Audio only:
Dr. Karlo features a crossover conversation unpacking the biblical case for baptism’s role in salvation, responding to common objections and highlighting its connection to forgiveness, new life, and union with Christ.
TRANSCRIPT:
Karlo:
Hey friends, welcome back to the channel. I’m so glad you’re here with me. Today’s episode is a bonus episode where I sit down to chat with Catholic apologist Brian Mercier about my book, Baptism Now Saves You: How Water and Spirit Give Eternal Life. I hope you enjoy the conversation.
Bryan:
Hello everyone, and welcome to the Catholic Truth Podcast, where we teach and preach the truth. Today, we are going to be talking about does baptism save you? Because the Bible says baptism saves you. But Protestants say, no, it does not. And there’s a lot of nuances and there’s a lot of back and forth, even though the Bible seems so very clear on this issue. So to be able to tackle this issue, not just one verse, but several verses that all confirm that baptism is necessary for salvation. I am super happy and excited to have back on the show. Carlo Broussard, who is a Catholic answers speaker, writer. He’s going to be starting his new YouTube channel soon. And he wrote a book recently called Baptism Saves You: How Water and Spirit Give Eternal Life. You can find this on CatholicPressCatholic.com. And it’s actually a fantastic book that goes so deep into all the biblical passages and just exegetes them wonderfully.
So Karlo, thank you so much for joining us on this show. I’m super excited to have you today.
Karlo:
Yeah, Brian, thanks for having me, man. It’s great to be back on with you. Looking forward to geeking out with you, man. We’re going to nerd out in this theology here.
Bryan:
Yes. You love it. I love it. We both love apologetics. Absolutely. I think we’re cut from the same cloth and-
Karlo:
Amen.
Bryan:
Yeah, let’s get started on that because I know that for all of history, Catholics and Orthodox have always believed that John three: five refers to baptism. That’s how we are born again through baptism. Many, maybe even a lot of Protestants believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. So you have all Catholics, all Orthodox, and many Protestants, all on the same side on this topic, saying that Jesus said you must be born again in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now, some Protestants reject this and they try to explain the passage away. Can you maybe open up John three: five a little bit more and maybe explain the controversy?
Karlo:
Yeah, sure. So the question, so in order for your viewers to establish the context, this is the famous Born Again discourse where Jesus says, “Unless you are born again, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” And of course, Nicodemus interprets that in a physical, literalistic way, asking must a grown man enter into his mother’s womb again. And then Jesus responds to offer clarification, unless a man is born again of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Traditionally, Christians have interpreted the water and spirit as a reference to the sacrament of baptism, but some Christians reject that interpretation or that exegesis for a variety of different reasons. The majority of which focus on that water aspect, trying to offer alternative explanations as to what the water refers to. In this particular chapter, chapter one, Brian, of my book, I offer the positive exegesis as to why we conclude with a sacramental reading of the text, and then I engage 10 counter arguments, 10 alternative lines of exegesis that some Christians have offered to try and get around the baptismal regeneration reading of the text.
So one, for example, is that the water is a symbol of the Holy Spirit and provides biblical text to support that thesis. It is true that the Bible speaks of water as a symbol of the Holy Spirit, but that doesn’t mean that water is a symbol of the Holy Spirit in every single context and usage, especially in this text because if Jesus intended water to be a symbol of the Holy Spirit, he would be saying that you need to be born again of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit to enter the kingdom of heaven. And that makes no sense. Another common counter argument is that the water refers to the word of God, and it is true that water is an image for the word of God throughout scripture, but it doesn’t necessarily follow from that, that this passage does not refer to the sacrament of baptism because even in the Catholic theological system, we can affirm that we were born again by the word of God, which the New Testament does speak of.
We’re born anew through God’s word. In the Catholic theological system, we affirm that the word of God is also part of the ritual baptism that brings about the new birth because the word of God is uttered. I baptize you in the name of the Father and Son of the Holy Spirit, quoting Matthew chapter 28, verse 19. So just because the Bible elsewhere refers to being born again by the word of God, which would ultimately be Jesus Christ who brings about the new birth, it doesn’t follow from that, that Jesus is excluding physical water and ritual baptism when he speaks of the new birth in John three: five. And finally, I’ll just offer this common one. Again, I go through 10 of them and we don’t have time for that here, but a common one that you will hear from evangelical non-denominational Christians and even some Baptists is that the water refers to our biological birth.
