision. Here is what he wrote to the Colossians:

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Colossians 2:12-13

What About “Born Again” & Baptism?

Peter and Paul each believed that baptism and being born again are the same thing. We base this on what the Lord Jesus said to Nicodemus,

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

John 3:3-5

Born of water in baptism, and born of the Spirit.

Of course, we need to be converted in heart and mind to Jesus. Conversion is a process or sudden event that wakes us up to God in Christ. Being “born again” in the biblical sense is baptism itself. In other words, according to the New Testament, if you are born again in your baptism, you should also seek to be converted to Jesus. These aren’t opposites, they go together. Today, numerous people confuse born again and converted.

Some folks are afraid of what Jesus, Paul, and Peter taught about baptism. They are afraid that if they say that same biblical stuff to their church, then people will get some wrong idea.

People will think that baptism is good work I do to demand or earn salvation from God. People will think that the water is magic water that, if poured on my head, will get me into heaven apart from faith. Or that if I can get my child baptized, then I don’t have to raise him in the faith because he is already saved, or that I can get my sins forgiven in baptism and then sin flagrantly for the rest of my life.

These are real dangers that are possible if you teach what the New Testament teaches about baptism. The solution is not to ignore Jesus, Peter, or Paul’s actual teaching. The solution, rather, is to help people see that Jesus, Peter, and Paul didn’t teach any of those legalistic or superstitious beliefs. They told us that God uses baptism to wash away our sins, to bring us to new life, and to seal his covenant. He gives us the gift of faith; he is the one who brings us to the baptismal font, not us. That the Almighty’s work, his promise, his love, and his seal.

Christian Grace for Those Who Disagree

I know many folks disagree with this interpretation. How hard it is to get around the fact that most of the Christian church interpreted the New Testament this way for about 1600 years. Even today, about two-thirds of the world’s Christians see baptism this way, including many reformational churches. In both historic and modern Christianity, a believer’s baptism is a minority interpretation. In other words, a believer’s baptism is not “a plain reading of Scripture.”

I hope this is received in the spirit in which it is written. Nobody is altogether right about anything. What I’m trying to share is how I wrestled with the New Testament, the catholic faith, and my heritage as a baptistic Christian.

I’m thankful for my heritage, and I respect my Baptistic friends. However, I hope that in sharing my thoughts, at the very least, our readers will understand that catholic Anglicans are not ignoring scripture but are trying to be faithful to it. We may disagree on some of the points, though we share that loyalty to Jesus and the apostles.

Published on

March 28, 2014

Author

The Anglican Pastor

A classic resource from the founding team of Anglican Compass.

View more from The Anglican Pastor

Comments

Please comment with both clarity and charity!

Subscribe to Comments
Notify of
10 Comments

Great post

Thank you. That was very helpful to me
Laure Friesen

Fr. Goebel: Thanks for this post. I was just discussing this with some evangelical brethren (and “sistrern”), You have clarified several points in our discussion. Appreciate your views..r

Glad to hear it! Thanks for the comment

Greg, my wife is a committed Baptist, with a capital “B.” I, on the other hand, am leaning Anglican. I was baptized at age 9 at an Episcopal church back in the early 1970’s, but just “went along with it” rather than participating as a true believer. I ignored the faith for 40 plus years but am now seeking it. Our local Baptist church calls me to disregard my baptism at age 9 and to be re-baptised. Both sides have compelling arguments, for and against re-baptism. Your thoughts?

Hello George. Glad to hear you are seeking faith!! I will be praying for you. We believe that there is only need for one baptism. This is based both on the covenantal theology of St. Paul, and also Hebrews seems to indicate that we need not be “re-baptized.” It is also the longstanding Tradition of the Church in history to baptize only once. However, a public profession of faith and a renewal of your baptism would be wonderful. Perhaps the Baptist church would accept your profession of faith along with a prayer of renewal?

