Catholic Apologetics Guidebook

Dialogue on the Meaning of John 3:3 – Page 3

Here is the beginning of my response on John 3:3.  There should be a second part following soon -- I hope.  :-)

Now, let's get to the crux of this email.  We are discussing John 3:3.  Your belief is that Jesus is talking about water baptism in this verse.  That is not my belief, as you have rightly assumed.  I don't suppose we'd be having this conversation if it were :)  I'd like to break my response into two thoughts:

1) I'll address your belief that water baptism is essential to our salvation.
2) I'll explain what I believe John 3:3 to mean.

Sounds like a good approach.

Your belief in #1 is a pretty rigid statement.  The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church certainly agrees with you:

"The Church does not know of any other means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude..." Pg. 320, #1257

First, I truly and sincerely appreciate the fact that you have gone to an authentic Catholic source (in this case, the Catechism of the Catholic Church) to find out what the Catholic Church teaches.  Not everyone takes the trouble to do this (not even some Catholics), so again, I honestly do appreciate that you have taken that trouble.

If that's true, I would like to see the New Testament plainly state this, repeatedly.  If, as it appears, every single person in the world eternally lives or dies on this matter, God must leave no room for error.  This would have to be proclaimed constantly in Scripture.

Well, of course, I think that it *is* stated pretty plainly -- in John 3:3-5.  :-)

I would also point to the following verses which all link baptism with salvation or with the remission (or "washing away") of sins:  Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:4, 1 Cor. 6:11, Col. 2:12, Titus 3:5-7, and 1 Peter 3:21 (and also see Heb. 10:22 within the context of 1 Peter 3:21).

I would especially point out the parallel between baptism and the idea of being "born again" which we can see in Romans 6:4.  It seems to me that this supports the interpretation that "born again" in John 3:3 refers to baptism.

And the following verses, while they might not explicitly equate baptism with salvation, do witness to the importance of baptism in the Christian life:  Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 8:12-13, Acts 8:36, Acts 9:18, Acts 10:47, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:31-33, Acts 18:8, Acts 19:2-5, Gal. 3:27.

So to conclude this point, I personally am satisfied that the link between baptism and salvation is taught sufficiently in the New Testament.  However, I think that part of the reason why you and I reach different conclusions on this point is that the New Testament (or the Old Testament, for that matter) is not written as a catechism, with all of the doctrines of Christianity organized in a logical and hierarchical order, and with each doctrine given a clear and explicit explanation.  Rather the New Testament is made up of accounts of Jesus's life, history of the early church, letters to specific churches dealing with specific problems and conflicts, etc.  Now, I do believe that the essential doctrines of Christianity are all there in the New Testament, in exactly the way that God intended for them to be recorded.  But I don't believe that we should always expect to find these doctrines taught with as much clarity as we might like -- especially when you also take into account issues of translation, unfamiliar literary styles, cultural differences between us and the NT writers, etc.

Luke 23:39-43:

I'm sure you are quite familiar with the thief on the cross.  For the sake of brevity, I'll not quote most Scriptures, but I'll give you the references to read for yourself.  We've got two thieves on either side of Jesus.  The 3 of them are up on crosses.  Jesus says to the repentant thief: "Today you'll be with me in paradise".  All it took for the thief's salvation was repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ.  If water baptism was mandatory to be saved, Jesus would be a liar if He said anything but, "unless we get you off that cross and baptized, I'm afraid you'll be spending eternity in hell."

Ah, but the Catholic Church does not teach, nor do I believe, that water baptism is the only kind of baptism.  We do believe that water baptism is the *normative* kind of baptism, in that it is required for most people in most situations.  However, the Catholic Church also recognizes two other types of salvific baptism, namely baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

Baptism of blood occurs when someone is martyred in Jesus's name, without having the opportunity to be baptized with water.  For example, suppose that someone has just started to learn about Jesus, and has come to accept that Jesus is Lord and Savior, but has not yet had the opportunity to be baptized.  Then suppose that this person is killed for their faith in Christ.  Catholic theology sees that as an example of baptism of blood.

Baptism of desire occurs when someone desires to be baptized, but is prevented from seeking baptism for some reason beyond their control.  For example, consider again the person who has just started to develop faith in Jesus, and who desires baptism, but who has not yet had time to seek baptism.  Then suppose that this person dies suddenly from a heart attack.  This example would constitute baptism of desire.  Baptism of desire also occurs when someone seeks to follow Christ to the best of their knowledge, but is not aware of the requirement for baptism, but where this person definitely *would* have sought baptism had they been aware of the requirement.

