THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S FALSE CONCEPT OF “INITIAL” JUSTIFICATION

Salvation is rightly considered the most important spiritual topic there is.  We all want to one day make it into Heaven and have everlasting life with God (John 3:16).  And it goes without saying that we would also want to avoid the place the Bible calls Hell, wherein is everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46).

But there are disagreements, even among those who call themselves Christians, concerning the requirement(s) to enter the narrow gate (Matthew 7:13-14).  So I would like to address an odd situation in Catholic apologetics concerning salvation. 

Both Catholics and Protestants agree with the idea that, for Christians, we were saved (past tense – Ephesians 2:8), that we are being saved (present tense – 1 Corinthians 1:18), and that we will ultimately be saved (future tense – Matthew 10:22).

We all believe that, in our salvation journey, there is 1) a distinct beginning, 2) a growth process, and 3) a final destination. 

The Protestant View

Generally, the Protestant believes that the first stage is “justification,” wherein he believes/trusts in the full and sufficient work of Jesus Christ on the cross.  The Protestant surrenders to the will of God with love and thanksgiving and God gives him a new heart, with new desires.  This justification is obtained apart from works (Romans 3:28) and is a one-time event, not a process. 

The second stage is what the Protestant calls “sanctification,” which is a process (1 Thessalonians 4:1-7).  Here is where he will, out of a thankful heart, start to do good works for God as he grows closer and closer to Him, conforming to the image of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18).  And even then, his works are not done to gain, earn or merit salvation, but he does good works out of a thankful heart because he is already saved! 

And thirdly, he enters Heaven, glorified with a new body to be with the Lord forever (1 Thessalonians 4:17).

The Catholic View

The odd situation of which I spoke earlier is that the Catholic Church splits justification into three parts: 1) “initial” justification, 2) “ongoing/progressive” justification (which they also call sanctification), and then 3) “final justification.”   

In the first phase, the Catholic begins his initial justification by being baptized (normally, as an infant).  Interestingly, the Church claims that initial justification is not obtained by either works of any kind or even by faith.  See here:

“… but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification – whether faith or works – merit the grace itself of justification.  For if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.” (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Chapter VIII)

Second, in the ongoing/progressive justification phase, his works are now able to merit “an increase of justification” for himself. 

And third, at death, the Catholic experiences final justification, which will usher him into Heaven (or more likely, Purgatory, to be first cleansed of temporal sins).

Baptism and Initial Justification

So, according to the Catholic paradigm, you get no merit from either faith or works that are done before the initial justification stage.  Yet, this same initial justification is obtained by water baptism (CCC #1992; Council of Trent, Sixth Session, chapters 6-7), which is, ironically, a ritual/work!

The Catholic Church has it backward.  The Bible says that salvation begins with faith and no works (Romans 3:28; 4:4-5; Galatians 2:16).  But the Church says that salvation begins with a work (i.e., baptism) and no faith (Council of Trent, chapter VIII, above).  There seems to be some kind of disconnect here.

What About Abraham?

As I said, Catholics believe that there are “levels” of justification.  They say that someone can receive justification and then later have an “increase” of that justification, again and again.  In their quest to prove these different levels of justification, they will often point to the example of Abraham.

The Catholic will say that Abraham was justified at least three times in Scripture, i.e., in Genesis 12:1-3, in Genesis 15:6, and in Genesis 22:1-14.  

The first time, in Genesis 12:1-3, God spoke to Abraham, telling him to leave his family and his country and to go to an unknown land.  God also told Abraham that He would make a great nation from him.  Abraham, looking forward to the promise, must have been justified about this time, because of his faith and his willingness to obey God.

I would actually tend to agree with Catholics at this point, that Abraham was probably justified here (or at least just prior to this point). 

The second time, in Genesis 15:6, Catholics will say that Abraham was “further” justified, because here God tells Abraham that his ancestors would be as the stars in Heaven, “And he believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him for righteousness.”

And, of course, this same verse is quoted by the apostle Paul in Romans 4:3, where he emphasizes the point that Abraham was justified by faith, and not by his works. 