So when Jesus speaks of being born again of water and the spirit, water refers to the first birth, our physical birth, and being born of the spirit refers to what Jesus is speaking of here, our second birth or the new birth from above. But the problem, Brian, with that, is that notice that challenge assumes that the water, the first birth, is not constitutive of the second birth, but that’s not what Jesus says. The plain reading of the text, notice Jesus incorporates both water and spirit together as making up or constituting the second birth. To state that differently, the second birth or the birth from above involves both water and spirit. So even on that reading, water cannot be referring to our first physical birth. Secondly, both Jesus and John already have language that refers to our first physical birth. Jesus himself in the text speaks of being born of the flesh.
That’s a reference to our first physical birth. Water is not the language that Jesus uses to refer to our first physical birth. John also refers to our physical birth in the preceding context in John chapter one. And guess what? He does not use the language of water to refer to that first physical birth, like the amniotic fluid of the mother, so some Christians will say, but rather he speaks of our physical birth as born of blood. That’s how he refers to physical birth. So the water that Jesus speaks of here is not referring to the word of God. It’s not referring to the Holy Spirit. It’s not referring to our physical birth. Given the historical Christian, Jewish Christian context of baptisms involving water, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus by speaking of water is referring to ritual baptism, especially, Brian, in light of the preceding context where in John one, John references Jesus’ baptism where you have water and spirit.
And then subsequent to John three: five, right there at the beginning of John chapter four, John talks about how the apostles went around baptizing people. So baptism, both before and after the passage in question is the context. And right smack dab in the middle, you have Jesus talking about being born new of water and spirit. And one last point, Brian, if I may, as I point out in my book, notice Jesus tells Nicodemus, you’re a teacher of the law and you don’t understand what I’m saying. I argue that Jesus there implies Nicodemus should have been aware of what he’s talking about from the Jewish scriptures. So the question arises, where in the Jewish scriptures do you find water, spirit, and renewal? Well, it’s Ezekiel 36, where God prophesies through Ezekiel that he’s going to sprinkle clean water upon his people in the Messianic age, give them his spirit and bring about a new heart within them.
So notice those three elements, water, spirit, and renewal there in Ezekiel 36. And according to Jewish confirmation, it belonged to Jewish belief that that was a prophecy of an eschatological baptismal ministry within the Messianic age. And so it’s against that Jewish historical backdrop that Jesus teaches Nicodemus that this new birth involves water and spirit. You have water, spirit, and inner renewal. And that, my friend, is the Messianic eschatological baptismal ministry that he’s revealing to us. So we have reasons to conclude that Jesus is referring to the sacrament of baptism by water and spirit in the new birth, and reasons to reject counter arguments to interpreting this language as a reference to sacramental baptism.
Bryan:
Man, this is so good. And it just ties so perfectly into all the other biblical passages as well. I like what you say in your book that Jesus doesn’t say be born of water and then the spirit later on like your mother first and then later. Tell me if I’m crazy, Carlo. For me, I was thinking about this and the Protestant argument doesn’t make sense. To say that you must be born of water like your mother first and then be born of this. To me, that’s like just Jesus saying, “You must be born and then you must be born again.” You must be born to be born again. It doesn’t make sense.
Karlo:
Right. And so the response to that is why would Jesus need to tell Nicodemus that you have to be physically born first to be spiritually born?
Bryan:
When you already knew that.
Karlo:
That’s right. That would be a gift, right? When you speak about being born again, you automatically presuppose that you’re already born. That’s what a second birth is. So there would be no need for Jesus to introduce a new birth and have to emphasize that you’ve been born first in order to be born again. That’s just an assumption that you can reasonably take. Yeah.
Bryan:
Yeah. Jesus, you must be born. Then you can be born again. But I think what Protestants don’t realize is there are serious, deep biblical evidence for being born again, not just in John three: five, but corresponding to this. And Paul himself directly links being born again to baptism in Romans chapter six, where he says that we must die with … In fact, the first book of Timothy says, “If you don’t die with Christ, you will not live with him in heaven.” Well, how do we die with him? Paul in Romans six says it’s through baptism. We die and come to new life with him through baptism. Could you talk about Romans six? I think a lot of Protestants either miss this or then try to spiritualize it saying, “Oh, well, that’s not water baptism once they’ve realized the implications.” Yeah.
