Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

Author	: Bill Kochman
Publish	: Jan. 1, 2009
Update	: Jun. 9, 2025
Parts	: 08

Synopsis:



Continuing our discussion from part one, and returning for a moment to paragraph 1260 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it concludes by stating "It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity". This part of the paragraph errs in two regards. First, it promotes water baptism as a necessity for Salvation. Second, it arrogantly assumes that a person would assuredly desire water baptism if they were aware of it. This false position also assumes that the individual is convinced that water baptism is necessary for one to obtain Salvation, which it isn't. Allow me to share with you three more paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

----- Begin Quote -----

Para. 1261: As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them" (Mk 10:14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

Para. 1281: Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).

Para. 1283: With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation.

----- End Quote -----

In the previous paragraphs, we are told that we must simply trust God for the Salvation of children who die before being water baptized. In other words, just as with adult Catholics, Eternal Life is not a sure thing. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that it can be lost, depending on one's deeds; and if one has not been water baptized, that makes their chances at Salvation even more "iffy". As I explained earlier, and as I explain in other articles as well, the Roman Catholic Church promotes a religion which teaches that Salvation is an odd mixture of Grace and good works, which is totally contrary to what the Bible really teaches us.

But then notice that once again we are told very clearly in paragraph 1281, that people "can be saved even if they have not been baptized". Furthermore, notice that it also states that people can be saved "without knowing of the Church"; meaning, I assume, the Roman Catholic Church. In short, that paragraph is saying that anyone, even people outside of the Roman Catholic Church, can be saved. This, of course, is in contradiction to other parts of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states that the Roman Catholic Church is the only medium for obtaining Salvation, and forgiveness of sins.

Now, if I were a Roman Catholic -- which I am obviously not -- I think that after reading all of the previous paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I would be rather confused in a doctrinal sense. I think I'd be asking myself exactly what the Roman Catholic Church actually believe with regard to the issues of water baptism, Salvation and the forgiveness of sins.

At first appearance, we were given the impression that the Roman Catholic Church firmly believes that water baptism is absolutely necessary in order to obtain Salvation, and the forgiveness of sins. However, we then learned that this is not such a hard fast rule after all, and that the Catholic Church is willing to make exceptions in some cases, saying that Salvation can be obtained, even without being baptized in water. Then, to our surprise, we discovered that not only is water baptism not always an absolute necessity in regards to Salvation and the forgiveness of sins, but that people can likewise be saved outside of the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, a person can be saved without being baptized in water, and without even being a Roman Catholic. Finally, and tragically, we discovered that Pope Benedict XVI pushed the false belief that people of other religions can also be saved, even if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior; which, according to the Bible, is an absolute damnable heresy and a false gospel.

Finally, it might also interest you to know that the Roman Catholic Church believes that in certain situations, anyone, even if they are not baptized themselves, can baptize another individual, if they follow the procedure that is mandated by the Roman Catholic Church. Paragraphs 1256 and 1284 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church state the following:

----- Begin Quote -----

Para. 1256: The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

Para. 1284: In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate's head while saying: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

----- End Quote -----

Notice that once again, in paragraph 1256, the Catechism of the Catholic Church emphasizes that the act of water baptism is an essential part of Salvation, after it has already told us several times that people can be saved without it.

In light of all of this evidence, which I extracted directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, one really has to wonder what to believe. My view is the following. I believe that the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy is firmly convinced that water baptism is absolutely necessary for Salvation, as well as for the forgiveness of sins. I also believe that it is convinced that the Roman Catholic Church is the only way to obtain Salvation. Furthermore, their catechism, and other sources, clearly state that they view other Christians, who are not members of the Roman Catholic Church, as separated, and lesser brethren who are not fully in communion with God. I have even read comments written by radical Catholics who very arrogantly and condescendingly refer to Christians who belong to other denominations as "sep-breth". These Catholic radicals scoff at the idea of "sola escritura", which means that we derive our beliefs only from the Scriptures, and not from the Pope. They also laugh at our belief in "sola fide", meaning that we believe that we are saved by faith in Christ alone, without the need for water baptism, or any secondary mechanism.

