The fragmentation in Protestantism
is the fruit of the disastrous idea that the Bible alone can be
the sole source of authority – that is, anybody can say what he
thinks the Bible means and be right! The mainline and
liberal Protestant denominations are literally on the edge of
extinction, and even the more fundamental Evangelical churches
have sharp disagreements amongst themselves. Still, there
exist a number of doctrines that Evangelicals do agree on, and
there will always be widespread agreement on what all Protestants
reject, namely, exclusively Catholic doctrines. Their
reason for the universal rejection of Catholic doctrines is that
they believe these doctrines to be unbiblical.
Notwithstanding the rather problematic idea that Scripture alone
is the sole source of authority, it is perhaps time to examine
some Catholic doctrines in light of the Bible and find out for
ourselves which side is biblical and which side is not. It
would seem most fitting to start our examination 'in the
beginning', that is, with original sin and baptism. At
the conclusion of this paper, I will describe a visual
demonstration that will help explain the Catholic beliefs on
these subjects.
Before the Fall
"Then God said, 'Let Us
make man in Our image, according to Our
likeness…'" (Genesis 1:26). As a perfect
being, God created Adam as a perfect man. He could not
create an imperfect human being since, in doing so, He
would contradict His own perfect nature. In creating Adam,
God Himself dwelt in Adam's soul and shared His own divine
life with him. When his natural life ended, Adam would
neither experience death nor would his soul be separated from his
body. Rather, Adam would be assumed into heaven to share in
the ecstasy of God's presence forever. His
relationship with God would be changed from an invisible one to a
visible one. In the meantime, while he was on earth, Adam
enjoyed a perpetual, interior, and efficacious communication of
God's divine spirit. Our first parents,
therefore, were endowed with spiritual life, or sanctifying grace
as it is called in Catholic theology. This imparted
sanctifying grace purifies those who possess the gift by giving
them a participation in this supernatural, divine life.
As created beings, however, humans
have no right to the supernatural life which God, out of his
infinite Goodness and Love and without necessity, has imparted to
us. In fact, despite God's benevolence, this infused
sanctifying grace was not unconditionally guaranteed since Adam
was also endowed with the free will to accept or reject God and
His command. For Adam to make sanctifying grace secure for
himself and his posterity, only one thing was necessary: he must
not eat the fruit of 'the tree of knowledge'.
This command was given to Adam so that he might prove that he
really preferred God to himself. In this way, though he
could never initially claim the right to sanctifying grace,
Adam's obedience was apparently required by God in order to
demonstrate his being worthy of such a gift.
The doctrine on sanctifying grace
and original sin is based primarily on the writings of St.
Paul. The Apostle taught that Christ through his
obedience restored what the first Adam had lost through
disobedience, i.e. the original state of holiness and
justice. Naturally, in order for Adam to lose this justice,
he must have previously possessed it. St. Paul touches on
this subject throughout his letters (Cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3, 1
Timothy 2:14; see also John 8:44), however it is in Romans that
the Apostle most forcefully develops this teaching, especially in
Romans 5:18-19 where St. Paul teaches: "So then as
through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men,
even so through one act of righteousness there resulted
justification of life to all men. For as through the one
man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so
through the obedience of the One the many will be made
righteous." Before Adam and Eve's original
sin, in addition to sanctifying grace, our first parents were
endowed with, preternatural gifts, which are outside or beyond
the usual course of human nature. The spiritual dimension
of these gifts included wisdom – a flawless natural knowledge of
God; complete strength of will; and perfect control of passions
and senses (Cf. Genesis 1:28, 2:15, 2:20, 2:23). The
physical dimension included freedom from suffering and freedom
from death (Cf. Genesis 2:15-17, 3:16-19; Romans 5:12-21).
After the fall, however, these preternatural gifts were lost
forever, never again to be recovered.
Original Sin
When Adam disobeyed God (Cf.
Genesis 3:6), he did so with full knowledge of the severity of
the sin and with complete freedom to disobey Him. The sin
was an enormous transgression since Adam did not have any
pre-existing disposition toward sin. As a consequence of
this 'unspeakable sin', our first parents and their
posterity lost both the preternatural and supernatural gifts, and
were only left with what was inherent to human nature; that is,
what an unregenerate person has today. As a result of this
original sin , God imposed death as a punishment - bodily death
and separation from His divine life (Cf. Genesis 2:17,
3:19; Romans 5:12). "In that sin, man preferred
himself to God and by that very act scorned him…The harmony
in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice,
is now destroyed: the control of the soul's spiritual
faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman
becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by
lust and domination [Cf. Genesis 3:7-16]. Harmony with
creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and
hostile to man [Cf. Genesis 3: 17,19]. Because of man,
creation is now subject 'to its bondage to decay' [Cf.
Romans 8:21]. Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold
for this disobedience will come true: man will 'return
to the ground' [Cf. Romans 5:12] for out of it he was
taken. Death makes it entrance into human history. [Cf.
Genesis 4:3-15, 6:5, 6:12; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 1-6;
Revelation 2-3]" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, pt.
398-400).
The fifth chapter of the Book of
Romans is critical in understanding the Catholic view on original
sin. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered
into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all
men, because all sinned - for until the Law sin was in the world;
but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless
death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not
sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam who is a type of
Him who was to come" (Romans 5:12-14). St. Paul
begins with the general principal that death is caused by
personal sin: "therefore, just as through one man sin
entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death
spread to all men, because all sinned - for until the Law sin was
in the world. St. Paul uses the personal sin of Adam to
explain the origins of death, and so death spread to everyone
because everyone has sinned since the fall of Adam. If St.
Paul had ended his discourse at this point, the reader would
probably conclude that death is a result of individual, personal
sin since 'death spread because all sinned'.
Hence, if it were possible, a person who never sinned would never
die. However, St. Paul does not end his discourse and
instead focuses his teaching on Adam's sin. After
stating the general rule that personal sin causes death, he
qualifies this teaching by restricting the punishment due to
personal sin only to those who are given the law: "but sin
is not imputed when there is no law." He therefore
links the punishment of personal sin to the law - if there is no
law, then there is no culpability for not obeying it.
The next logical objection by the
Jews is then posed: if a person cannot be blamed when he
does not know the rules, why did death still reign between Adam
and Moses when the Law had not yet been given? The Jews
perceive a contradiction in the Apostle's teaching when he
says that sin is not imputed but still admits that death, which
is a punishment, is charged against the human race. St.
Paul's answers their objection by giving the true cause of
humanity's death, which is not personal sin per se, but
rather Adam's sin, the original sin: "Nevertheless
death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not
sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam." Although
personal sin is not imputed, death still reigns from Adam to
Moses because of original sin. St. Paul uses the word
'nevertheless' very effectively. He tries to draw
out a contrast between the non-imputed consequences of personal
sin before the law and the 'death-punishment' which
NEVERTHELESS still exists due to Adam's sin. In St.