But is Paul really using this particular verse to point out that Genesis 15:6 marked an increase of the justification that Abraham already had?  Was he saying that Abraham was more justified at this point, or that he was receiving another “installment” of justification?  No, God was simply re-stating His promise to Abraham, and Paul was just showing that Abraham’s faith here exemplified the same type of faith/trust that he exhibited earlier in Genesis 12.  Paul was simply pointing out Abraham’s continuing faith in God and his non-dependence on work.

Just a few verses later, the apostle Paul also mentions David (v. 6-8) and references David’s repentance after he sinned with Bathsheba, quoting Psalm 32.  But again, Psalm 32 was not the time that David was justified.  He was justified and made right with God long before this particular time. 

[Addendum – added on 03/11/2026]

{If doing good works causes an “increase” in one’s justification (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Canon 24), then why did the apostle Paul specifically say that Abraham was NOT justified by his circumcision (Romans 4:9-11)?  Was not Abraham’s circumcision (Genesis 17:9-14) a good, faith-filled and God-ordained work of obedience?  Yes indeed!  But, according to Paul, this work of obedience was never considered an increase in his justification, and had nothing to do with it.  If his good (and painful) work of circumcision did not add to his “ongoing” justification, then there must not BE such a concept of an “increase of justification!”}

Paul’s whole point in mentioning these two great men of faith was that they were examples of someone who is credited with righteousness through faith/believing/trusting, apart from their good works (Romans 3:28; 4:4-5).  There is no reason to believe that this was about some kind of “progressive” justification, as Catholics assert.

Catholics will say that the third time Abraham was justified was in Genesis 22:1-14 where Abraham offers his son Isaac on the altar to be sacrificed.  Thankfully, God stopped him from going through with it, but here Abraham proved his faith in God by being willing to sacrifice his son.  This passage is referenced in James 2:21-24, which includes the idea that a man is justified by his works (v. 24). 

So, what does it mean to be “justified by works” and not just faith?  We can see from the context of James 2 that he is referring to the idea of how we know if a person has true faith or a fake/dead faith (v. 17, 20, 26).  So, this whole section in James (v. 14-26) is about the proof or demonstration of one’s faith.  This section is not about how to be saved, but it’s about observing the fruit of those professing to be saved.  James is saying that a man is justified by works in the sense of being vindicated, or proven, by his works.  This type of “justification” is seen elsewhere in Scripture (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:29; 10:29; 16:15), and the context of James makes it obvious that he was referring to vindication.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/01/faith-alone-part-2.html

So, saying that the life of Abraham proves that a person is justified multiple times is simply not true.

Funny how the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent (which focuses heavily on justification) never uses, or even mentions, Abraham as an example of one who is “increasing in justification,” as many Catholics try to use the term!

Wrong Category

The apostle Paul made it abundantly clear that there are no works done in the “justification” category:

“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Romans 3:28)

“Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.  But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” (Romans 4:4-5)

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” (Galatians 2:16). 

Again, according to Holy Scripture, in justification, there are no works that merit.  But because of the Catholic Church’s unbiblical splitting of justification, it allows their works to merit salvation in the justification stage.  This is dangerous because it (supposedly) allows our works to “merit” what only the work of Jesus on the cross could possibly merit.  

Just a side note: Catholics will also play word games with the term “merit,” as well.  Another topic for another day.

Faith Working in Love

Also, Catholics love to use Galatians 5:6 when debating justification, because it says that we are saved by faith which works through love.  And they’ll say, “See, works (of love) must be involved/present along with your faith for you to be saved!” 

But context will demonstrate otherwise:

Galatians 5:

(v. 3) “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

(v. 4) “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

(v. 5) “For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

(v. 6) “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”

And the Protestant will point out that v. 4 says that if you try to be saved using the law/commandments/works, you are “fallen from grace” (the NASV says “severed from Christ”)!  Therefore, salvation/justification is by faith, apart from works.  But this same faith will then afterward produce works of love, but the works themselves don’t save.  Very simple.

But the Catholic may say, “But this passage is only describing initial justification – that’s why works have no merit here!”

But remember, this passage contains faith, but Trent says that neither works NOR faith are used in the initial justification stage!  Therefore, Galatians 5:3-6 is not at all talking about this mythical “initial justification” phase.  Sorry, my Catholic friends, but you can’t have it both ways.

