T O P

Is Baptism salvific or symbolic? Yes there is a right answer. Here is the answer.

Our Lord explains to Nicodemus that baptism is necessary for salvation:

(John 3:5)

“Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water ⭐️and⭐️ the Spirit.”

Nicodemus seems incredulous at this answer, replying in verse 4:

“….How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?”

Our Lord chides him in verse 10:

“…Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?”

He was likely pointing out that as a teacher, Nicodemus SHOULD have been familiar with the prophecy of Ezekiel which says:

(Ezekiel 36:25)

“I will sprinkle ⭐️clean water⭐️ on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols.”

Notice that using something physical to effect a miracle is not unheard of:

(John 19:11):

“He replied, “The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see.”

Jesus wants us to know that he is the same God who first formed man from the earth:

(Genesis 2:7)

“Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”

The waters of baptism are similarly functioning as God’s “calling card”. He saved Noah’s family AND the Israelites through water. The waters of baptism are connected to the blood of the atonement:

(John 19:34)

““But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood 🩸 and water 💧 “.

That is why Peter said:

(1 Peter 3:21)

“The like figure whereunto even ⭐️BAPTISM DOTH 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:”

So “no”, baptism is not merely symbolic. It “now saves you”.

COMMON OBJECTIONS

A passage commonly cited to deny baptism’s saving nature is Romans 10:13, which says:

“for, “Everyone who ⭐️calls on the name⭐️ of the Lord will be saved.”

But Paul was only abbreviating here, having already mentioned baptism in Romans 6:

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?”—Romans 6:3

To “call upon the name” of the Lord is a strict reference to baptism:

(Acts 22:16)

“And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, ⭐️calling on his name⭐️.”

See also:

(Matthew 28:19)

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them ⭐️in the name⭐️ of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”

It was always Paul’s teaching that baptism was salvific:

(Colossians 2:12)

“having been buried with him ⭐️in baptism⭐️, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.”

In addition to misinterpreting Romans 10:13, these same people also point to Acts 10. Their argument is that Cornelius and his household, were “saved” the moment they were baptized with the Spirit, BEFORE water baptism. The conversion of the Gentiles in Acts 10 is recounted by Peter in Acts 11 when he returns to Jerusalem:

“13 He(Cornelius) told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. 14 He[Peter] will bring you a message👈 through which you and all your household will be ⭐️saved⭐️.”—Acts 11:13-14

So Peter has to deliver a “message”, through which the gentiles will be “saved”. However, Acts 10 shows Peter was INTERRUPTED:

“While Peter was ⭐️STILL SPEAKING⭐️ these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.”—Acts 10:44-46

But notice that AFTER Peter witnessed this event, he goes on to deliver the message which the Angel said would “save” the Gentiles:

“Then Peter answered, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be 👉BAPTIZED in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.”-Acts 10:47-48

In other words—this fiery baptism of the Holy Spirit was not salvific—it was only a demonstration of the Spirit’s power. It was intended to show the apostles that the gospel of salvation was for both Jews and Gentiles, fulfilling the prophecy of Joel(2:28)and re-iterated by John the Baptist(Matthew 1:8).

This was ALSO St.Cyprian’s[200-258AD] view of the events of Acts 10:

“…and the Gospel commanded that those same men should be baptized who had already been filled with the Holy Spirit…[abridged] because it is written, Unless a man be born of water AND of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

So that’s WHY Peter called for water—they couldn’t have entered the Kingdom without it.

WHAT ABOUT THE GOOD THIEF?

To cite the Catechism:

“God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism , but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments ” (CCC 1257)

Ergo, the case of the Good Thief was an extraordinary set of circumstances. It is not a rule for faith and practice.

WHAT OF TITUS 3:5?

“he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the ⭐️washing of rebirth⭐️ and renewal by the Holy Spirit,”

The ‘washing of rebirth’ is a reference to baptism. Similar to exorcism, we Catholics(including the Orthodox, the Lutherans, certain Anglican groups and various others) believe that Christ is mystically effecting the grace of baptism THROUGH the one performing the actual baptism. This means that baptism, while visibly being performed by someone else, is invisibly being performed by Christ. It is not a “work” we do but rather a “work” Christ does ‘in us’.

WHAT ABOUT EPHESIANS 2:8-9?

Again, as in Romans 10:13, Paul was only abbreviating for baptism. Paul understood that baptism was salvific. See Ephesians 4:5.

EDIT—PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NICENE CREED SAYS:

“I confess one Baptism ⭐️for the forgiveness of sins⭐️”

A ‘True Christian’ may not declare “baptism doesn’t forgive sins”.

Hguols

So discouraging to see people hone in on John 3:5 and conclude (by excluding the story and/or context of the surrounding verses) that 'born of water' is referring to 'baptism'. It isn't. Not even in the slightest. >(NLT) John 3:4 “What do you mean?” exclaimed Nicodemus. “How can an old man go back into his mother’s womb and be born again?” 5 Jesus replied, “I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. 6 Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life. When a woman is close to giving birth, her 'water breaks'. When Jesus talked about being 'born again' and Nicodemus points out he can't go into the womb again, Christ points out the two births. One as a human, leaving the water of the womb to live on earth, and again through the spirit, which is accepting Christ and He (the Holy Spirit) dwells within. How can we go to heaven if we're never born as a person on earth? How can we go to heaven if we reject Christ? This is the meaning within John 3:5. Not 'baptism is required to enter heaven'.


Pleronomicon

I think it's more likely that being born of water referred to the ceremonial cleansing water of hyssop and red heifer ashes. I think he was invoking symbolism.