Paul's teaching, there exists an implicit recognition of the
degrees of sin since he says, "even over those who had not
sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam." In
other words, death still reigned even over those who had
committed more minor sins (who would otherwise not be
condemned). His discourse is therefore a fluid and tight
argument, completely consistent with his opening remark regarding
Adam's sin and death spreading to all men because of this
first sin.
In the Fall of Adam and Eve, the
punishment due to the original sin is manifested in two
ways. One consequence of the punishment is separation of
body and soul, as manifested by physical death, while the other
is the separation from the presence of God's life. In
Genesis, both of these punishments are shown (Genesis 3:19 and
3:22-24). The restoration of this fallen state finds its
answer in the 'second Adam', Jesus Christ, who comes to
restore what the first Adam had lost. These are two of the
central tenets of the Christian Creed: resurrection of the
body and eternal life in its transformed state. Jesus said:
"I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me
shall live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes
in Me shall never die" (John 11:25).
The Catholic doctrine on original
sin understands that original sin is the formal cause of human
death and the initial cause of separation from God's
presence. Evangelical Protestantism, on the other hand,
recognizes that original sin causes death, but necessarily
rejects that original sin separates humanity from God.
According to Evangelical Protestantism, it is personal sin and
not original sin which cuts off humanity from God's
presence. In the Catholic view, original sin must then be
conceived as a 'state' since a person cannot change the
condition in which he was born. The Catholic and biblical
remedy is to transform this state through baptism. If the
Evangelical were to accept the Catholic conception of original
sin and its punishment - which is the separation from God - then
the whole notion of 'accepting Jesus Christ as personal Lord
and Saviour' as a means of justification would be completely
eroded. Since Adam's sin would mean that all people,
not just those who have the use of their reason, would be
deprived of heaven, then there would be no way of
'saving' babies or those who do not have adequate use
of their mental capabilities. The only way of doing so is
the way that Jesus taught, through 'water and the
spirit' - baptism.
In light of the above analysis,
the different avenues of justification between Catholic and
Evangelical Protestantism therefore rests on whether separation
from God is the result of original sin or personal sin, and
consequently, the answer to this question will provide the
conclusive proof for the correct view of justification. The
remaining verses of the chapter not only serve as the backdrop to
St. Paul's remedy to original sin in the next chapter,
namely baptism, but also point strongly to the Catholic views of
original sin and justification as demonstrated below:
Problem: Because of original sin,
many have died.
Solution: The gift of grace of Jesus Christ to many (v.15).
Problem: Judgement arose from the
one transgression
Solution: The gift arose from the many transgressions; resulting
in condemnation resulting in justification (v.16).
Problem: Death reigned through
Adam.
Solution: The gift of Christ's righteousness reigns in life
(v.17).
Problem: Original sin resulted in
condemnation.
Solution: Christ's righteousness results in justification
(v.18).
Problem: Adam's disobedience
made people sinners.
Solution: Christ's obedience made people righteous (v.19).
As the above comparison shows, the
solution to the problem of original sin is always Jesus Christ -
His grace, His righteousness, and His obedience. There is
no contention between Catholics and Protestants on this
point. The key point in understanding St. Paul's
discourse, however, is not so much what is present, but what is
missing, namely, personal sin. Each 'problem'
involves original sin as its principal subject. Now, if the
problem is restricted to original sin, and St. Paul's
solution to original sin is described as 'justification
through Christ' and 'life in Christ', then the
inevitable inference is that justification is necessary to
overcome the punishment of original sin. Since the
justification and the life that Christ offers is eternal life
with the Father, the original sin that is supposed to be
nullified and overcome by Christ's redemption must have as
its punishment that which was missing, and which Christ came to
restore, namely, union with the Father for eternity. Hence,
the Catholic view of original sin, whose punishment separates
humanity from God, is the only possible conclusion to St.
Paul's discourse in this chapter.
Original sin should not be
conceived as a 'stain on the soul,' but rather as the
lack of sanctifying grace: original sin is the lack, not
the presence, of something. The death of the soul is the absence
of sanctifying grace; it is a condition of being deprived of
grace. This view is confirmed in the Pauline contrast
between sin proceeding from Adam and justice proceeding from
Christ (Cf. Romans 5:19). As the justice bestowed by Christ
consists in sanctifying grace, so the sin inherited from Adam
consists in the lack of sanctifying grace. The person
stained by original sin is, therefore, under the power of the
devil (Cf. Romans 6:4-6, 1Corinthians 5:7-8, Ephesians 4:22,
Colosians 3:9, Hebrews 2:14). Modernists sometimes make the
charge that Adam's sin should not impact the rest of the
human race. In other words, Adam's choice should not
paint humanity with the same soiled brush. The problem with
this reasoning is that humanity has not lost anything to which it
was entitled. God is hardly to be blamed for the fact that
His creation abused its freedom. Imagine a Billionaire
knocking on a Poor man's door and offering him one million
dollars a year for the rest of his life. The only condition
that the Rich man puts on the free gift is that the Poor man
cannot buy a particular red car at a particular car
dealership. Now, when the Poor man goes out and buys that
particular red car and the Rich man takes back his gift, whose
fault is it? When the Poor man tells his children of his
foolish decision, will the children blame the Rich man? No,
they will lay the blame where it belongs - on their father.
The heritage that Adam would
transmit to his posterity would be determined by his response to
God's command because, at the time of the sin, Adam was the
human race. "The whole human race is in Adam 'as
one body of one man.' By this 'unity of the human
race' all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are
implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the
transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully
understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had
received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but
for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and
Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human
nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It
is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind,
that is, by the transmission of human nature deprived of original
holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is
called 'sin' only in an analogical sense: it is a
sin 'contracted' and not 'committed' - a
state and not an act" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, pt.
404). Adam's sin is transmitted to his posterity by
descent, not by imitation. Therefore, original sin is
transmitted by human reproduction or 'natural
generation'. At conception, human nature is
communicated in a condition of deprived grace, which links people
today with the head of the human race. This understanding
of the effects of original sin is best supported in a number of
scriptural references, with the classic proof text being Romans
5:12-21 as discussed earlier. Other biblical proofs include
Psalm 51:5, Sirach 25:33, and Wisdom 2:24.
Water in the Old Testament
"In the beginning God created
the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and
void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the
Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters"
(Genesis 1:1-2). Even in the first two verses of the Bible
itself, an allusion to God's relationship to the natural
world is revealed. The Spirit of God is described as
"moving over the surface of the water" which hints at
God's inclination to be close and not distant to the natural
world He created, even going so far as to use the natural world
to explicitly communicate with humans (Cf. Exodus 3:4).