This is also how Catholics tend to deal with other critical passages on justification that speak of salvation by faith apart from the merit of works, for example, Romans 3:28; 4:5; 4:6; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9.  Catholics will say that these refer to the initial justification phase, yet in all of these passages, faith is clearly in view and baptism (which is the only thing that supposedly merits in this stage) shows up in none of these passages!  So, no, these key passages are not referring to this artificially fabricated phase of “initial” justification.

Can Works Merit Grace in Any Stage?

After reading books like Romans and Galatians, one can see that there is a real problem with a “faith plus works” salvation system.  And that is exactly what the Catholic Church has.  But when the Church uses this deceptive “initial justification” concept, it muddies the water concerning the role of works and faith.

But the following passage makes it very clear that works do not save in any part of our salvation journey:

Galatians 3:

(v. 1) “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

(v. 2) “This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

(v. 3) “Are ye so foolish?  Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?”

Notice (v. 2) that there are only two options: you are either saved by works of the law (which is impossible with mere men), or by faith.  He then equates the law (works) with operating by the flesh (v. 3).  Paul is basically saying to us, “You must start in the Spirit (faith/trusting in the cross – v. 1), and you never leave that option – you continue in your faith by never relying on works to save you.  You are made perfect (completed) by trusting in the gospel message, not in your works.”

Again, this passage is clearly telling us that IN NO PHASE of our salvation journey do works contribute to our salvation.  Works are definitely present in our lives, and we will get heavenly rewards for them, but the free gift of God (eternal life) is only obtained through faith. 

In other words, we start salvation by faith, we continue/maintain that same salvation by faith and end it by faith.  In this way, we are telling Jesus that His work/suffering on the cross was sufficient to save us and that He gets all the credit!

Conclusion

According to Scripture, there exists a justification phase and there is a sanctification phase, ultimately followed by the glorification phase.  Nowhere do we see anything called “initial justification” where faith is not required. 

There is nothing in the New Testament that tells us to “grow in justification,” or that you can be “further justified.”  Therefore, Catholics have no biblical reason to split justification into two or more categories. 

Catholics recognize that having a “works-based salvation” sounds bad.  That’s why they are quick to deny this Protestant accusation toward them.  And with the concept of “initial” justification, they feel that they can temporarily avoid the stigma of that accusation. 

If a policeman came into the home of a drug user and the homeowner told him, “But officer, I don’t have any drugs in my kitchen!”  That may be true, but that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have drugs in another room of his home.

In a similar way, just because you Catholics don’t have works that merit salvation in one of your three categories of the salvation journey, doesn’t mean that you don’t have works that merit.  You still have a “works-based salvation,” it’s just in another category.

Yes, Catholics often deny it, but they do indeed embrace a “faith plus works” salvation.  But a faith that will later result in good works is not the same thing as a “faith plus works” system.

So, the big question is this: Is “initial justification,” as described by the Catholic Church, a biblical concept?  And the answer is no.

 

YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN

Jesus answered and said unto him [Nicodemus], “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’” (John 3:3)

Marvel not that I said unto thee, “Ye must be born again.” (John 3:7)

In the context of these two passages, Jesus is confronted by a Pharisee named Nicodemus, who approaches Him secretly at night.  Jesus immediately tells Nicodemus that, to be right with God, he “must be born again.”  This then leads to a discussion where Jesus is contrasting physical things and spiritual things.  However, Nicodemus just doesn’t seem to get it and he stays stuck in the “physical” mindset (3:4), while Jesus’ point about being born again is about the spiritual realm (3:8).  Thus, the statement, “You must be born again” is a spiritual concept. 

The word “must” is a strong word, especially when used by Jesus Christ.  The implication here is, you MUST be born again IF you want to go to Heaven.  And who doesn’t?  It seems that everyone (at least outside the atheist camp) wants to go to Heaven.

