Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Is Baptism necessary?

On the Shameless Popery blog, there's a long interesting conversation on the question of whether Baptism is necessary.  I tried to post this response, but it keeps getting rejected by some technical glitch.  So, I thought I'd post it here.  If anyone can talk to Len, maybe they can forward this to him.

Len K,

I hope you don't mind my responding, here's what I would say:

<b>“Saying that “Jesus isn’t bound by the sacraments He gave us” doesn’t work, because in His conversation with Nicodemus, He isn’t giving him a command. Rather, He’s answering his question, “how can a man be born again…?” </b>

You're confusing apples and oranges.

1.  To say that "God" isn't bound by the Sacraments means that the "Holy Spirit" blows where it will.  See verse:

John 3:8
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

2.  When Jesus answers the question, "How can a man be born again",  He explains it directly:

John 3:5

<i>Note to Len:  This tactic of confusing issues is frequently done intentionally in order to stop you from responding.  Then they take the opportunity to get on the offensive.</i>

<b>Jesus is making a statement about “how” to “enter the kingdom of God” </b>

Yes, Jesus is responding to the question of how to enter the Kingdom of God and His answer describes the Sacrament of Baptism.

<b>– not giving a command to him.</b>

That is a difference between Catholics and Protestants.  To Catholics, Jesus every word is our command.

<b> Plus, since Jesus is God, He can’t contradict Himself, which is what He’d be doing “if” He’s saying “unless one is baptized in water & the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God,” but then allow UNbaptized people into Heaven, like those baptized by desire/of blood, etc.</b>

You say this because you don't understand the Word of God in Scripture or in Sacred Tradition.

First of all, name one OT Prophet who entered the Kingdom of heaven and was baptized?

They all entered the Kingdom, and none were baptized.  Knowing that, the Catholic Church understands that Baptism is normative for Christ's disciples, that is to say, for Christians.

<b> If you accept Jesus is referring to water baptism in John 3:5, then you can’t accept baptism by desire/of blood etc. </b>

You can't because you read Scripture according to the letter.  But the letter kills:

2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

But we read Scripture the way God intended us to read it, according to the Spirit:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Knowing that the Word of God is spiritual, we read more deeply than the letter to the Spirit and the Spirit leads us to the proper understanding of the Word. And in this case, we understand that the Baptisms of blood and desire are perfectly acceptable.

<b>Otherwise, you are accepting that Jesus is contradicting Himself,</b>

You are saying this, not we.  But Scripture says:

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

And again:

1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

<b>which is what you are doing if you accept both.</b>

Wrong.  The Catholic Church understand the entire Word of God.  There are not difficult verses for the Catholic Church.  It is Protestants who struggle with It and turn the Word against Itself.

<b> The problem is you can’t see it – or you refuse to.</b>

It is you who can't see.This is why there are over 20,000 Protestant denominations.  You make up doctrine everytime you read the Bible.  How long have you been holding this doctrine?  1 day, 2, a week?  The Catholic Church has understood this Doctrine from the lips of Jesus Christ.  2000 years!

 <b>Also, since you are the one asserting that Jesus is talking about water baptism (even though He never mentions baptism during…DURING!!!…His conversation with Nicodemus), then the burden of proof is on you to show “where” DURING His conversation with him that He’s referring to water baptism. I don’t have to prove a negative (that He’s not).</b>

Those are more differences between Protestant and Catholic.

1.  Catholics don't sit around making up doctrine when they talk about the Bible.  You folks have the cart before the horse.  Don't you know that Jesus established a Church and commanded the Church to Teach His Word?

Jesus didn't write a Bible.  The Church did.  And the Church wrote the Bible based upon what Jesus Taught.

2.  That means that we don't sit around reading the Bible and interpreting it.  Jesus established a Church and commanded that Church to Teach His Word.  THAT INCLUDES THE BIBLE!

Have you not read in Scripture:

Matthew 28:19-20King James Version (KJV)

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Have you not also read:
Ephesians 3:10King James Version (KJV)

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

<b>BTW, regarding babies, keep in mind that in the Greek of John Ch.3, </b>

Do you speak Greek fluently?  Because I don't.  I go by the interpretations of the Church which Jesus Christ establshed and He said:

Matt 16:19 "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it!"

Even if you think you understand the Greek, I go by the Teaching of SCRIPTURE.  I obey the Church!

<b>when it says “he who does not believe is condemned,” the words “not believe” is an active verb. IOW, the active “not believing” is what condemns a person (see also Mark 16:16b). A baby doesn’t have the “active” ability to “not believe,” like an adult can. Are babies sinful & inherited original sin through Adam? – sure they are & have (Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12). </b>


Babies inherited Original Sin from Adam.  Apparently you don't know that means.  It means that they are children of wrath and if they grow up and never come to faith, they will be condemned.

But, since they are innocent when they are young, even though they are children of wrath, they can be cured by the faith of the parents.  Have you not read in Scripture:

Matthew 15:22-28King James Version (KJV)

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

This woman's child is saved by the mother's faith.  That is what happens in Infant Baptism.  Our children are saved by our faith while they are still children of wrath, God pours His spirit into them and makes them His children because of our love.