So in summary, Catholic theology would recognize the "good thief" as having received baptism of desire.

Likewise, what would desert dwelling people do to be saved?  Since the Greek baptizo means to submerge, they'd have to travel possibly a thousand miles to reach a suitable body of water.  They'd better hope they don't die before they get there.

Well, I'm not an expert on Greek, but my understanding is that there are at least a few uses of "baptizo" in the New Testament that do not refer to complete immersion.  Mark 7:3 (where "baptizo" refers to the Pharisees washing their hands) is one example, according to what I have read -- but again I am not equipped to analyze the original Greek. Also, Acts 9:18 and Acts 22:16 speak of Paul "rising" and being baptized.  How could he "rise" to be baptized, if baptism must be by immersion?  And ancient Christian writings (outside the Bible) show that baptism by pouring was an accepted practice in the early church.

So it seems to me that if these hypothetical folks in the desert have enough water to drink, then they should have enough water to baptize, especially considering that baptism is a one-time event for each person.

1 Corinthians 1:14

"I thank God that I baptized none of you".  If baptism is the means of being saved, this seems a very odd statement by Paul.

Well, please keep in mind here that St. Paul is talking about divisions in the church, and about how certain people were (apparently) elevating Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas to the level of Christ.  Therefore, he seems to be saying that he is glad that he personally did not baptize them, lest they wrongly say that they were baptized in Paul's name, rather than in Christ's.  But I don't think he means that he is necessarily saying that these people were not baptized at all or that he was glad that they were not baptized at all -- I think he simply means that he (Paul) did not baptize them.  That's the way I read it anyway.

Acts 10 & 11 - Peter and the house of Cornelius

Cornelius prays to God to be saved.  God gives Peter a vision and leads him to the house of Cornelius.  Peter starts preaching Jesus Christ to them.  As Peter preaches, they are all baptized with the Holy Ghost (and spoke with tongues v. 46).  By this time, Cornelius and company have been #1 saved by faith in Christ Jesus then #2 filled with the Holy Spirit.  After this, Peter tells them to be water baptized #3.  The fact that God baptized them in the Holy Spirit without the water should speak volumes.

Well, one way to interpret this passage is that God poured out special graces to these people, even before baptism, because it was so important that Peter understand that Gentiles must be welcomed as followers of Christ.

I do believe that God has established certain parameters for us to follow, but that doesn't mean that God can't go beyond those parameters from time to time.  There is a common saying in Catholic circles, that "we are bound by the sacraments, but God is not."  In other words, God has established baptism as a means of salvation, and it is not our place to try to circumvent that plan.  But God himself *could* circumvent that plan in a particular circumstance, for a just cause, by providing some other means for a person to be saved (and this is exactly where baptism of desire and baptism of blood come in).

Acts 1 & 2 - Jesus and the baptism of the Holy Spirit

In Acts 1:5 Jesus says: "John truly baptized with water; *but* ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence".  Jesus is contrasting the natural water baptism with the spiritual Holy Spirit baptism.  Accordingly, in Acts 2, we do not see the disciples baptized with water, but with the Holy Spirit only, with evidence of speaking in unknown tongues.

Well, first I think it is clear that Jesus is not saying here that from now on, baptism with water is a thing of the past, and baptism with the Holy Spirit shall entirely replace it.  Because we have many references in the New Testament to baptism with water, as I have already listed above, which would seem to contradict such an assertion.

Second, just to explain how I understand this concept, Catholics see the baptism of the Holy Spirit which the apostles received as a foreshadowing of the sacrament of Confirmation.

Acts 8:15-16

This is worth quoting: "Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet He was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)  They were *only* water baptized at this point.  They were still waiting for the Holy Ghost baptism, as the text shows. This is critical because you expressly tied the Holy Spirit to water baptism.

Yes, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is tied to water baptism, as I have explained previously.  But in Catholic theology, the Holy Spirit is tied even more strongly to the sacrament of Confirmation, which comes after baptism, and which I believe is exactly what this passage in Acts is referring to.

OK, well since I have already written a very lengthy response to your point #1, I will send the response to point #2 in a separate message, hopefully to come soon.