But the question is how?  How is one born again?  What does it really mean?  I know that Protestants use the term all the time.  But why is it that when witnessing to Catholics, it happens very often that they have no idea what Protestants are talking about?  You can see that, amongst many Catholics, there is confusion and there are misconceptions about what “born again” means.  As an example, see the first five minutes of this video:

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=ray+comfort+asking+catholics%2c+have+you+been+%22born+again%22+&&mid=751F5C79A6218169E455751F5C79A6218169E455&FORM=VAMGZC

It seems that Catholics very seldom use the term “born again,” but Catholic apologists will insist that it is just referring to water baptism.  But whatever it means, we have to recognize that these words are coming from Jesus Christ, and we have to recognize His emphasis on the term – and that whatever it is, it is a must and not a suggestion!

The Fathers

Ok, so how can we find out what Jesus really meant when He said “born again” in John 3:3 and 3:7?  The Catholic Church stresses that the early church fathers were unanimous in the belief that “born again” means that one is forgiven/saved/regenerated by the very act of being baptized in water. 

Personally, I am very limited when it comes to the beliefs of the early church fathers, so I will leave this topic to those who are much more qualified.  But for those who think that the fathers were indeed “unanimous” on the concept of baptismal regeneration (as the great majority of Catholic apologists claim), see this article:

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/refutation-of-baptismal-regeneration-in-the-early-church/

Catholics seem to believe that no one can argue with the early church fathers because a few of them lived at the time of the apostles’ students and their students’ students.  They’ll say that if anyone knew what Jesus or the apostles taught, it had to be these guys. 

But my question is why stop there?  The church fathers were not infallible, so they are not the final word!  Why not go all the way back to the words of Jesus, Himself, and His apostles – the words we find in Scripture?  If what the fathers said does not line up with the Scriptures, or gives a perverted view of them, then we need to reject their views.

If there was a bank robbery in your town and the police needed the facts, whose word would be more trusted, first-hand witnesses (the ones who were actually there at that exact time) or some third- or fourth-hand account?

Furthermore, IF it is found that the early church fathers happen to be wrong, does any Catholic think that he can simply blame THEM on Judgment Day?: “Lord, I didn’t know!  The Church told me to trust in what THEY said, since they were close to the time of the apostles, so it’s THEIR fault for telling us the wrong things!”

Yes, these so-called church fathers will indeed be accountable for any wrong teachings they may have spread.  But it is each person’s responsibility to search the Scriptures, not the fathers, to see what God wants from us (Acts 17:11).  I’m not saying that the fathers were wrong on everything they taught, but I am saying that they were fallible in everything they taught.  But the Scriptures are indeed infallible in everything they teach (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

God Looks At the Heart (Not the Ritual)

According to the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 11:27-31), a person must have the right disposition (attitude, temperament, frame of mind) when receiving communion.  And we believe the same mindset applies to water baptism, as well.  These church ordinances must not be trivialized.

The Catholic Church will agree with this.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a person partaking of the sacraments (including baptism) must have the correct disposition beforehand (See CCC #1131 and CCC #1388).

So, both Protestants and Catholics agree that a person’s heart has to be right before he is baptized.  Therefore, without the right state of the heart, the ritual is useless!  Catholics will say that both the disposition and the ritual are necessary for salvation.  Ok, but what if a person has the right heart and is on his way to be baptized, but is run over by a Mack truck before he can get to the church?

Catholics will say, “But he had the ‘baptism of desire’ and he intended to get baptized (CCC #1259), so God will be merciful to him.”  Well, we Protestants would agree!  But again, this just proves that water baptism is actually not mandatory.

More proof of that is demonstrated by the Catechism where it will point out that God is not bound by sacraments/rituals (CCC #1257).  Well, (most) Protestants would agree, yet in this very same paragraph of the Catechism it states again that baptism IS necessary for salvation!  Ok, so which is it?  Is the ritual of water baptism necessary for a person to be saved or not?  This is an obvious contradiction in the same paragraph.

Now, I’m not saying that water baptism is a bad thing.  As I said earlier, it should not be trivialized.  It is something that God expects us to do, and we should indeed honor Him in doing it, because it is a way of expressing our commitment to Him.  But baptism is for those who are already saved.