Karlo:
So it is true that Paul does not use the language of being born again like our Lord does in John three: five. But as I argue in this particular chapter in my book, the theology of what Paul is teaching on is the spiritual renewal brought about by ritual baptism. And so in Romans six: three through four, as you correctly highlighted, Brian, St. Paul says that as Christians, we’re baptized into Christ Jesus and insofar as we’re baptized into Christ Jesus, we’re baptized into his death. That’s the key. We’re buried therefore with him by baptism into death, he says, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in the newness of life. The implication being that we too will be resurrected spiritually speaking. So we die with Christ, we rise with Christ in what? In baptism.
And here’s the key for the new birth or the spiritual renewal. In verses six through seven, Brian, Paul starts talking about how the old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed so that we might no longer be enslaved to sin for he who has died. Now, note there, what’s the context? Which death is he talking about? He’s talking about the death in Christ that’s brought about in baptism. He who has died in the baptismal death is freed from sin there in verse seven. Now what’s interesting is for the apologetical nerds out there, right? The Greek word or the Greek verb for freed is decayo, which means to be put in a right relationship with God. The noun is Decaio Sune, which is justification. So it literally can be translated as he who is … When we die with Christ in the baptismal death, we are justified from sin.
So note there, St. Paul is envisioning a freedom from the slavery of sin that baptism brings about that’s interior and he associates that with justification. The conclusion being that Paul envisions baptism as justifying us, which is just another way of saying that baptism saves us. And he goes on, Brian, to emphasize this freedom from slavery in verses 17 through 18. He says, “You once were slaves of sin, but have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to what you were committed and having been set free from sin have become slaves of righteousness.” Well, given what he said in verses six through seven, the setting free from slavery of sin is brought about through baptism. And so the freedom from the slavery of sin through baptism brings about a new interior state of the heart of slavery of righteousness. And guess what? That’s to Kyle Sune right there and that’s justification.
So Paul teaches us that baptism brings about an interior change within our hearts from slavery to sin to a state of righteousness, which he identifies as justification. And that’s just another way of saying that baptism brings about a new birth, a regeneration within us. Or to state it differently, baptism saves us.
Bryan:
And that is the very short version. There’s so much more in that chapter on Romans chapter six, which shows just how deep Paul goes in showing baptism and how it cleanses us, how it’s not just a symbolic act that you can choose to do if you want in front of your church, like a wedding ring. No, this is setting us free from sin, interiorly cleansing us, setting us free to be slaves of Christ all through baptism. It talks about being righteous and many other things. So not just cleansed from sin, but interiorly renewed sanctification as well.
Karlo:
Yeah. And I actually engage two counter arguments to this line of exegesis that some Protestants have put forward. And one simple counter there is that, well, Paul doesn’t say anything about water here. So the argument is since
Bryan:
Paul- I was going to bring that up.
Karlo:
Yeah. Since Paul doesn’t say anything about water, well, then we can’t conclude that he’s referring to ritual water baptism. Well, my response to that, as I point out in the book, and I’ll just summarize it here, is that Paul wrote his letter to the Romans around AD 54. So that means for roughly 20 years, Christians would have been practicing water baptism and obedience to Christ command in Matthew 28:19 to go out and baptize and make disciples. So this means that for Christians, for 20 years, the term baptism had already become associated with and denoted water baptism. And so when Paul speaks of baptism here to the Romans, there’s no need for him to say, “Guys, the baptism I’m talking about is ritual water baptism.” So even for us as Catholics, when we say baptism, we automatically know what we’re referring to, the right of baptism, the washing of water.
Even when we say born again as Catholics, we know what we’re referring to, sacrament of baptism. We don’t have to further nuance and specify to the audience that has already been living within the Christian context and knowing the meaning of the terms. So just because Paul doesn’t speak of water in this text, it doesn’t follow that he’s not referring to water or baptism. We have good reason to conclude that by speaking of baptism, Paul would’ve been referring to water baptism. And of course, that just raises the question, well, what else would he be referring to? There’s nothing in the text or the immediate surrounding text that would lead us to the conclusion that it’s referring to something other than water baptism.
Bryan:
Yeah. The same thing with John three: five as well, because there’s no context whatsoever for amniotic fluid or being born in a mother as the first birth, but there is context before the chapter, the chapter before, when Jesus is baptized. And then immediately after, as soon as he’s done talking to Nicodemus in verse 22, they go down and do what? They baptize with water. So I mean, the context of that is baptism. And like you said, there’s no context for these other Protestant suggestions. Now, they also try to do the same thing with one Peter 3:21, where the Bible clearly says baptism saves you. And I think we’ve seen the link between being born again in John three: five, two, coming to new life with Christ and being renewed from within, removing slavery of sin in John six, and then that renewal that we received through baptism in one Peter 3:21, they seem to connect.