Hey, I was considering converting to the Anglican church (I am currently Baptist), and I am having difficulty understanding Baptism. So basically, Anglicans teach that if one accepts Jesus into their heart, and they do not get baptized for whatever reason, than they will go to hell? Ive always been taught that Peter and Jesus were referring to baptism of the Holy Spirit, a symbol of God washing away our sins, not literal water baptism. And another thing, do Anglicans perform baptism by immersion when baptizing adults, since this is what Jesus did? Thanks.

Old comment, but I second this question! What are the fate of the unbaptized? Reformed Anglicans claim to believe in justification by faith alone, which, when interpreted in light of their beliefs about baptismal regeneration, seems to imply that they think someone can be in a state of justification before God without being regenerated! Will God overlook a true believer’s failure to be baptized in the event that they die before being baptized?

I can get behind baptism being an entrance into the Church proper, along with it being a means of grace and maybe even some sort of “cleaning of the slate” when it comes to sin, but I just can’t reconcile baptismal regeneration with Sola Fide no matter how hard I try.

Hi Kade and Alexander,

These are good questions. Thank you for asking.

There are differences of opinion on how exactly baptismal regeneration plays out, and definitions and distinctions have to be teased out as well. What does one mean by regeneration? What is the distinction between regeneration and conversion? Etc. It’s too much to get into with a blog comment, but I’ll try to help a little bit.

The ACNA’s catechism, To Be a Christian, says this regarding Sacraments in general:

A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. God gives us the sign as a means by which we receive that grace and as a tangible assurance that we do in fact receive it.

And regarding baptism in particular:

The inward and spiritual grace is death to sin and new birth to righteousness, through union with Christ in his death and resurrection. I am born a sinner by nature, separated from God. But in Baptism, through faith in Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit, I am made a member of Christ’s Body and adopted as God’s child and heir.

and…

Two things are required [when I come to be baptized]: repentance, in which I turn away from sin; and faith, in which I turn to Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord and trust the promises that God makes to me in this sacrament.

So we believe that the grace of new birth (regeneration) is generally given at the time of baptism, as long as it is received by faith. This is consistent with passages like John 3:5, Colossians 2:11-12, Romans 6:1-5, Titus 3:4-7, and so on. There is nothing in this passages to indicate that it is merely a “spiritual baptism.” The early Christians would not have distinguished between the physical and spiritual like that. To say it was merely spiritual and not physical would have sounded like Gnosticism to them.

Does this mean that regeneration is necessarily tied to the moment of baptism? Not necessarily. The Church has historically taught of a “baptism of desire” for those who have faith but for whatever reason cannot be baptized. The thief on the cross would be the classic example of this.

As for infants, that is a great question that Anglicans have debated for centuries. Those more on the Reformed side of our tradition hold to “presumptive regeneration”, which means that we presume the infant is elect and regenerated at their baptism until we have reason to think otherwise. This was the position of the Synod of the Dordt:

”…godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.” (Article 17 of the Canons)

Those on the more Lutheran end of the Anglican spectrum would say that the grace is indeed given at baptism to all infants who receive it, but they can depart from it later as they grow older.

As for infants who die before baptism, there have been various positions on that throughout Church history, but most would say that we trust in the righteous judgment of God and leave it to him.

And as for the mode of baptism, Anglicans are generally open with that. Immersion, pouring, sprinkling are all valid modes. This has been the historic position in Anglicanism particularly and through much of the Church’s history.

Again, I know this isn’t exhaustive, but I hope it helps some.

For more reading, John Stott’s little treatise on baptism is free online and can be helpful (though not all Anglicans would agree with some of the particulars, as he takes more of the “presumptive regeneration” approach): https://www.cruatunc.com/hp_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/stott-baptism.pdf

Blessings to you!

Adam

I struggle back and forth with the whole “outward sign of an inward work”. My faith of origin, church of Christ, has a similar view of the purpose of baptism. Thank you for this.