Grace vs. Merit

According to the Catholic Church, water baptism is a “sacrament,” which is described as something that “merits” grace (Canon XXXII, Council of Trent).  But according to Scripture, grace, by definition, is something that CANNOT be merited:

“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.  But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (Romans 11:6) 

Again, there is no such thing as “meriting grace.”  Therefore, none of those seven things that Catholics call “sacraments” are meritorious toward salvation. 

So how does one actually receive grace?  Is it through sacraments, rituals, or good works – or is it some other way?

“Surely He scorneth the scorners: but He giveth grace unto the lowly.” (Proverbs 3:34)

“… God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.” (James 4:6)

“… for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.” (1 Peter 5:5)

Starting to see a pattern here?  The Bible tells us that we receive grace through true humility, not by earning it or by some sort of “meriting.”  It is exactly the opposite.  Grace is given to the humble, not to the one who performs sacraments or any other kind of works in order to try to merit his way to Heaven, giving him reason to boast.

The Catholic Church loves to re-define words like “merit,” and loves to play these semantic games that turn scriptural concepts on their head!  And they will indeed have to answer to God for that.

The Hard Lesson of the Galatians

But let’s say for just a moment that we concede that water baptism actually saves a person.  Ok, so what happens when this baptized person sins after baptism (and he certainly will)?  Since it is baptism itself that saves (in the mind of the Catholic), then must he be re-baptized after every sin? 

Catholics will say no, and that he must do something else.  He must now go to confession, receive communion, do penance, etc., and then these things will cause him to stay in God’s favor through merit. 

Apparently, in Catholic teaching, one thing (baptism) saves you, then other things (rituals like confession to a priest, communion, and penance) will keep you saved.

But the Bible tells us that there is ONE thing that both saves us and keeps us, and that thing is our faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ on the cross:

“O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?  This only would I learn of you, received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?  Are ye so foolish, having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3)

Note here that the term “made perfect by the flesh” refers to man’s attempts to earn Heaven through his good works, and the term “by the hearing of faith” of course refers to one’s faith/believing/trusting in Jesus. 

Furthermore, Paul forcefully rebuked the Galatians because Jesus Christ was preached to them and plainly set forth before their eyes as the One who suffered for all sins and the One who paid the full penalty for all men.  So Paul is emphatic: there is no room for works that are salvific (including baptism)!

Paul calls the Galatians foolish because they gave in to the ungodly Judaizers (Acts 15:1; Galatians 2:4) who thought they could add their works to the suffering and work of Christ on the cross.  In this way, the Galatians rejected the original gospel that Paul preached to them, incurring a curse on themselves! (Galatians 1:8-9) 

Conclusion

So according to the Catholic Church, it seems that Jesus SHOULD HAVE SAID in John 3:3, “You must partake of the sacraments to be saved.”  But that’s not at all what He said or implied.  There are no sacraments in the Bible because there are no works or rituals that can merit salvation.

Wouldn’t it make more sense for Jesus to simply address the heart of man, thus pointing to the meaning of “born again”?  Being born again is not a sacrament or ritual, but it is your heart being honest with God, recognizing your sin and corruption, and allowing Him to deal with your heart.  It is an ultimate surrender towards Him.  And it is given by God’s grace and activated by simple faith!

There’s certainly nothing wrong with being baptized or receiving communion, etc., but these are simply for us to identify with Jesus Christ – which is a statement to the rest of the world of your allegiance to Him (for example, Matthew 10:37; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:62).

I can understand how that many Catholics see water baptism as getting saved, since baptism seems to be so closely tied in with repentance and salvation, but common sense and a closer look at Scripture will clarify the matter. 

Being born again biblically is of the utmost importance.  If a person has not been born again, he will one day wish that he was never born at all!

For a fuller treatment of the meaning, role and effect of baptism, see this three-part series:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/05/on-baptism-part-1-few-basics.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/06/on-baptism-part-2-bible-verses.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-baptism-part-3-more-verses.html

THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

Ok, so we’ve gone through five of the seven Catholic sacraments so far.  These last two that I will be addressing would be considered “heavyweights” in the world of Catholic sacraments.  Today, I will deal with the sacrament of baptism and next time, the Eucharist.  Catholics would probably consider these two to be the most important of all the sacraments.