With the Flood, of water is employed as a cleansing instrument -
to cleanse away the wickedness of men (Cf. Genesis 6:5), to usher
in an end of sin (Cf. Genesis 8:23), and to usher in a new
beginning. (Cf. Genesis 9:9). "The Church has
seen in Noah's ark a prefiguring of salvation by baptism,
for by it 'a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through
water [1 Peter 3:20].' 'The waters of the great
flood you made a sign of the waters of baptism, that make an end
of sin and a new beginning of goodness'"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, pt. 1219).
The idea of cleansing is again
reinforced with the chosen people crossing the Red Sea - an event
which affected their liberation from the slavery of Egypt and
gave them a taste of the salvation which was to come (Cf. Exodus
14:13). "If water springing up from the earth
symbolizes life, the water of the sea is a symbol of death and so
can represent the mystery of the cross. By this symbolism,
baptism signifies communion with Christ's death"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, pt. 1220). Hence, water
is the means by which the liberation and 'salvation'
are granted to Israel, as St. Paul reminds the Corinthians,
"For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our
fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the
sea" (1 Corinthians 10:2). The noteworthy point of St.
Paul's teaching is the phrase "in the cloud and in the
sea." The Catholic view of baptism sees God using
water to infuse His supernatural life into the soul. There
are therefore two objects necessary in this conception:
water and God's spirit (Cf. John 3:5). Now St. Paul
has clearly alluded to the water by his reference to the Red Sea,
but what about the spirit? Note the phrase St. Paul
uses: "in the cloud." This phrase is a very
singular one since it refers to God! "And the Lord was
going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the
way…" (Exodus 13:21; Cf. Exodus 16:10, Deuteronomy
31:15). The prefiguration of baptism is also seen in
the crossing of the Jordan river by which the People of God
received the promise God had made to Abraham's descendants
(Cf. Joshua 3:14-17). Whereas the water was used for deliverance
from the Egyptians in the Exodus, it is used here to witness to
the inheritance of the promised land. Similarly, baptism
frees us from the power of the devil and brings us into the
'promised land' - the mystical body of Christ.
In addition to these more
well-known passages, the Bible has formal prophesies concerning
baptism. Consider this passage from Ezekiel, which captures
the Catholic teaching on baptism perfectly: "For I
will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands,
and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle
clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you
from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover,
I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within
you…And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to
walk in My statutes and you will be careful to observe My
ordinances." (Ezekiel 36:24-27). The allusion to sin
being 'washed away' is also made by the prophet Isaiah
(Cf. Isaiah 1:16, 4:4). Furthermore, in Zechariah, the Lord
says, "In that day a fountain will be opened for the house
of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for
impurity" (Zechariah 13:1). The prophet is clearly
pointing to the baptismal promise, as does King David in the
Psalms: "Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and
cleanse me from my sin" (Psalms 51:2). And
finally, Isaiah links water and salvation, "Behold, God is
my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; For the Lord God is
my strength and song, and He has become my salvation.
Therefore you will joyously draw water from the springs of
salvation." (Isaiah 12:2-3).
Infusion vs. Imputation
Although Catholics affirm many of
the central Christian doctrines that Evangelicals affirm (i.e.
the divinity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, the
existence of hell, etc.), Catholics also affirm certain early
Christian doctrines that Evangelicals adamantly reject (i.e. the
perpetual virginity of Mary, the doctrine on the communion of
saints, existence of purgatory, etc.). The doctrine on
justification is one such example. For the Reformers in the
sixteenth century and Evangelical Protestantism in the twentieth
century, man's righteousness is not inherent or intrinsic to
his being since it was forever lost in the fall of Adam and
Eve. The justification offered by Christ, says the Reformed
tradition, is a legal declaration. It is an attribution or
'imputation' only. This righteousness does not
indwell in us; instead, it is a righteousness or justification
that exists outside or apart from us [institia extra nos].
The remarkable aspect of this 'justification by
imputation' doctrine is that it is not predicated on a
comprehensive biblical defence. In fact, this doctrine is
based on a relatively few number of biblical passages which have
been grossly misinterpreted. They are understood out of
context (Cf. Romans 3:10) and, as a consequence, contradict other
scripture (Cf. Matthew 25:46). The Reformed notion of
justification is, therefore, a legal declaration only since we
cannot actually be holy ourselves.
Both Catholic and Reformed believe
that a legal declaration by God is made. However, the
Catholic does not hold to the belief as a legal declaration
only. For the Catholic, the righteousness of Christ is not
only imputed to the believer but is infused as well. When
the faithful person co-operates with this infused righteousness,
he then possesses an inherent righteousness, which subsequently
becomes the grounds of justification. For Catholics, man's
righteousness becomes inherent rather than simply imputed or
'credited' to his account. The righteousness
which man receives from God is located within man, existing as
part of his being and intrinsic to his person.
While a comprehensive discussion
on this question is beyond the scope of this paper, it would be
useful to examine two difficulties with the Reformed view of
justification. The Reformed way of making sense of
Jesus' commandment to be 'perfect' (Cf. Matthew
5:48), St. Peter's exhortation to be 'holy'
(Cf. 1 Peter 1:15), or the plethora of other Scriptural
references commanding us to be holy, clean, and pure (Cf.
Leviticus 11:44, 2 Chronicles 23:6, Isaiah 6:3, Matthew 5:48,
Hebrews 12:14, 1 Peter 2:5, Revelation 21:27, Revelation 22:11),
is to conceive of these passages in the declaration sense.
Evangelical Protestants claim that people cannot be holy but can
claim Jesus' holiness and, in that sense, 'be'
holy. Yet, the Scriptures cited above, as well many others,
do not say that at all. Jesus was not saying 'I will
credit righteousness to your account'. He said,
"you are to be perfect…" (Matthew 5:48).
Likewise, St. Peter does not say, 'You can be holy by
imputation of Jesus' holiness'. He says, "Be
holy yourselves…" (1 Peter 1:15). The only
biblical way of initially making the person holy is the way that
Jesus established it - in being 'born of the water and the
Spirit' (Cf. John 3:5), and the way that the prophets had
foretold long before - through baptism: "Then I will
sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will
cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your
idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new
spirit within you…And I will put My Spirit within you and
cause you to walk in My statutes and you will be careful to
observe My ordinances." (Ezekiel 36:24-27). It is
inconceivable to understand these passages in the Reformed
tradition without entering into absurd speculation about what
'to be' really means. [Incidentally, this is the same
problem that Protestants run into when Jesus says 'This is
my body' at the last supper.]