Can you talk about that verse for us, please?
Karlo:
Yeah, absolutely. So in verse right there about verse 20, St. Peter says, “God’s patience waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark in which a few that is eight persons were saved through water.” So that’s the O Testament backdrop against which now he’s going to talk about baptism. He goes on, “Baptism, which corresponds to this? ” Corresponds to what? “Noah and his family being saved through the water. Baptism, which corresponds to this now saves you. ” So just as no and his family were saved by water, baptism saves us as a Christian. And so the implication is that he’s referring to water baptism. So this idea of water not being mentioned here can’t apply here.
It’s very clear in the text itself. Now, Brian, he goes on to say, “Baptism, which corresponds to this now saves you, ” and he articulates what he means by saves, not as a removal of dirt from the body. So he’s excluding this being merely an external washing, but he goes on to say, “As an appeal to God for a clear conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” So notice, right after Peter says, “Baptism now saves you, ” and he begins to explain what he means by salvation. He juxtaposes what baptism does to our conscience and an external cleansing or washing of water. That juxtaposition necessarily implies that what happens in baptism is an interior spiritual cleansing or washing of the soul in contrast to what is done simply exteriorly to the body.
Bryan:
Which is exactly what we saw in Romans six.
Karlo:
Exactly. Yes. So just as Paul teaches us how baptism through that baptismal death, we rise to newness of life and are set free interiorly from the slavery of sin. Peter here now is articulating the same reality, but under the concept of salvation and explaining that salvation as an inner cleansing of the soul in contrast to a mere external washing. So man, if there’s any text in the Bible that is clear when it comes to a particular belief, it’s this one where Peter says, “Baptism saves you. ” And of course, we would make the proper theological nuances as to what we as Catholics mean by that and what Peter meant by that. Not that the water has any power in and of itself as if it had magical powers. No, it’s merely the.
Bryan:
Well, what do we mean by that, Carlo? They might be interjecting because a lot of people will say, “It’s Christ that saves you. It’s Christ that saves you. This is proof that you Catholics put focus on the wrong things.” I mean, even in the verse, it says it’s through Christ’s resurrection.
Karlo:
Yeah, good point. And I actually deal with that counter argument because some will say, “Well, it’s not the water that saves us, it’s the resurrection. It’s Christ’s resurrection that saves us.” So the first point to make is that we do not believe that the water saves us in the sense that the water has some power of itself to save us. That would undermine the sufficiency of Jesus’ death on the cross, right? That would be a violation of Jesus’ death on the cross and a front to his death on the cross. Rather, what we believe insofar as Peter says, “Baptism saves you, the ritual water baptism is the instrument through which God intends to give us or communicate to us the inner renewal, the new birth, the saving grace.” So just like a Protestant within the reformed theological tradition of forensic justification where faith is merely the instrument through which God imputes to us the very righteousness of Christ.
So two, we as Catholics profess and believe that the ritual water baptism is merely the instrument through which God communicates to us saving grace that brings about the inner renewal. Now, with regard to the appeal to the resurrection of Christ, which Peter does, he says that we have this clear conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Well, we don’t have a problem with that because it belongs to our very theology that through the ritual water baptism, what did St. Paul say? We die with Christ and we rise with Christ. We participate spiritually in the resurrection of Jesus in the ritual water baptism, which consequently brings about the inner renewal, our state of justification. So it’s not a matter of either or the resurrection of Christ or ritual water baptism as an instrument, but it’s both and. And so the appeal to the resurrection of Christ of our salvation through the resurrection of Christ does not negate or exclude the water, the ritual water baptism, but rather the salvation wrought through the resurrection of Christ includes the ritual water baptism.
As Jesus reveals to us being born again of water and spirit, and of course St. Peter here comparing baptism to the waters that saved Noah and his family. So ritual water baptism is indeed envisioned here, but as the instrument through which we die and in this case rise with Christ in order to have the clear conscience and thus quote unquote be saved.
Bryan:
Yeah. Very well said, very well succinctly formed, formulated. Thank you. And it made me think too that there’s just so many verses throughout scripture that talk about the necessity of baptism that I don’t think a lot of people would necessarily think of right away. For example, I mean, there are, because it does say baptism saves you, but then there are others that say, for example, in one Corinthians 12:13, also in Romans six, it says that we are baptized into Christ and his body, which we know his body is the church. So if entrance into Christ and the church is baptism, what is it saying if we are not baptized?