Anyway, I have dealt with the topic of baptism before, so you can go to these links to first get a good foundation:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/05/on-baptism-part-1-few-basics.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/06/on-baptism-part-2-bible-verses.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-baptism-part-3-more-verses.html

Differing Views

Of course, we (Protestants, Catholics and others) all recognize baptism as a very important and meaningful ritual. 

Most Protestants see baptism as a profound profession of faith.  It is an ordinance (not a sacrament) within the church, a symbol of what happens to a person when he first believed.  In the ceremony of baptism, he is immersed/buried in a “watery grave” in which he “dies to self.”  The “old man” (old self) is put to death, and coming up out of the water, the “new man” is resurrected to a new life:

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4). 

With (most) Protestants, the idea is that a person is first saved and given a new heart from God… then, and ONLY then, should he be baptized, this being a symbolic gesture to declare to the world that he has voluntarily chosen to identify with the Lord Jesus Christ and thereafter, to live for Him. 

Catholics, on the other hand, also see the ritual of baptism as a profession of faith to identify with Christ, but also as a sacrament in which a person is “meriting grace” from God.  To them, it is a sacrament of regeneration.  It is not only symbolic to them, but it also “accomplishes what it signifies” (CCC #1155; 1215; 1234).  It is supposedly a “visible sign of a hidden reality.”  When the Catholic is baptized, he is literally having his original sins washed away.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit… and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: ‘Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.’” (CCC #1213 – Emphasis added)

Notice the underlined portions of the quote above.  The Catholic Church is specifically saying that this event (baptism) is what saves them.  According to them, it is water baptism that makes them eligible to enter Heaven.

What About Infant Baptism?

Most people know that the Catholic Church baptizes babies, more so than adults.  But is this practice scriptural?  Can a mere infant make a profession of faith and identify with Christ.  No, he can’t. 

You won’t find any specific biblical examples where little children are baptized.  But some will argue that this concept is implied in the text of certain passages, for example Acts 16:33, where the Philippian jailer and his whole household were baptized.  But that is simply speculation.  We just don’t know if there were infants in this family or not.  

But Catholics (and even some Protestants) claim that baptism is valid for infants because it is based on the parents’ faith.  They will point to passages like 1 Corinthians 7:14, which says that the faith of the believer sanctifies (sets apart) the children and shows that you intend to raise your children in the Lord, but this doesn’t ultimately save them.  The child still has to become mature enough to understand what is going on.  An infant certainly can’t do that.  Until that time, he is innocent.

But even if it were true that they did baptize babies and little children (those who were not accountable due to their age/state/understanding), we would still have to deal with the concept of biblical salvation – where one is saved by faith, apart from works.

One might argue that baptism is not a work, and that the infant being baptized is doing nothing at all, since he is incapable.  But this does nothing to help the Catholic case.  Since the child is incapable, neither can he make a decision to follow Christ, a decision which is absolutely necessary for salvation.  As I just said, very young children are simply innocent (and safe) in the eyes of God, at least until the child can make such decisions in his life.

The concept of infant baptism leans heavily toward the idea that baptism saves a person.  And I believe that’s why the Catholic Church teaches this.  But whether this notion is promoted by Catholic, Protestant, or anyone else, this denies the biblical teaching of faith (apart from the merits of work) for salvation (Romans 3:28; 4:4-5; 11:6).  It denies that Christ’s work on the cross was sufficient.  In fact, any sacrament, ritual or celebration that claims to “merit grace” contradicts and denies the finished and perfect work of Jesus Christ.

An Oxymoron

So, once again, the question is, does baptism save a person?   You know, any unsaved person can potentially get baptized, but it does nothing to change his heart.  His heart has to be changed before he ever decides to get baptized.

Being a believer is synonymous with being saved.  There are no saved unbelievers, nor unsaved believers.  That would be an oxymoron.  If you are unsaved, then (by definition) you are not a believer, and if you are saved, you already are a believer.

So, if it is true that baptism saves you, then aren’t you (by definition) an unbeliever until the point that you are baptized?  Yes, you would be.  But the truth is, baptism is for believers only (Mark 16:16), and there are absolutely no unbelievers in Scripture who were baptized.  The point is, you must be born again BEFORE you are baptized, therefore baptism doesn’t save anyone.