Another point of contention arises
when the whole concept of declaration is considered. Is it
possible, for instance, for God to 'declare' something
and it not actually 'be'? This is a theological
impossibility. When a human being declares something, it is not
necessarily true or complete, but if God declares something, it
comes into being and it IS. To suggest that God can declare
something and it not 'be' would contradict God's
perfect nature. In Genesis, God said "Let there be
light" (Genesis 1:3), and there was light. The
Pharisees were called hypocrites by Our Lord because they were
hypocrites. Satan was called the 'Father of Lies'
because he is the 'Father of Lies' - not simply
'considered to be' the 'Father of
Lies'. Hence, when God cleans us and makes us
righteous, He really does make us righteous and holy. It is
not a mere legal declaration or 'accounting
entry'. In essence, therefore, Evangelicals believe in
a kind of 'legal fiction' which is captured by
Luther's rather absurd belief that we are 'at the same
time just and sinner', meaning, we are just by imputation
even while sin remains in us. The obvious difficulty with
this teaching is that, at any particular time, a person is either
righteous or he is not, just as he is either saved or
damned. He cannot be both at the same time.
Baptism in the New Testament
The Catholic Church teaches that,
at baptism, the soul is infused with the Holy Spirit and God
becomes present in the soul. The person becomes a child of
God and an heir of heaven. The baptized person is infused
with sanctifying grace and receives the theological virtues of
faith, hope, and charity, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
"Certain consequences of sin, however, remain in the
baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties
inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well
as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or
metaphorically, 'the tinder for sin'; since
concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with", it
cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by
the grace of Jesus Christ. Indeed, "an athlete is not
crowned unless he competes according to the rules [Cf. 2 Timothy
2:5]" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, pt. 1264).
The atonement which Jesus Christ
made on the cross for original and subsequent sin is, therefore,
applied to each person through baptism. Baptism has the
power to 'wash away sin' and 'regenerate the
soul.' Holy Scripture attests to this doctrine in both
the Old Testament, as cited above, and in the New
Testament. St. Paul teaches: "And now why do you
delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins,
calling on His name." (Acts 22:16). The Apostle again
restates the teaching: "Or do you not know that the
unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers…And such were some of you; but you were washed,
but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of
the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God" (1
Corinthians 6:11-15). In his letter to Titus, St.
Paul writes: "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which
we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the
washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He
poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that
being justified by His grace we might be heirs according to the
hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:5-7). It is difficult
for any Christian to escape the plain meaning behind these
undeniable words. So let us rather "draw near with a
sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts
sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed
with pure water." (Hebrews 10:22). Not only is the
clear allusion to baptism, but note that assurance of faith comes
from baptism, not an intellectual acceptance of Christ as the
Evangelical position holds.
The difficulty for the Protestant
is how to reconcile salvation's link to baptism. Not
only does the above passage from Paul's letter to Titus
provide this link, but other passages point conclusively to the
necessity for baptism. "And corresponding to that,
baptism now saves you - not the removal of dirt from the flesh,
but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the
resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21).
According to St. Peter, baptism is not significant because of the
water (i.e. removal of actual dirt), but because God infuses His
life into the person through baptism 'for a good
conscience.' Likewise, the Gospel of Mark
recounts: "And He said to them, 'Go into all the
world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has
believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has
disbelieved shall be condemned" (Mark 16:15-16).
Evangelicals try to escape the clear meaning of this passage by
claiming that the emphasis should be on the belief not on the
baptism. After all, it is the believer that shall be saved,
while Jesus says nothing about the one who believes but is
unbaptized. This interpretation of the passage, however,
defies logic. In other words, Evangelicals suggest that
since only those who disbelieve are condemned, those who believe
can be saved independent of baptism. The passage in
question, however, clearly teaches the necessity of baptism for
salvation. The true significance of the last part of the
passage, 'but he who disbelieved shall be condemned,'
is adequately explained when one considers that those who
'disbelieve' are logically not going to be baptized in
the first place, and consequently are not going to be saved!!!
Throughout the New Testament,
baptism is associated with faith (Cf. Acts. 8:13, 9:18); many
times its necessity is stated explicitly and at other times
implicitly. Notice, for instance, Philip's encounter
with the Ethiopian Eunuch: "And Philip opened his
mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to
him. And as they went along the road they came to some
water; and the eunuch said, 'Look! Water! What prevents me
from being baptized?'" (Acts 8:35-36) The
noteworthy point in this passage is the enthusiasm of the
Eunuch's plea for baptism. If baptism had been a mere
symbol, without any supernatural effects, or had not been
required for salvation, then why does the Eunuch express such
urgency for a simple ceremony? After Philip had related the
Gospel, the Eunuch's first comments were 'Get me
baptized!!!'. It appears, therefore, that
Philip's Gospel message probably highly stressed the
necessity for baptism. Why else would the Eunuch ask for
this sacrament immediately after St. Philip's preaching?
The command to baptize is
unmistakable as evidenced by a number of passages in the New
Testament. At Pentecost, Peter commands his listeners to
"repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you shall receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). There
are two significant points in this passage. Before St.
Peter gives this command, his listeners ask him what they should
do. The question is obviously understood as applying to
salvation, and therefore the Apostle's command that they go
and be baptized is directed to salvation as well. The
second point is even more forceful. Notice what the Apostle
says is required for the forgiveness of sins: repentance
and baptism. He does not say 'accept Jesus Christ as
your personal Lord and Saviour for the forgiveness of your
sins.' Moreover, the Evangelical notion that baptism
is a mere symbol of salvation is totally repudiated by the above
passage because the instrument of receiving the gift of the Holy
Spirit is not an intellectual acceptance of Christ. The
biblical way of receiving the Holy Spirit, as the above passage
clearly teaches, is through baptism.
The universal mandate to baptize
is an unquestionable fact in the Gospels, and Jesus puts heavy
emphasis on it ( Cf. John 4:1-2). One of the last things
Jesus taught in the Gospels was to "go therefore and make
disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Cf. Matthew
28:19). In this passage, Jesus is reminding the Apostles
how to 'make disciples'. Disciples are
'made' by baptizing and teaching them. If baptism
was not important or just a mere symbol, then why would it be the
last major doctrine repeated by Christ before His ascension, both
here in Matthew's gospel and in Mark 16:16?
"While Peter was still
speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who
were listening to the message. And all the circumcised
believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift
of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles.
For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting
God. Then Peter answered, 'Surely no one can refuse the
water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit
just as we did, can he?'" (Acts 10:47). The
Holy Spirit fell on the uncircumcised believers and they were
given the gift of tongues. This gift of the Holy Spirit was
given to show the circumcised believers that God shows no
impartiality between the Jew and Gentile (Cf. Romans 2:11, Acts
11). The fact that St. Peter asks the circumcised believers
not to refuse baptism to the Gentiles is, in itself, a
considerable proof for its importance, and certainly not
something to be taken casually.
St. Paul develops the doctrine of
baptism and its relationship to original sin. "How
shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not
know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have
been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried
with Him through baptism into death, in order that Christ was
raised from the dead through the glory of the Father so we too
might walk in the newness of life" (Romans 6:2-4). The
remission of all punishment of sin is indicated here: through
baptism the old man dies and is buried and a new man
arises. Moreover, the only 'sin' that
'Christians die to' is original sin, and this sin is
'wiped away' (Cf. Acts 22:16) through baptism.