Karlo:
Well, it’s saying that we’re not quote unquote in Christ. Now, with regard to that one Corinthians 12:13 passage, it’s important to nuance our appeal to that passage because some Protestants can read that and come away with, well, yeah, baptism is the visible sign that testifies our communion with the church. Like through baptism, we enter into the visible church. And we of course agree with that in part, but it goes further than that. However, in one Corinthians 12, I do think we can infer from that baptismal regeneration on the spiritual level, precisely because when Paul draws the parallel between membership in the church and members of a physical body, that parallel provides for us an insight as to what Paul is thinking. So just as members of a physical body share in the very life of the person whose body it is. So too, in this body of Christ that Paul talks about where we as Christians are all members of each other, we share in the life of the person whose body it is.
And that would be the life of Christ himself, which we would articulate further, but in the order of grace. It’s this supernatural life that we’re all sharing in virtue of our union with Christ. And Paul teaches us that baptism is the instrument through which we are incorporated into that shared supernatural life. Thereby, we receive that life that unites us to Christ, and that’s just yet another way of articulating what he did in Romans six, that we were interiorly renewed or changed, made a new creation to quote two Corinthians 5:17 through baptism. And so one Corinthians 12:13, as I argue in my book, is a profound text to support St. Paul’s theology and understanding of sacramental baptism. And then just real quick, to be in Christ, according to Romans eight: one, it’s to no longer be subject to condemnation. So if baptism puts us in Christ, then it’s putting us in a state where we’re no longer subject to condemnation, which is just another way of saying, “Baptism saves
Bryan:
Us.” Exactly. Well said. And I think there’s another passage yet again that corresponds with that. And that is Acts 2:38 where it says … Well, I’ll let you explain it, but basically anybody who reads Acts 2:38 sees the necessity of baptism because Peter specifically links it as part of the salvation process.
Karlo:
Yeah. And this occurs on the day of Pentecost when Peter’s preaching the first sermon on the birthday of the church, right? He’s proclaiming Jesus as their Jewish Messiah risen from the dead. And then Luke tells us that the crowd was cut to the heart and they asked Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do? ” And so Peter answers, he says, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” And so there we see Peter teaching us that in order for these people who are cut to the heart to receive the forgiveness of sins, what do they have to do? They need to be baptized. What must they do to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? They need to be baptized.
So Peter, excuse me, Peter here teaches us that baptism is serving as a cause of some sort to bring about the forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit, to have sins forgiven and to receive the Holy Spirit, Brian, is just another way of saying baptism saves. And so not only does Peter teach baptism saves us explicitly in one Peter 3:21, but I argue in my book, he’s also teaching us that baptism saves here in Acts chapter two, verse 38 on the day of Pentecost. And in fact, here, he’s just emphasizing other aspects of that salvation, namely the forgiveness of sins, which in one Peter 3:21, he described as a clear conscience, but here he adds an extra tidbit of knowledge, and that is the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit, which of course we know would bring about the forgiveness of sins.
Bryan:
Right. Because as you already suggested, they already had faith. We believe faith saves. They had faith. They were cut to the heart. They believed. But what else was necessary? To repent of your sins and to be baptized. He could have said, “You just need to repent of your sins for the forgiveness of your sins and then later be baptized if you’d like to, but you don’t have to. ” But links them together and says, “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins.” And I like how in the book you link those two together and show how and why grammatically they go together.
Karlo:
Yeah, because one potential Protestant counter, and we don’t need to get into the weeds of the Greek here for our purposes, and people can get the book and read it. But to summarize, some Protestants will counter that the language in the Greek would suggest possibly that the forgiveness of sins or that baptism is a result of the forgiveness of sins. And the implication being that given their repentance, they already had the forgiveness of sins and then baptism follows that forgiveness of sins. And it is true that the Greek therefore for the forgiveness of sins could be read in that sense. It’s called a resultant sense, but it can also be read in what we call a causal sense, where baptism is the cause of bringing about the forgiveness of sins. And so we’re kind of left with an ambiguity in looking at the word for just by itself, which sense does Peter intend?
Well, as I argue in my book, I argue for the causal sense that baptism is going to be the cause that which brings about the forgiveness of sins because notice the future tense of even receiving the Holy Spirit. He says, “Be baptized and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” So notice the Holy Spirit. Peter does not confirm that the Holy Spirit was already had. And so baptism is just going to be a resultant symbol of that. No, rather, the Holy Spirit is to be received in the future, the implication being after you get baptized. And so if the Holy Spirit is in effect in the future of baptism, baptism preceding the effect of the Holy Spirit, well then so too, the forgiveness of sins is envisioned to be an effect of that which preceded it, namely baptism. And one last point, Brian, concerning the faith that they already had prior to baptism and the repentance that they had of their sin, those are indeed conditions to lead up to the sacrament of baptism.