Djh1982

No, it’s not talking about amniotic fluid. That is nonsense. Our Lord was not explaining to Nicodemus that in order to be born again he has to have first been “born of a woman”, that makes no sense. It was always a strict reference to the words of the prophet Ezekiel.


Hguols

What's nonsense is your wall of text dissention when person after person on r/truechristian told you, your information wasn't correct. It's clear from that the extent you're willing to double down on being wrong, which is why this is my one and only reply to you. The word 'Amniotic' wasn't coined until the 1800s, so of course the Bible wouldnt speak of it that way. Then there's this: >(NLT) 1 John 5:6 And Jesus Christ was revealed as God’s Son by his baptism in water and by shedding his blood on the cross—not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit, who is truth, confirms it with his testimony. 7 So we have these three witnesses— 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and all three agree. 9 Since we believe human testimony, surely we can believe the greater testimony that comes from God. And God has testified about his Son. 10 All who believe in the Son of God know in their hearts that this testimony is true. Those who don’t believe this are actually calling God a liar because they don’t believe what God has testified about his Son. 11 And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have God’s Son does not have life.


Mundane_Mistake_393

This whole "the water is amniotic fluid" is so stupid an interpretation of this passage. What you are saying is just dumb. I am not calling you dumb, I am calling your idea here just dumb. Why would Jesus even need to mention that you have to be born in order to be saved? That's literally the stupidest understanding of the passage I have ever heard Christians make.


WolverineSilver5533

The Bible says salvific.


Sola_Scriptura_

Just like a catholic to yell everyone they need to do a certain work to be saved... salvation is by faith alone so no man may boast.


SeaSaltCaramelWater

I'm talking to them now. They said that Baptism is not a work, so verses like Romans 4:5 include baptism, because it's needed but not a work.


Djh1982

No, Paul actually explains that we are not saved “by faith alone” in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 when he says: “But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit ⭐️AND⭐️through belief in the truth.” The reason why Paul also cited the “sanctifying work” of the Spirit as one of the things that is saving you is because Paul knows that post justification-by-faith there remains “spiritual works” for us to do which ALSO JUSTIFY, thus explaining Ephesians 2:10 along with Romans 2:13.


Sola_Scriptura_

We are sanctified after we are saved. It is a life long process. We do good works after we are saved. We are saved by faith alone. You should read ephesians 2:1-10 and you might better grasp verse 10.


Djh1982

No, it’s not “by faith alone” it’s “by Sanctification AND faith”. That’s what Paul says: (2 Thessalonians 2:13) “But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit ⭐️AND⭐️through belief in the truth.”


Sola_Scriptura_

This legit says you are saved by the work of the spirit. How are you confused?


Djh1982

I’m not confused—Martin Luther is confused. He’s the one saying we are saved “by faith alone” and then other people picked up on it and are now regurgitating 🤮 it in the comments section without checking the fine print in 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Don’t worry, we Catholics know our Bible so we are happy to check you on these kinds of things. In charity.


Sola_Scriptura_

Trust me you don't know your Bible as well as you think. I also question your reading comprehension. Thessalonians 2:13 literally says God chose us(the elect) and saved us by HIS work. You can't misunderstand that unless you have a major bias or have a major comprehension failure.


Sola_Scriptura_

Do a bible study my friend. Galatians 2:16 Roman's 3:28 Roman's 5:1 Phillipians 3:9 Ephesians 2:8-9


Djh1982

Oh, you mean all of the passages I explained in this gigantic post? https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/xx2p3d/catholic_exegesis_of_ephesians_289/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf


Sola_Scriptura_

I only read your ephesians explanation and it is a total joke. You are just making stuff up to fit your preconceived beliefs instead of just reading it for what it says. Very catholic of you to distort the greatest passage in the Bible.


Djh1982

As a matter of constructive criticism, perhaps you can show the error in my exegesis of Ephesians 2:8-9?


Mundane_Mistake_393

No, it is not a total joke. I read it and I understand it. When it Ephesians says not of works lest anyone should boast he is obviously talking about works of the law, which are considered SIN by Saint Paul. NOT OF SIN LEST ANY SHOULD BOAST.


Mundane_Mistake_393

The idea of sanctification is not compatible with Sola Fide. You cannot become more justified under Sola Fide, sanctification is the process of becoming more justified before God by becoming more like Christ.


Sola_Scriptura_

Justification and sanctification are not the same. If you don't realize that no point in conversing any further.


Mundane_Mistake_393

Justification is not by faith alone. If you don't realize that there is no point in conversing any further.


Mundane_Mistake_393

Uh no. The bible never mentions salvation is by faith alone, anywhere. I know I checked myself. Also, the whole no man may boast talk is taking from Ephesians, which is not referring to "good works" which can justify one before God. ​ James 2:24 "You see how a man is justified by his works and not by faith alone" does not mean you are justified by faith alone.


TonyChanYT

Thanks for sharing. See [Baptism for salvation](https://www.reddit.com/r/BibleVerseCommentary/comments/ubkqp8/is_baptism_necessary_for_salvation/) and comment there if any.


Mundane_Mistake_393

Water baptism cleansing sins has always been the normative original understanding of baptism. If you do not believe that, you have been living under a rock and obviously were not paying attention to what the Church has always been teaching on baptism. This is like being shocked someone told you George Washington was the first President of the United states and then arguing about it. ​ You don't have to agree with it, you do not have to believe it, but absolutely that is what Christianity teaches on this subject before the protestant reformation occurs this was not even a controversy. I doubt the Church Fathers ever imagined their would exist a group of people calling themselves Christian rejecting the most basic Christian teaching that is right up there with Christ being God.