The Apostle reinforces this point, teaching that Christians
"having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were
also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who
raised Him from the dead" (Colosians 2:12).
Christians are made temples of the
Holy Spirit (Cf. 1 Corinthians 6:19), and form the mystical body
of Christ through baptism "for by one Spirit we were
all baptized into one body" (1 Corinthians
12:13). This theme of 'being baptized into the
body' is one which is evident throughout St. Paul's
letters, and teaches that baptism is not merely a symbol but
rather is a real incorporation into the body of Christ (Cf.
Galatians 3:27, 1 Corinthians 12:27). "There is one
body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of
your calling; one Lord, one faith , one baptism, one God and
Father of all who is over all and thorough all and in all."
(Ephesians 4:4-6).
At baptism, the soul receives a
special mark or 'seal' which is a permanent and
distinctive quality that can never be removed. Mortal sin
results in the loss of the sanctifying grace received at baptism,
but the distinctive mark received at baptism is never lost.
The soul has been forever transformed, although not necessarily
saved. Two metaphors characterize the mission and function
of the Holy Spirit: He is the seal stamped on our souls at
baptism as the mark of ownership; He is the pledge (the word
denotes an actual portion of a whole) of the blessed life paid in
full in Heaven. "In Him, you also, after listening to the
message of truth, the gospel of your salvation - having also
believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise
who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the
redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His
glory." (Ephesians 1:13-14). Note the three distinct
acts which Paul mentions: first listening to the Gospel;
then believing it; and then being 'sealed'. To
'seal' means to have been baptized. The Holy
Spirit has marked us with the seal of the Lord "for the day
of redemption" (Ephesians 4:30).
Evangelicals sometimes interpret
the phrase 'to seal' to mean that our salvation is
irrevocable; that it cannot be broken under any
circumstances. 'To seal', however, really
means 'to attach or mark with a seal'. Baptism is
therefore God's outward sign for us that He has honoured His
promise to grant us eternal salvation by 'sealing us'
and giving us His Spirit (Cf. 2 Corinthians 1:22). God will
not break this seal; He will not dishonour His promise to offer
us eternal life through baptism, which wipes clean the punishment
of original sin. Therefore, the child of God receives his
inheritance at the very moment of his adoption, that is, at the
very moment of baptism. Nobody can take it away from him;
not even God, who has bound Himself by an irrevocable promise
never to take back what He has given. The heir himself can
renounce his rights, but no one but himself can deprive him of
this heritage. Hence, the pledge is a conditional one,
dependent on following Jesus and His commandments and remaining
faithful to Him.
The Evangelical Problem with
Baptism Explained and Answered
For the Evangelical, the
instrumental cause of justification, that is, the means by which
they are saved, is their faith alone. Before one can
really understand why Evangelicals reject water baptism as the
instrumental cause of justification, one must understand
their abhorrence of ceremonies and traditions. In support
of this view, they cite passages in which Jesus or the Apostles
condemn tradition, such as Matthew 15:3-9, Mark 7:6-13,
Colossians 2:22, and Titus 1:14. However, there are other
passages which support tradition (Cf. Matthew 23:2, 1 Corinthians
11:2, 23, 1 Corinthians 15:3, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 2
Thessalonians 2:15). This apparent contradiction can be
easily resolved when one recognizes that none of the passages
that the Evangelicals cite condemn human tradition at all.
Jesus does not blindly and universally condemn all tradition or
even human tradition at that. In actuality, He condemns
humans tradition when and only when it invalidates the Word of
God (Cf. Mark 7:13). In fact, the passages that
Evangelicals cite to rebuke tradition are easily dismissed once
the context of the teaching is properly understood.
Catholic Tradition, which is the Tradition of the Apostles, does
not invalidate the Word of God - it illuminates it and has
protected it against error from the very beginning of the Church.
Still, the fact that Evangelicals
have this view necessarily influences their prejudice against
baptism since it is, for them, merely a religious ceremony.
The water baptism which Fundamentalists undergo, therefore, is
simply a symbol - there are no supernatural effects. The
difficulty that Fundamentalists have with baptism is a matter of
a 'material allergy'; that is, they do not accept that
God can or would use material objects to communicate graces and
miracles to people. Yet, Scripture is quite explicit in
opposing this belief. In addition to the miracles brought
upon God's people through water (as discussed above), there
are other passages which show God's grace and miracles being
more clearly manifested in a very Catholic way. There are
two instances in the New Testament of people touching Jesus'
garments and being healed (Cf. Matthew 14:36, Mark 5:30).
The Protestant might then ignore the issue and claim that such
miracles only occurred because it was Jesus' garments, and
not a mere human's garments. Even if this argument
addressed the issue, which it does not, it falls quickly on
closer examination of the lives of Moses, the Prophet Elisha, and
the Apostle Paul. In the Old Testament, Moses' bronze
serpent was used to communicate God's power to Pharaoh (Cf.
Exodus 7:9, Numbers 21:8-9). A dead man was buried in the
sepulchre of the Prophet Elisha, and his life was restored at the
moment his body "touched the bones of Elisha" (2 Kings
13:21). And then there is St. Paul's very curious
handkerchief: "And God was performing extraordinary
miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons
were carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left
them and the evil spirits went out." (Acts 19:11-12).
Now if 'evil spirits' can leave the sick through a
handkerchief, why is it so difficult to believe that Satan's
claim on a person cannot be cancelled through water? And
let us not forget the man born blind. "And as He
passed by, He saw a man blind from birth…[Jesus] spat on the
ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his
eyes, and said to him, 'Go, wash in the pool of
Siloam.' And so he went away and washed, and came back
seeing" (John 9:1-7). Now, the question is: why did
not Jesus simply cure the man instead of going through all of
this rigamarol? Who knows? Maybe He was trying to
send a message to those who do not believe that God does indeed
use and communicate through the material world.
Are these examples surprising?
They should not be. Even in Genesis, we see the
unmistakable connection between humanity and the material
world. God creates Adam from the dust (Cf. Genesis 2:7),
and then when Adam sins, God returns him to the dust (Cf. Genesis
3:19). Now it follows that if we came from the dust, and we
have returned to it through that first sin, what is necessary to
revive the dead if not WATER!!! Water gives life. It is
therefore from this perspective of God's sovereignty in
determining how to save us, material or otherwise, that the
decisive discourse in John 3 about being 'born of the water
and the spirit' must be read.