But within our theological system, we would articulate that faith and that repentance as not the faith that justifies us, but as the preceding faith that’s a gift from God to lead to the waters of baptism, to receive the grace of justification that includes the theological virtue of faith by which we are justified, along of course, with hope and charity. So Brian, this is exciting stuff because this provides us an example of how one can have faith before baptism, but it’d be a faith, though a gift from God, but a non-justifying faith, a faith that’s not animated by the virtue of charity yet. And so that allows for us to still affirm that baptism gives the justifying faith because many Protestants have a hard time with this. And they say, “Well, look, these people before baptism, they had faith. They believed in God. Can’t we just say they’re saved then?” Well, it’s possible, but ordinarily we can account for that preceding faith as a non-justifying faith.
And Cornelius manifested that before he received the Holy Spirit in Acts 10. He had faith because his prayers were accepted before God in heaven. And so there is a non-justifying faith that can precede baptism, leading to baptism in order through the ritual washing of water to receive the justifying faith that Paul talks about in Romans chapter three where we’re justified by faith.
Bryan:
And there are so many more verses we could talk about too, because this applies perfectly with what Jesus says in Marks 16:16 where he says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Absolutely. He doesn’t just say he who believes, but he who believes and is baptized, which corresponds to exactly what you just said, that faith and baptism go hand in hand. It’s not one or the other. It’s both. We could also talk about, I believe it’s Acts 16:22, if I’m not mistaken, where Paul’s sins are washed away through baptism. And the Philippian jailer, when he came to faith, he was baptized. I mean, we could go on forever talking about so many wonderful verses in regard to baptism. And you can find all of these in the book, baptism now saves you, but I wanted to deal with a couple of objections, if you don’t mind, that people like to bring up because at this point there’s a lot of biblical evidence, a lot of exegesis in favor of baptism, including the unanimous tradition of the entirety of Christian history before and even after the reformation so- called.
But one thing that people will say, and one concern people have is that if this is true, then it seems to imply that baptism is a work when in fact it’s Jesus’ work that saves us, but if we have to do this, isn’t that our work?
Karlo:
Yeah. So it’s a good question and I sympathize with it. My response is, “Well, listen, you believe that you’re saved by the work of Jesus Christ, right?” And of course they answer, “Yes.” But isn’t it also true that that work of Jesus Christ has to be applied to you individually? And then of course the answer is yes. And so the next question is, well, how does that take place, at least in the Protestant view? Well, it takes place through faith. As I articulated earlier in the reformed theological tradition, faith is the instrument through which the work of Jesus Christ and the merits of his death on the cross are applied to the person individually, and thereby the individual is now at peace with God. But notice, Brian, no Protestant would say that that faith on account of which Christ righteousness is imputed to them was a work that they did to earn the imputation of Christ righteousness.
They will simply say it’s the instrument. Well, if an instrument is allowed to be utilized through which God brings about salvation or peace, a justifying relationship with the person, in this case faith, in the Protestant case faith, well then so too, there can be an instrument in the Catholic theological system through which God brings about a peaceful relationship between him and us. And then in our case, it’s baptism. So the question really is not about whether this is a work or not. The question is, which is the divinely revealed instrument through which Christ wants to bring about us in a justifying relationship with him. And so the second, and so that’s the first thing I would say. And then secondly, when we properly understand what baptism is, it is not a work on account of which we merit the grace of justification initially no more than somebody merits a gift of a Catholic answers book when they call into Catholic Cancers Live and Sikellit says, “Hey, man, we want to give you a gift, a book.
Just stay on the line and we’ll get your address and we’ll mail it to you. ” So notice that individual, that caller, he still has to give his address and he still has to go to the mailbox and open up the package to get the book, right? But nobody would say that he’s working to merit the book. He
Bryan:
Didn’t earn it.
Karlo:
That’s right. He didn’t earn it. It’s simply the means by which he’s going to receive the gift, namely giving his address, going to the mailbox, opening the package. Similarly, we have this gift that Christ is willing to give us freely, manifest most expressly in infant baptism, I might add, and the means by which Christ stipulates us to receive that gift is water baptism. So it’s kind of like going in the mailbox. We’re not earning the gift, we’re not doing a work to merit the gift, we’re just simply obeying Christ to use the specified means to receive the gift. And so therefore it’s not a quote unquote work in the sense that a Protestant is conceiving of work, namely something I do to merit or earn the reward.