However, because the Roman Catholic Church has so emphasized the misguided doctrine of water baptism being necessary for Salvation and the forgiveness of sins, it has also created a number of problems for itself over the years with the Roman Catholic laity. In a word, promoting the doctrine that anyone who isn't baptized is lost for eternity, isn't a very popular message. Obviously, such a message will make Catholics worry about their children who may have died before there was an opportunity for them to be water baptized; and this same fear can also be applied to their other relatives who have passed on before being water baptized as well. So, over the years, the RCC has reformed a number of its doctrines, and appended these different "loopholes" to its catechism, so that Roman Catholicism appears as a more "user-friendly", convenient religion which doesn't frighten people away with its harsh, rigid doctrines and practices.

Another good example of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy's efforts to make Roman Catholicism a more friendly, convenient religion can be seen in confessions. It may interest some of my readers to know that more than fifty-five years ago when I was still a dedicated young Roman Catholic, weekly confession was an absolute necessity; and a person could not partake of the eucharist -- communion host -- unless he had confessed his sins to the priest prior to that week's mass. As I recall now, even though my parents never attended church, they made sure that we children went to confession each and every Saturday, even if we could not think of anything serious to confess to the priest. Apparently, Roman Catholics eventually grew tired of this weekly practice. So now, from what I understand, the act of confession is only a once-a-year affair.

The truth of the matter, however, even though the leaders of the RCC may not be willing to readily admit it, is that for a number of years now, the influence and dominance of the Roman Catholic Church has been shrinking, and they have been seriously losing a lot of ground in a number of key areas of the world. This includes Europe, the Catholic stronghold of Latin America, and even the United States of America, which is a rebellious house when it comes to obeying the mandates of the Pope in Rome. The Roman Catholic Church has become so bogged down in its spiritually-uninspiring traditions, its questionable beliefs, and its dreary, repetitive practices, not to mention its own corruption, that people are leaving it in droves. Some Catholics have moved on to more vibrant non-Catholic denominations. Others have embraced Buddhism, or Islam, or abandoned faith altogether and become atheists.

As I first mentioned in my 1998 series entitled "Modern False Prophets and Worldly Ecumenism," in a desperate effort to try to save themselves, beginning several decades ago, the Roman Catholic Church embarked on a so-called mission to promote ecumenism. In other words, they are promoting unity among the world's Christian churches. However, their effort doesn't end there. As we saw earlier, more recent Popes have even reached out to other non-Christian faiths, such as Muslims, Buddhists and Jews.

As I explain in the aforementioned series, this is dangerous business which has already led to serious compromise. In the case of Cardinal Ratzinger -- a.k.a. Pope Benedict XVI -- we saw how he foolishly promoted the false belief that people can be saved even without believing in Jesus. It may surprise some of my readers to know that Benedict XVI wasn't the first Christian leader to actually promote this dangerous and false doctrine. As I note in the aforementioned series, in May of 1997, the world-famous Christian evangelist Billy Graham made a very disturbing comment while in an interview with Reverend Robert Schuller, who at the time was the head of the Crystal Cathedral Church. Please notice how similar Graham's remarks are to what Cardinal Ratzinger would say three years later:

----- Begin Quote -----

"I think everybody who knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ . . . God's purpose is to call out a people for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, Buddhist world, the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ, because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus . . . and I think they are saved and that they are going to be in heaven with us."

----- End Quote -----

Notice that, like Benedict XVI, Reverend Graham said that people can be saved, even without knowing the name of Jesus Christ. So the serious dangers associated with the ecumenical movement are rather clear in my mind. This movement, which is spearheaded by the Roman Catholic Church, can only result in one thing; and that is quite possibly a "One World Religion". I suspect that given its current arrogant attitude regarding viewing itself as the so-called "Mother of Churches", the RCC very much desires to be at the forefront of this "universal reconciliation" between the world's religions. What does that say about its leader?

But let us change gears now and direct our attention to the verse that actually began this series. That is, John 3:5. In the King James Version of the Holy Bible, this verse reads as follows:

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."


As I explained at the beginning of this series, there is a sector of Christians, known as baptismal regenerationists, who are convinced that Jesus is talking about water baptism in the previous verse. Furthermore, they are convinced that Jesus is stating that water baptism is an essential part of Salvation, and the remission of sins. As we have also seen, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration was first introduced by, and has been continuously promoted by, the RCC for many centuries now. In fact, if you carefully read the excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that I provided, then you will already know that John 3:5 is one of the key verses that they use in order to try to convince people to accept this doctrine.