"And I did not recognize Him,
but in order that He might be manifested to Israel, I came
baptizing in water. And John bore witness saying, 'I have
beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He
remained upon Him, and I did not recognize Him, but He who sent
me to baptize in water said to me, 'He upon whom you see the
Spirit descending and remaining Him, this is the one who baptizes
in the Holy Spirit'" (John 1:31-33). The first
thing to note is that the Messiah, Himself, is baptized even
before He begins His ministry (Cf. John 1:31-34, Matthew
3:16). St. John the Baptist admits that Jesus has no need
of baptism, but Jesus insists on it. The inevitable
question is why? Why would the Son of Man, who had no need
of repentance, allow Himself to be baptized? The only
possible explanation was that He wanted to show us the way to
salvation (Cf. Luke 1:77), and to show us what happens at
baptism: "the heavens open…and the Spirit of God
descends" (Matthew 3:16) on us. Jesus'
baptism (Cf. Luke 3:21-22) points clearly to the necessity of the
'holy sign' which He would institute later in His
ministry (Cf. John 3:5).
Being 'Born
Again'…the biblical way
"Now there was a man of the
Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; this man came to
Him by night, and said to Him, 'Rabbi, we know that You have
come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that
You do unless God is with him.' Jesus answered and
said to him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you unless one is born
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.' Nicomedus
said to Him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? He
cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and
be born, can he?' Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly,
say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is
flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do
not marvel that I said to you, "You must be born
again." The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the
sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is
going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.'
Nicomedus answered and said to Him, 'How can these things
be?' Jesus answered and said to him, 'Are you the
teacher of Israel, and do not understand these things?
Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak that which we know, and bear
witness of that which we have seen; and you not receive our
witness. If I told you earthly things and you not believe,
how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things? And no
one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven,
even the Son of Man'" (John 3:1-13).
When Jesus uses the words
'water' and the 'spirit', He means what the
rest of Holy Writ clearly points to: water baptism.
The Evangelical often interprets the phrase 'born of water
and the spirit' to mean two separate events - water
(physical birth) and spirit (spiritual birth). This
interpretation, however, is not the Lord's intent since the
birth that Jesus is speaking about is not two births but
one. He does not say that we must be born of 'water
and then the spirit.' Furthermore, all people
are already physically born so why didn't Jesus just say
'born of the Spirit' alone. Another point that
must be stressed is the choice of Jesus' words 'born
again'. One may ask: Why did Jesus use these
particular words? The answer lies in the loss of holiness
after the Fall. In our previous physical birth, we were
born into a state that Adam and Eve passed down. That is
why we must be 'born again.' 'Born
again' implies a complete transformation from the STATE that
we currently exist in. Therefore, to TRANSFORM the state,
we must return to a condition before our first birth when we were
clean. Hence, when Jesus speaks of 'being born
again,' or 'being born from above', He is
trying to take us back to the beginning of creation when we were
born in a state of original justice and holiness before the
original sin which prevented anyone from entering heaven.
THAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JESUS SAYING THAT NO ONE CAN ENTER
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN WITHOUT BEING BORN AGAIN.
In the Old Testament, the
prefigurement of the purifying waters of baptism is demonstrated
in the book of Numbers. "Again the Lord spoke to
Moses, saying, 'Take the Levites from among the sons of
Israel and cleanse them. And thus you shall do to them, for
their cleansing: sprinkle purifying water on them, and let
them use a razor over their whole body, and wash their clothes
and they shall be clean" (Numbers 8:5-7).
In the language of the Pentateuch,
only the priests were 'consecrated', that is, made
sacred or set aside for the Lord, in an elaborate ceremony
described in Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8. The Levites
were purified and cleansed to be made ritually clean for their
special work. Here, the water is used as a purifying agent
for the remission of sin. This is later reinforced (Cf.
Numbers 19:9-13). In the New Covenant, all the baptized are
incorporated into the 'royal priesthood' (Cf. 1 Peter
2:9). The use of water and its effects were therefore well
understood as a purifying instrument in Israel's
history. This is perhaps the reason Jesus expresses His
'astonishment' at Nicodemus' question, 'How
can these things be?' (Cf. John 3:9). Jesus is
expressing His 'surprise' at Nicodemus when He asks,
'You are a teacher of Israel and do not
understand?' Jesus was not chiding Nicodemus for not
understanding something novel - far from it. By asking the
question, Our Lord was pointing out what Nicodemus should have
known very well, namely, the instrumentality of water in
purifying. Our Lord also uses the simple example of wind to
remind us that there are things in this world which, even though
tangible to us and universally accepted, are still not understood
completely. The wind is a mystery, but it still
'is'. If then we accept the reality of the wind
which we cannot understand completely but we nonetheless
universally acknowledge, then why is it so difficult to accept
that of being born again through the 'water and
spirit'?
Our separated brethren sometimes
note that the baptism that Jesus is talking about in John 3:5 is
the 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' not the 'baptism
of water.' This view, however, does not recognize the
context of the Scriptures that precede it. First of all,
the Catholic doctrine on baptism asserts that the Holy Spirit
infuses His very life into the soul, and therefore it is a
'baptism in or with the Holy Spirit' (Cf. Mark 1:8,
Acts 1:5) but through water. It is, therefore, not a choice
between water and the Holy Spirit. This is confirmed when
it is remembered that St. John's baptism was merely a
baptism of water only, whereas Jesus came to baptize with the
Holy Spirit (Cf. John 1:33) but still with and through water (Cf.
John 3:5). There is no evidence that one can separate the Spirit
from water in baptism. There is only one baptism that Jesus
gives us, not two (Cf. Ephesians 4:4-6). There is no need
to separate water and the Spirit when the water and the blood,
which are symbols for baptism and the Eucharist, all witness with
the Spirit (Cf. 1 John 5:8). The Evangelical must force
this interpretation of two baptisms on to the passage in order to
deny the Catholic view of baptism, which if accepted, would
completely invalidate his view of justification. This
Eucharistic-Baptismal connection is again reinforced with the
crucifixion of Our Lord when "one of the soldiers pierced
His side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and
water" (John 19:34).
The theme of water baptism is
again alluded to in the second chapter of John, where Jesus used
the 'water of purification' to create wine (Cf. John
2:6). Again, God uses water to communicate His
miracles. Even after His discourse with Nicodemus in John
3:5, Jesus and the disciples engage in water baptism (Cf. John
3:22, 4:1-2). How then can the Protestant conclude that the
context of John 3:5 supports any type of baptism other than what
the passage clearly says, and which the passages before in
Chapters 1 and 2 and later in Chapters 3 and 4 clearly
demonstrate, namely, water baptism? And if water does not
purify, then why did John's disciples enter into a
discussion with a Jew about 'purification' (Cf. John
3:25) when the context clearly points to the purifying effects of
water?