Bryan:
Or in the watered down version, many Protestants just say, “You can’t do anything. There’s nothing you can do. ” When in fact you rightly said, “Well, every time you put your faith in Christ, you are doing something. When you choose to believe you’re doing something, when you retract your sins, you’re doing something.”
Karlo:
That’s utilizing intellect and will, buddy. And as long as the will is involved, there is an action.
Bryan:
And I like to say that this isn’t our work. It’s God’s work in us. In fact, Martin Luther actually said that baptism was necessary for salvation and part of faith alone. He said, “It does not contradict faith alone because it’s God’s work in us and he commands it. ” And that’s something that Catholics have always believed in Christians down through the ages.
Karlo:
Yeah. And I would even add, especially coming from the timistic tradition that I sympathize with and I’m trained in, even the preceding acts of repentance and faith that are leading us to the waters of baptism, as I stated earlier in passing, those in and of themselves are gifts from God, what we call in the theological tradition, actual graces. And for my tomistic position, I would argue that even the intellect and the will itself is caused by God, is moved by God without violating our freedom. That requires a lot of metaphysical and philosophical articulation. But the point is that even the actions that lead to the waters of baptism through which we initially receive the grace of justification is a work of God. And then primarily, to our point here, the justifying effect that’s brought about within us is the work of God. And there’s nothing.
The Council of Trenton fallibly taught that no work preceding the initial grace of justification merits that initial grace of justification. It only disposes the soul by actual graces to receive the unmerited gift.
Bryan:
I have one more objection, one big objection. I mean, there’s many that we could go through, but one that I hear quite often is that when Protestants or non-Catholics are kind of on the ropes, they’ll kind of fall back on the argument that, well, Paul says he came to preach the gospel and he didn’t come to baptize. And that’s kind of like their Hail Mary passes. So say, if Paul doesn’t need to baptize and he says it’s not important, clearly if he thought it was important, he would’ve said, “You need to do it.
Karlo:
” Yeah. So I have a section on this in my book, and I’ll just summarize it here. I think the first thought and response, Brian, is that challenge confuses the duty to administer baptism versus baptism being an essential element of divine revelation. So let’s just say for argument’s sake, even if, as Paul says, he says, “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel.” Even if we say for argument’s sake, Paul did not have a commission to administer the sacrament of baptism, it still would not follow from that, that baptism is not essential for salvation because the administration of the sacrament could be imposed on other people besides Paul. So even on that score, if we take this for argument’s sake and we read it as it’s stated on its literalistic level, it still would not defeat the sacramental understanding of baptism and baptism being necessary for salvation.
But I do not think that that is what Paul is saying. As I argue in this section in my book, when Paul says, “Christ did not send me to baptize,” it’s within the context of him addressing factionist activity among the Christians in the Corinth Church. Some were saying, “I belong to Apollo. Some said, I belong to Ciphas, I belong to Paul.” And what seems to be the case is that Christians in Corinth were associating and affiliating themselves with those apostles and ministers who had baptized them. And it’s within that context that Paul says, “For Christ didn’t send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” His intent is to clarify his own part in the administration of the actual right of baptism among the Christians. And so I argue he’s actually using hyperbole here. And one reason why I think he’s using hyperbole is because he’s an apostle and Christ commanded the apostles at least the 11 before he ascended in Matthew 28 to go and baptize.
So I think it’s reasonable to conclude that that would belong to Paul as well to administer baptism. So if he’s saying, “I didn’t baptize in a literalistic sense,” well, then he would be disobeying the command of Christ to administer baptism. I don’t think we want to say that. And then furthermore, Paul actually tells us he actually did baptize a couple of people, Crispus and Gaias, and even the household of Stefanis. They’re in verse 14 of one Corinthians one. So did Paul disobey the fact that he wasn’t sent to baptize or is he confused? I don’t think we want to say these things. So what does Paul mean? Well, as I point out, I think he’s using hyperbole, and I give reasons why I think this. And the hyperbolic meaning is that it doesn’t matter by whom you are baptized because we’re all in the fellowship of God’s son, Jesus Christ, as Paul says in verse nine.