<b>However, UNlike adults, infants are ALSO described in the Bible as being “innocent” (Hebrew: “free from PUNISHMENT, guilt, & obligations”). This is why King David’s 7-day-old son eventually went to Heaven, where David later “went to him,” despite the fact that his son wasn’t circumcised & that his son was conceived in sin. It is also why Jesus states that “little children…for such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). So, based on the words of Jesus, if those children dropped dead, where would they have went? – Heaven! There are many other examples in the Bible</b>

Show me.  I want to see many verses.  Chapter and verse.  Show me all of them.

<b> – both OT & NT – that describe that if a baby or small child die they enter Heaven – & NONE of them are described as being previously baptized in water. In fact, there isn’t even a SINGLE example in Scripture of a baby being baptized in water.</b>

No one from the OT went to heaven.  Have you not read the Word of God?

Hebrews 11:39King James Version (KJV)

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, RECEIVED NOT THE PROMISE.

No one from the OT went to heaven until Jesus Christ shed His blood on the Cross.

<b>The “water” Jesus is referring to in John 3:5 isn’t referring to the waters of baptism</b>

Yes. It is.

<b> (in fact, in the verses where “baptism” & “born again” – and it’s equivalents, like “born of God” are used – they are NEVER used together). Remember, Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus who is a Pharisee (John 3:1), & Jesus refers to him as “the teacher of ISRAEL” (v.10). Teachers of Israel didn’t “teach” water baptismal salvation. They taught the OLD Testament – not water baptismal salvation. And in the OLD Testament, whenever “water” & “Spirit” were used together figuratively, it ALWAYS referred to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 44:3-5; Jeremiah 2:13) – not water baptismal salvation. Paul even makes this connection – see Titus 3:5-7. Nicodemus – the “teacher of ISRAEL” who taught the OLD Testament – would have understood the “water” to refer to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit from the OLD Testament – not water baptismal salvation. The latter is an early Catholic misinterpretation of the text that wasn’t even “universally” accepted by the Catholic church until centuries later.”</b>

The Catholic Church wrote the Text based upon the Teachings of Jesus Christ's lips.  The Catholic Church learned the Word of God from Our Saviour.  The NT is the Catholic Church's first infallible Document.

You don't get it.

1.  Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church.
2.  Jesus Christ taught the Catholic Church.
3.  The Catholic Church wrote the NT.
4.  1500 years later, Protestants distorted and corrupted the meaning of the NT.
5.  But the Catholic Church continues to Teach the Word of God:

2 Corinthians 5:20King James Version (KJV)

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

I hope that helps.


De Maria


  1. What was the technical glitch on the Shameless Popery site that prevented you from submitting the comment?

    1. My comments didn't appear. Joe, the owner of the blog, said to press the "load more ":button. But I don't see a "load more" button. AND the appearance of the blog changed. It doesn't look the same as when I originally entered the comment. So, I entered the comment again and this time it said it didn't recognize my cookies and some other problem which I can't remember right now. So, I thought I'd just post it here.

      Why are you asking?

  2. Now that was interesting. There's a debate that has been going on over at Catholic Answers regarding Baptism and an "born again" is making the claim that the "water" refers to "man" and his "natural birth", not Baptism.

    Now I see another person claiming it means something else!

    1. what is that link? I think I'd like to be part of that.

      As I see it, it is both. If you've ever seen a child being born, the water in the uterus first breaks and then the child emerges. THAT is why water is an apt symbol of being BORN again. It is an efficacious symbol which illustrates the real, spiritual birth of our spiritual soul in the heavenly plane.

      When the water is poured and the words are spoken which convey the will of Christ through the Church, we are washed and regenerated, born again, in the image of Jesus Chirst.

    2. OH BOY! here you go!


      While I don't disagree with your statement above, Mr. Ed WILL because he makes the claim it is a "out of thin air" argument that was invented by an apostate Church and corrupted Scriptural passages.

      Now to forewarn you...
      This particular blog post has over 740 comments alone but the MAIN MAN is a strong anti-Catholic named Edward Osiecki who has had a "back-and-forth" dialogue (or should I say "rude argument") between four defenders of our Faith. They have shown most of the early Church Fathers and even many protest-ant reformers. But his BIGGEST CLAIM is that the "Catholic Church added the word 'again' to The Gospel of John when Jesus is talking with Nicodemus.

      WARNING; There is a lot to read there but he has the Catholics constantly having to defend themselves because he is doing what Steve Ray said many "born agains" do: ignore anything that comes from the early Church Fathers because they were apostate and continue to call the Catholic Church "whore of Babylon" and the Pope "anti-Christ". Too bad his ignorance of Scripture keeps him from learning anything but he is quick to let everyone know how "brilliant' he is and how accurate he is.

      He has been caught so many times in contradictions but he continues to ignore you when you point them out, but then utilizes only anti-Catholic sources as 'proof" of his, personal interpretation of the Scriptures and then utilizes Catholic sources and quotes them completely out of context and continues to accuse the Catholic Church of teaching 'non-Biblical doctrines" by making false claims against Her.

      If you can somehow utilize what you said above along with what the Church teaches, you MIGHT be able to reach him. The fact that he has been debating for so long now is quite encouraging!

      God Bless and have a great weekend!

    3. Thanks. Unfortunately, it wouldn't accept my response. It says I need to do a word verification, but I don't see one on the screen. I've reported that I'm "blocked". We'll see what happens. Meantime, I posted my response here.

    4. I hope you get "unblocked" soon!

      I've been drafting up a rather long response to all his posts but I think I'm going to rehash it down to size so that I can address his main argument; Baptism. I need to be as charitable as possible :-)


Thanks for contributing.