According to the Catholic
teaching, then, while faith is a necessary act of disposition for
adults, it is not the instrumental cause of justification which
baptism is. The Catholic view of justification does not
depend on man's reliance on an experience, but rather simply
on God. Certainly, the person must live a life of faith
worthy of his inheritance, but the initial movement to justify is
from God and His grace alone, independent of man's
faith. Catholics understand this initial action by God to
come tangibly through baptism. Water baptism, therefore, is
necessary for salvation, but this must not be understood as an
exceptionless case. Water baptism is necessary only for
those who have had the opportunity to hear the Gospel and ask for
it. [Obviously, God is not going to hold someone
accountable for not being baptized if he has not had the
opportunity to hear the Gospel. After all, God is Justice
itself, and to make baptism an exceptionless instrument would not
harmonize with His divine justice.] Therefore, those
persons who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ
but nonetheless do God's will to the best of their ability,
have an unspoken desire for baptism. In case of emergency,
baptism by water can therefore be replaced by baptism 'by
desire.' This type of baptism can be either implicit
or explicit. An implicit desire for baptism occurs when a
person does not have the opportunity to hear the Gospel, but
nonetheless does God's will by following his
conscience. An explicit desire for baptism would occur when
a person has heard the Gospel and wants to fulfill Our
Lord's command to be baptized, but he is otherwise unable to
receive the sacrament (i.e. he is forcefully impeded from being
baptized). The other type of baptism, 'baptism by
blood', is effected when a person accepts martyrdom for
Christ, and does not have the opportunity for water baptism. (Cf.
Matthew 10:32, Luke 7:47, John 12:25, John 14:21). In these
extreme cases, it is the desire for baptism, either implicit or
explicit, which is necessary for justification, even though the
baptismal character is not imprinted in these baptisms.
Therefore, faith and baptism (by water in normal conditions, by
blood or desire in extreme conditions) are necessary for
salvation for those who have reached the age of reason.
There may appear to be a
difficulty with this teaching when one considers that babies
cannot have a desire for baptism (or faith for that matter), and
therefore, it would appear, at this point, that they would be
excluded from heaven. While it is an article of faith that
anyone who dies in the state of original sin is excluded from
heaven and the Beatific Vision of God, the Catholic Church has
never officially taught that the souls of infants who die without
baptism do not see God. Actually, there may be another way
for children to be infused with God's life without baptism
but He has not revealed it, so the Church cannot not teach
definitively what their status is. Catholic theologians, in
order to propose a possible solution (not an article of faith),
suggest that the souls of unbaptized infants enjoy a high degree
of natural happiness in a place they call 'limbo', but
not the supernatural happiness of seeing God. Of
course from a scriptural perspective, there is no difficulty with
a third place between heaven and hell. (Again this is a
point of contention between Catholics and Protestants.)
Holy Writ clearly reveals the existence of a third place in a
number of passages including, but not limited to, Matthew 27:52,
Luke 16:22, 1 Peter 3:18-20, 1 Peter 4:6.
Infant Baptism
The first thing that should be
pointed out is that child baptism is a tradition of the early
church with evidence going all the way back to the first century,
and there is certainly no quarrel about the practice in the early
church. The first explicit doctrinal pronouncement on the
question occurred at the Council of Carthage in 418 A.D., which
affirmed the long-time practice of the necessity of baptism for
the remission of the punishment due to original sin, which
necessarily includes not only adults but children as well.
Many Evangelicals argue that child
baptism is not necessary since only faith is necessary to
save. Yet, even their beliefs do not hold to this general
premise. For the Evangelical, there is no punishment due to
original sin, and therefore persons who have not yet attained the
age of reason are not precluded from heaven should they
die. It is personal sin only which cuts a person off from
heaven and since infants cannot sin they are thus believed to
enter heaven should they die. Yet, once the Protestant
admits to the exception of 'infant salvation without
faith', then the Fundamentalist cannot turn around and say
to the Catholic that 'baptism without faith' is not a
valid avenue for salvation. It would be a perfect example
of the proverbial pot calling the kettle black! And while the
Catholic has a solid biblical justification for 'baptism
justification' along with substantial evidence of this
practice in the early church, the Evangelical cannot claim the
same privilege for his view on baptism or original sin, which
holds that there is no punishment due to original sin.
It is this belief of original sin
which is the foundation on which the Evangelical doctrines of
'assured salvation' and 'justification by faith
alone' rests. The central defining axiom of the
Evangelical doctrine on justification is based on the belief that
original sin does not keep us from God. This doctrine,
however, is clearly unbiblical. It is undeniable that the
Bible is explicit in revealing our fallen nature and its mortal
consequences. St. Paul teaches that "For if by the
transgression of one, many died… So then as through one
transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so
through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of
life to all men" (Romans 5:15-18). The Apostle
is clearly teaching that original sin ('the one
transgression') resulted in condemnation to all men, not
only or simply personal, actual sin. In addition, there are
many other passages which support the mortal nature of that first
sin: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in
sin my mother conceived me" (Psalms 51:5). And
"from the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all
die" (Sirach 25:33). The Protestant position can
hardly escape these texts and, therefore, there is a serious
problem in suggesting that only personal sin separates us from
God and not original sin also.
The notion of infant initiation is
certainly not an innovation of the Catholic Church. For two
thousand years, God had established the covenant with Abraham and
his offspring which always had included infants. God made
it explicit that the covenant with Abraham would not just be with
him or his fellow adults. God's covenant promise
included infants: "This is My covenant, which you shall
keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you; every
male among you shall be circumcised. And you shall be
circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the
sign of the covenant between Me and you. And every male
among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout
your generations… " (Genesis 17:10-12).
God's covenant with Abraham
was not the first or the last instance of where He allows curse
or blessing to pass not only to one individual but to their
'households' as well. The curse of original sin
was not simply transmitted to Adam and Eve but to the whole human
race, which includes infants. Likewise, God saved not only
Noah but his family as well (Cf. Genesis 8:16), not all of whom
were necessarily faithful (Cf. Genesis 9:25). The
Lord spoke to Moses, commanding him to tell his people to
"take a lamb for themselves, according to their
fathers' households, a lamb for each household" (Exodus
12:3). The importance of this passage cannot be
overlooked. The lamb was not taken for each individual, but
rather for each household for the household's
salvation. Not only is this concept of 'household
salvation' reinforced in the Adamic, Abrahamic, and Mosaic
covenants, but it is further emphasized in the last of the Old
Testament covenants, the Davidic covenant (Cf. 2 Samuel
7:12-16). Therefore, the Old Testament covenant always
included infants, and covenant-initiation has been a family
affair from the very beginning.
The New Testament itself provides
compelling, if not conclusive. evidence for infant baptism in
light of the continuation of this household covenant. In
fact, the secular Greek word for 'household' is
rendered "oikos", which included children. The
baptisms of whole households provide this support, for it is
logical that at least one of these households included infants
[Stephanus' household (Cf. 1 Corinthians 1:16), Lydia's
household (Cf. Acts 16:15), the Jailer's household (Cf. Acts
16:33), and Crispus' household (Cf. Acts 18:8)].