So the main question we need to ask ourselves is this: Was Jesus really talking about water baptism in that verse? Or was the Lord saying something entirely different which has since been twisted by Roman Catholic religionists who have their own agenda?

Those of you who are familiar with some of my other articles will know that I have a very different understanding of the previous verse. Before presenting my case, allow me to share with you that entire section of John chapter three, so that we have a better understanding of the precise conversation which occurred between Jesus and the Pharisee Nicodemus that night:

"There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."


As you can see by the previous set of verses, the topic of their discussion was not really water baptism, but rather, it was the necessity of spiritual rebirth. The conversation dealt with being born physically in the womb, and then being born spiritually through accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Those verses are talking about allowing God's Spirit to dwell in us, and having our own spirits renewed by way of a second spiritual birth. The Apostle Paul wrote about this spiritual rebirth, or being born again, in the following verses, and elsewhere as well:

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."


"And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."


"And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:"


"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."


In the previous conversation from the Gospel of John, Jesus was showing the difference between the physical birth, and the spiritual birth, so that Nicodemus could understand the necessity of being born again.

We need to remember that as good-hearted of a man as he was, Nicodemus was nevertheless a Pharisee, who had been trained in the strict religious doctrines of his day. As I explain in other articles, such as "Who is Babylon the Great?", by the time Jesus arrived on the Earth, Judaism and temple worship had become totally de-spiritualized. It was a cold, dead, formal religion of works, which had basically been reduced to "do this, but don't do that". The main religious sects of the time -- the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees -- were in essence merely going through the motions. They were pretending to be spiritual, very similar to many spiritually dead religions today. Sadly, this also includes different branches of modern Christianity which have been corrupted by serious compromise.

The Scribes and the Pharisees prided themselves in being strict adherents of the Torah. That is to say, the Laws that were given to Moses by God on the top of Mount Sinai, which was also known as Mount Horeb. These Laws are found in the first five books of the Bible. While some of these Laws were strictly spiritual and moral in nature, other Laws dealt with more mundane, procedural issues which concerned the Levitical priesthood. For example, how the priests were supposed to be dressed; what holy days were supposed to be observed; how to perform various animal sacrifices; what sin offerings were acceptable; what utensils were to be designed and used in the tabernacle; etc.

It was precisely in this kind of legalistic environment that Nicodemus was trained, just like the Apostle Paul. So, while it may be very easy for us today to understand exactly what Jesus meant, for someone like Nicodemus, it was extremely difficult. As Jesus said of those Jewish religious leaders who blindly clung to their old traditions and opposed Him:

". . . Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition . . . Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."


The Jewish religious elders had the Law. They had the Word of God. But they did not understand it; at least not in the Spirit. All they could understood was the legalistic letter of the Law. Jesus realized this, and that is why He tried to simplify things for dear Nicodemus, who came to the Lord that night with a sincere desire to know the truth. By using the simple phrase "born of water", Jesus was offering a very appropriate answer. He was trying to remove poor Nicodemus' confusion, which was obviously revealed by the fact that the man thought that Jesus meant that he had to somehow re-enter his mother's womb, and then undergo a second physical birth. Obviously, this is by no means possible, and this is clearly not what Jesus meant.

I am personally convinced that by using the phrase "born of water", Jesus was making a direct reference to our physical birth. That is to say, being surrounded by amniotic fluid -- which is basically salt water -- in our mother's womb. Jesus was not talking about water baptism whatsoever, as far as I know. To suggest that He was, is, in my opinion, inserting something which simply is not in the verse, in order to try to support one's own personal beliefs. Please look again at what the Lord said: ". . . born of water AND of the spirit . . ." The word "and" demonstrates that Jesus was attempting to make a distinction between what Nicodemus understood, and what He really meant. In other words, "physical birth AND spiritual birth". In short, Jesus was making a clear contrast between physical birth and spiritual birth.

If you look at Nicodemus' response, it becomes rather clear that the Lord was not talking about water baptism. There is nothing in Nicodemus' question which even remotely suggests that he thought that Jesus was talking about water baptism. Did Nicodemus ask Jesus about water baptism? No. Nicodemus clearly says "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" So Nicodemus fully understood what Jesus was talking about when He mentioned being born of water. He knew that Jesus was talking about physical birth in the womb, during which time a baby is surrounded by amniotic fluid; and that's why he couldn't understand how he could be born again. It was a physical impossibility. But as we know, Jesus was not talking about being reborn physically. He was talking about spiritual rebirth.