Conclusion

Another oxymoron in the Catholic Church is, as I mentioned before, the concept of “meriting” grace.  This is supposedly what sacraments do, but not only is this unbiblical, it is also illogical.  No one can “merit” grace, since, by definition, grace is the unmerited favor of God (Romans 11:6).  Even Catholics agree with this definition (CCC #1996).

In the Catholic Church, baptism is one of the seven sacraments, and they certainly claim special power in these sacraments.  But I am sorry to tell my Catholic readers that sacraments do not “make present” the “graces” necessary to be saved, as the Catholic Church teaches (CCC #1131).  This is totally unscriptural.

To be sure, baptism is an important and significant ritual to all of us, rich in meaning for all who claim to follow Christ.  But again, Catholic sacraments do not and cannot do what Catholics claim they can do.

 

ON BAPTISM - Part 3 (More Verses)

This is the third and final article in this series on baptism and whether or not it saves a person.  We mentioned that there are several groups who claim to be Christian and who believe that baptism is required for salvation.  This view is called baptismal regeneration.  In Part 1, we discussed some basics about baptism, and then in Part 2 we addressed a number of Bible verses that these groups use to try and support their view.  We will continue in this article to look into their claims.

John 3:5:

Jesus answered, verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

This is a common verse used by those who believe in baptismal regeneration.  They will say that Jesus’ words, “born of water” is speaking of water baptism.  But notice that they often use the verse by itself, apart from its context.  So, let’s observe the actual context and the flow of the discussion.  In verses 1 and 2, Nicodemus, the Pharisee, comes secretly to Jesus and tells Him that the Pharisees recognize that He is from God.  But Jesus informs him that there is more to being right with God than just recognizing that He is “from God.”  There must be a changed heart.  Therefore, in verse 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that unless he is born AGAIN, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.  Jesus, by saying “again,” is acknowledging a man’s first birth, but tells Nicodemus that there is another birth that must take place if he wants to be saved. 

But Nicodemus, being stuck in a “natural” or “physical” mindset, asks, “…How can a man be born when he is old?  Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” (Verse 4) 

Jesus responds (verse 5) by saying that he must be born not only of water (i.e., the amniotic fluid in the womb during a person’s natural, first birth), but he must also be born of the Spirit (a spiritual birth), as well.  In context, the subject of physical birth seems to be the only reason that the phrase “born of water” is even brought up.  Jesus was simply redirecting Nicodemus’ line of thought from the physical to the spiritual, like He did with the woman at the well (John 4:7-14). 

 

Jesus continues in verse 6 by telling Nicodemus that whatever is born of the flesh is flesh (natural), but that which is born of the Spirit (producing a change of heart) is spiritual (or supernatural).  Nicodemus is still thinking of the “physical,” while Jesus is emphasizing the spiritual.  In fact, Jesus rebukes Nicodemus (a spiritual teacher in Israel) for not understanding the spiritual aspect of what He is saying (John 3:9-12).

 

So, it is obvious here that Jesus is contrasting physical or natural things with spiritual things (3:12).  So, it would make perfect sense that “born of water” in verse 5 refers to natural birth, not water baptism.  It is interesting that there is no mention of baptism at all in this context, only believing (3:15, 16, 18).  Further, if Jesus really meant “be baptized” when He said that one must be “born of water,” then 1) why didn’t He just say that?  And 2) Jesus’ “physical birth versus spiritual birth” analogy would do little to clarify anything for Nicodemus.  We just can’t imagine Nicodemus responding, “Oh, ok Jesus, I understand now!  You’re emphasizing spiritual things, and praising the virtues of an inward spiritual change, so therefore, I must focus on this external, physical ritual of water baptism!”  No, not likely.  Again, if Jesus was speaking of baptism, His analogy didn’t make much sense.  As we said above, there must be a changed heart, but water baptism doesn’t change the heart.  So, just because “water” is mentioned does not prove that it was about baptism.