In light of this evidence,
the opponent of infant baptism must then turn his gaze away from
the irrefutable and compelling argument offered by the Old
Testament, and charge that the New Testament changes all
that. Of course, the opponent will argue that we must
choose to be baptized, and since children cannot choose, they
should not be baptized. This argument falls quickly on two
fronts. First, at the very minimum, the mention of
baptizing whole households, as discussed above, should be enough
of a reason to at least consider infant baptism a
possibility. Second, both circumcision and baptism are
initiations into God's Covenant family. Are we to
conclude then that God would offer less graces in the New
Testament than in the Old Testament? Can it be successfully
argued that although God included infants in the Old Covenant, He
would exclude infants in the New Covenant? Does this make
sense, especially in light of the New Testament not prohibiting
such a practice?
In fact, the 'argument from
silence' which Protestants use to refute infant baptism
(i.e. the Bible does not teach that we should baptize babies) is
not conclusive proof against the practice. But EVEN THE
ASSERTION THAT INFANT BAPTISM IS NOT FOUND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
IS ITSELF FALSE. At Pentecost, when Peter first preached
the Gospel, he did not say that the 'promise was just for
adults'. On the contrary, after indicating the
necessity of baptism just one verse before, he makes the very
natural and consistent teaching that had always been part of the
Jewish covenant: "For the promise is for you and your
children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our
God shall call to Himself" (Acts 2:39). This is the
same promise that was given by God to Abraham, and then restated
by St. Paul in his letter to the Galatians: "And if
you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring,
heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:27). An heir,
after all, does not make the initial choice to be an heir.
He is born into it - just as a prince becomes the heir to the
throne at birth. True, the prince can renounce his
inheritance, but when he is 'born' he is born an heir
nonetheless whether he likes it or not. Likewise, baptism
does to the soul what birth does to the body: as a person did not
ask to be physically born, neither does the person necessarily
ask to be spiritually reborn. In His anxiety to dwell in
our soul, God presumes upon our acceptance, and claims us as his
divine children through adoption until we later forfeit that
inheritance through unrepented sin. We become children of
God automatically until we attain the age of reason when we
confirm our baptism for ourselves through faith.
Christ's love of children
certainly would not allow the Church to exclude children.
"Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives
Me…" (Mark 9:37, Cf. Matthew 18:5). Notice that
Jesus is not saying, 'Whoever receives one like a
child…' On the contrary, He wants children to be
'received' by the Church, and the way the Church
'receives' a child is through baptism - the sign of
initiation into Christ's Church. Many Evangelicals
abhor the notion that one can receive grace WITHOUT first asking
for it. This is one of their underlying difficulties with
infant baptism. The principle of receiving graces without
asking for it, however, is well established in the New
Testament. Consider Jesus laying his hands on the children
(Cf. Matthew 19:15). Is it to be understood that no graces
flowed from Jesus' hands to these children even though there
is no evidence of the children explicitly asking for Jesus'
blessings? And what about the centurion's slave in
Luke 7:2-8. When the centurion [Cornelius] asked Jesus to
cure his servant, did Jesus say: 'Sorry, Cornelius I
can't do that unless your servant explicitly ASKS for
healing?' Of course not. Jesus cured the
centurion's slave because of the faith of the
centurion. Likewise, the faith which infants lack is
supplanted by the faith of the Church, just as the
centurion's faith was sufficient for his servant's
healing. Another example of this
'faith-substitution' is found in Jesus' encounter
with the Canaanite woman whose daughter was possessed (Cf.
Matthew 15:21-28). And, is it even necessary to have faith
in order to have graces communicated to someone? No.
Consider the widow in Luke 7:12-15. Now, in the previous
examples, it was shown that the benefactors of Our Lord's
grace did not need faith, only the person interceding for the
sick person. In this instance, the benefactor of
Jesus' power is even dead! The notable point in this
passage is that the widow herself is not described as having
faith. The only reason Jesus raised the widow's son
from the dead was simply that He felt compassion for her.
Of course, the Evangelical would
retort that these examples only show physical healings not
spiritual ones. First of all, the general principle has
been established, namely that Jesus does not need our approval or
request to help us. But even this charge, that Jesus does
not communicate his spiritual grace unrequested, is
unbiblical. Consider the healing of the paralytic:
"And being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they
removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening,
they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying.
And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, 'My son,
your sins are forgiven…I say to you, rise, take up your
pallet and go home.' And he rose and immediately took up the
pallet and went out in the sight of all" (Mark
2:4-12). The singular thing to note here is that not only
does Jesus heal the paralytic man based on the crowd's faith
yet again, He also forgives the man's sins WITHOUT the man
EXPLICITY asking for his sins to be forgiven!!!
For the Evangelical, his
'born again' relationship with God is based on a
conversion 'experience', and because infants cannot
'experience', they cannot be born again so there is no
point to baptizing them. This doctrine, however, is not
biblical. God does not base salvation on man's
'experience', however 'real' that may appear
to the person undergoing such an experience. While it is
true that such a conversion experience is sometimes necessary for
salvation for persons who attain the age of reason, there is no
biblical evidence that it is sufficient. Notwithstanding
this, however, Evangelicals claim that infants cannot
'experience' salvation. This is a totally
speculative proposition on their part. In fact, it could
very well be that infants cannot remember the experience, but
that does not mean that it did not happen. There is even
biblical evidence to suggest that infants may
'experience' when it is recalled that John the Baptist
leapt in his mother's womb "for joy" (Cf. Luke
1:44).
A Picture is worth a Thousand
Words
Empty Cup:
Soul before baptism, lack of sanctifying grace
Water: Sanctifying
Grace
Act of pouring water into cup:
Infusion of sanctifying grace through the act of baptizing
Commission of Venial Sin: Water in
cup becomes dirty
Commission of Mortal Sin: Water is
poured out of cup
Act of True Repentance via
Sacrament of Reconciliation: Pure
Water is poured back into cup
Purgatory: Water is
poured through filter and cleansed
Purpose in life: Ensure you
have water in the cup: no water in cup; no salvation.
Some closing thoughts
Within Protestantism, the label
'Bible Christian' is a necessary one given the liberal
tendency in many of the mainline Protestant denominations to
regard the Bible as possibly uninspired or errant. This
label, however, is somewhat of a misnomer when a Catholic and an
Evangelical discuss the Christian faith because a Catholic must
believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. The
real issue is, therefore, whose understanding of the Bible is the
correct one, and who should we believe? The doctrines on
original sin and baptism are essential to any dialogue that occur
on any other doctrinal question between Evangelicals and
Catholics. In fact, there is really no point in discussing
other doctrines until these particular questions are settled
first. But there are even other questions that should be
addressed before even these questions. Questions
like: Who has the authority to interpret Holy
Scripture? Why do we consider the Bible to be inspired in
the first place? Is the Word of God restricted to paper
only? How can there be such a concept as religious truth
without an infallible person or group to teach the truth?
Indeed, these are the questions which should be addressed first
before engaging in a dialogue about the more common doctrinal
questions like baptism, the role of Mary, purgatory or other
points of disagreement.