And there’s a formula that Paul is using there, Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach to gospel. That not but formula is actually used by our Lord in John 12:44. “He who believes in me, believes not in me, but in him who sent me. ” Is Jesus actually saying, “Don’t believe in him?” Of course not. It’s hypobolic speech. And so in one Corinthians 1:17, Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel. Given that not but formula, that provides for us good reason to conclude that he’s using hyperbole here in order to convey the meaning to the Christians in Corinth, guys knocked off the factionist activity. It doesn’t matter by whom you were baptized because we are all one in Christ. And so that’s what I explain in this section of the book.
Bryan:
Yeah. And it’s well said. I was in a debate on this once with someone and he was trying to hammer home this point. And I said, even if he didn’t baptize, it doesn’t mean he didn’t have someone with him that did baptize. Maybe he preached and the other person baptized. There’s sometimes bishops baptize, sometimes they delegate it to other people. Sometimes priests baptize, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they delegate it to a deacon. There’s different people in the church with different gifts who do different ministries. So I would agree with you that Paul probably did baptize, but he could have delegated it to someone else as well. And that doesn’t defeat the purpose. Really, the Bible doesn’t say. So you can’t just hang on that point as if it’s the one-two punch.
Karlo:
Exactly. And so the bottom line is that one Corinthians 1:17 cannot in principle defeat the Catholic understanding of baptism being essential for salvation.
Bryan:
Amen. And there’s so much more we could say, Carlo. You’ve done a masterful job summarizing all of these and keeping it all succinct. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. This is his book, Baptism Now Saves You. And maybe you can tell our audience where to find it and where to find you, Carlo.
Karlo:
Yeah. So the book is available for sale at shop.catholic.com. That’s the Catholic Answers Press online store for all of our products that we sell, and they can get it on Amazon as well. And to follow my work, they can check me out at my website, colobrusor.com. All of the work I do for Catholic Cancers is located there in one hub, as well as other apologetical work that I do outside the boundaries and beyond the boundaries of my work for Catholic ancers, some work that I do here locally. And the Diocese of Tulsa, Eastern Oklahoma is found there on my website as well. And like you said, in the introduction for some other books, there you go. Meeting
Bryan:
Process. You do other books as well, Meeting the Protestant Challenge and the Protestant Response, both excellent books.
Karlo:
At shop.catholic.com. And as you said in the introduction, Brian, for your viewers to be on the lookout of my forthcoming new YouTube channel, Dr. Carlo. And hopefully that will drop and go live here, I don’t know, maybe within the next month or so we see. It’s undetermined as the starting date.
Bryan:
Is it going to be Dr. Carlo DR or Dr. Carlo spelled out?
Karlo:
It would be DR Carlo.
Bryan:
Okay. Well, thank you, Dr. Carlo for coming on our show today. I really appreciate you taking the time.
Karlo:
Yeah. Well, thanks for having me, Brian. It’s always a pleasure and a joy to nerd out with you, man. I appreciate the opportunity.
Bryan:
As do I. I always love someone who’s as passionate as I am about apologetics and helping to explain the faith and bring people home. Thank you all too for tuning in. Without you, we wouldn’t be here, but we want to help you to know your faith, to love it, to live it, and to be set on fire for it. So thank you all for tuning in and do your part. Be the foot soldiers and share this video. Get it out there. Put it on all your social media platforms. Really, I mean, if two people see this, that doesn’t help us. We need to undo the lies, the misconceptions, the objections that so many people have against the Catholic faith, and you can help us by sharing this video and getting it out there. So thank you for watching. If you would like a Catholic speaker, go to catholic.com.
You can check out Carlo and he goes around and speaks. Catholictruth.org. We do parish missions, confirmation retreats, all sorts of different keynote talks. And you can check out everything in the links below. I will link his books. Baptism now saves you his information and all of our social media platforms as well. Thank you all for watching and God bless.
Karlo:
Well, my friends, that’s it for today. If you found this video helpful, make sure to like it, subscribe, comment below and share it with someone who might need to hear this. And for more resources, check out our website at catholic.com, my personal website, carlobrousard.com. And if you want me to come and speak at your event, visit catholicancerspeakers.com. Lastly, I want to thank those of you who are already patrons. We’re deeply grateful for your support. And if you’re not already a patron, I’d love for you to consider supporting me over on Patreon. For just $5 a month, you can get early access to my episodes, watch the episodes free of YouTube ads and get access to one of my six-hour online short courses entitled How to Talk About Morality in An Age of Moral Relativism, which comes with lecture notes totaling to just over 20,000 words.
You can sign up at doctorkarlo.com with doctor spelled out. Thanks for hanging out with me and I’ll see you next time. God bless.