One of their arguments is, “Nowhere else in the Bible is natural birth referred to as ‘born of water’.”  That may be true, but neither is baptism ever referred to as “born of water” anywhere else in the Bible, although the word “baptism” and its variations occur dozens and dozens of times in the New Testament.  So, to find out the meaning of this phrase, we must look to the context, which is, once again, “physical birth” versus “spiritual birth.”

Another argument they use is, “But they went baptize disciples after this in verse 22, so it must have been about water baptism.”  But this is another time, another city, and another context.  There is no reason to believe that the two contexts are directly connected.

A third argument is, “If Jesus meant natural birth when He said ‘born of water,’ then that’s just stating the obvious.  It’s redundant to say that you first have to be born once in order to be born twice.  Jesus didn’t have to tell Nicodemus to meet the condition of being born physically.”  True, but the first birth is an understood requirement, which is obviously already done.  It was implied.  But notice that Jesus didn’t even mention water in His first statement (Verse 3).  He only mentioned water afterward because Nicodemus focused on physical birth.

Although we believe that natural, physical birth is the most likely interpretation of the phrase “born of water,” we will not be dogmatic about it, since there are other possible interpretations.  For example, it could be referring to the concept of spiritual washing as in Ephesians 5:26, which mentions “the washing of water by the Word.”  Also, Jesus told His disciples (John 15:3) that they were “clean through the Word which I have spoken unto you.”  These references still seem much more likely to be the case in John 3:5 than water baptism does.

And finally, as stated in Part 2, we know that baptism is not a requirement for salvation because there are clear biblical examples of people getting saved BEFORE their baptism.  That, and the fact that Scripture plainly tells us that we are saved by grace, through faith (believing), apart from any works of merit (like baptism).

1 Peter 3:19-21:

By which also He [Jesus] went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the Ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The usual response from the groups in question is, “There it is!  Baptism does now save!  Case closed!”  Apparently, that’s all they seem to see in this passage.  But a close look will show that it is not water baptism that saves at all. 

 

First of all, the verse says, “The like figure…” meaning that baptism is simply a symbol of something else.  It represents what happens to us at the moment of salvation.

Secondly, it’s telling us that it’s not the baptismal water that cleanses us… it’s “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God” (verse 21), symbolized by baptism.  It is a change in the heart, not the ritual, itself.

And third, it says that eight souls were saved “by” water, but the Greek actually says they were saved “through” water.  Yes, Noah and his family were “baptized” / “immersed in” / “placed into” the floodwaters, but 1) So was the unrepentant multitude, but the multitude was not saved in any sense.  2) Noah and his family were directly “immersed” / “placed into” the ark to escape God’s wrath. The same happens today; a person is saved (escapes judgment) when he places himself in the “Ark of our Salvation,” Jesus Christ.  This is the “baptism” that “now saves you”:  being “placed into,” or “incorporated into” the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). But this is done by faith, not water baptism.

What is it that saves a person?  According to Romans 1:16, it is the gospel message, because “…it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes…”

The great apostle Paul certainly had a yearning to see people saved.  He no doubt was concerned for all people.  But in 1 Corinthians 1:17 he says, “…for Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel...”  Again, that’s because it is faith in the gospel message that saves, not baptism.  If water baptism saves, then he would never have said the above.

One more time… baptism is a work, a good and meaningful work, but nevertheless, it’s still a work.  Works are certainly important in the Christian’s life, but they do not save you.  Scripture is clear… we are only saved by faith (trusting) in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross.  When it comes to sanctification (living out the Christian life), faith without works is dead; but when it comes to justification (having a right standing with God), faith without works IS salvation! 
   

Just a final note:  In this series, we purposely avoided using the classic example of someone being saved without water baptism… the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43).  Although we believe that this is an excellent example, we held back from using it because some might object and say that the thief may have already been baptized (though we don’t know that), so he didn’t need to do it again.  There is a slight possibility of this, so we did not use that particular example.

However, we would like to point out that many of the same people who say the thief on the cross did not need to be baptized “because he was under the Old Covenant,” would also try to say that Nicodemus (John 3:5) did need to be baptized, although he, too, was under the same Old Covenant.  Sorry guys, but you can’t have it both ways.

 

At any rate, water baptism is an important ordinance of the Christian church and it should not be neglected, but the teaching of baptismal regeneration does not pass the biblical test.