What some of you may find of particular interest is the fact that water baptism appears to be an entirely New Testament concept. Admittedly, there are several interesting examples in the Old Testament where water is used as a foreshadow to demonstrate Spiritual Salvation. Three good examples are the Genesis Flood, the crossing of the Red Sea, and the stopping up of the Jordan River. In all three of these cases, it was actually a demonstration of faith in God's Word which saved them, and NOT the water itself. In referring to Noah and the Genesis Flood, you may recall that the Apostle Peter wrote the following:

"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."


I will be discussing the previous verse more at length in a moment. Another Old Testament example which occurs to me is the story which is found in 2 Kings chapter five. It deals with the Prophet Elisha, and Naaman, who was the captain of the army of the king of Syria. As you may recall, Naaman had leprosy; and his wife's servant girl, who was an Israelite, informed the wife of the miracles which were being wrought by Elisha. Eventually, following Elisha's instructions, Naaman dipped himself seven times in the Jordan River, and was thus healed of his leprosy. Again, we see that it was faith in, as well as obedience to, the words of the Prophet, which saved Naaman, and NOT the water itself.

Another Old Testament example we find which is indirectly a foreshadow of the true baptism to come in the New Testament, is where the Israelites had to wash and change their clothes before standing before the Lord at the base of Mount Sinai. The act of doing this symbolizes putting on the new man, or the spiritual man, through spiritual rebirth, as the Apostle Paul discusses in the New Testament. The high priests had to follow a similar washing ritual before entering the Holy of Holies; first in the tabernacle, and later in the temple. In all of these examples, we see a hint of being spiritually cleansed and renewed through the Blood of Jesus Christ, and being baptized by the Spirit.

However, the previous foreshadows aside, I am not aware of any real examples in the Old Testament where the practice of water baptism was performed on a regular basis, such as we see occurring in the New Testament. While I was conducting some Biblical research for this series, I discovered that the words "baptize" and "baptism", and related words, are not mentioned one single time in the entire Old Testament. In fact, the very first time when we learn about baptism by water, is when John the Baptist arrives on the scene in the four Gospels. As far as we know, John received his mandate to baptize people in the Jordan River directly from God, or at least from one of His Angelic Agents. In the Gospel of John we read the following:

"And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."


What is also worth mentioning, is the fact that there is no concrete Scriptural evidence which points to Jesus having ever personally water baptized anyone. There are one or two commentaries where it appears that some people suggest that He did, but the Apostle John, who was one of Jesus' closest followers, and who eventually became one of His top three Disciples, clarifies the situation for us when he writes the following:

"When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)"


The previous verse, particularly the words that are encased in parentheses, begs the question: If water baptism was so important, why didn't Jesus perform this so-called necessary act? That verse of Scripture rather plainly states that the Lord Jesus never baptized anyone. So to me, the answer seems rather obvious: Jesus was fully aware of the fact that the physical act of water baptism was merely a stepping stone, and a foreshadow of a much greater reality to come. That is to say, the Baptism by His Blood, as well as the baptism by fire. That is to say, the anointing of the Holy Spirit which Jesus Himself would soon perform. Obviously, some people may question, "Well, wasn't Jesus baptized by John, and doesn't that mean that everyone needs to be water baptized?" Indeed the Lord was baptized by John. Jesus made it very clear on many occasions that He had come to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, and John's appearance was indeed foretold in the Old Testament prophecies, as we see by the following verse:

"The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."


It is interesting to note that the above prophecy was viewed as being so important to the writers of the Gospels, that all four of them mention it, as we see here:

"For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."


"The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."


"As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."


"He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias."


One reason why the previous prophecy is so important, is not just because it foretells of the coming of John the Baptist, but rather because it also prophesies the coming of the One after him, who will baptize with the fire of the Spirit. To explain it another way, the most important aspect of John's ministry was not water baptism, but rather that he was not only sent to prepare people's hearts to receive the Lord, by pointing out their sins, and motivating them to repent, but John was also the individual whom God had chosen to actually identify the Savior to Israel, once He arrived. Thus we find John saying the following to his followers in the Gospel of John:

". . . Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."


Thus, this is why Jesus' encounter with John at the Jordan River was so important. Both He and John were following a script which had been carefully designed by God the Father Himself. Jesus had to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies, as He said He must do, as we see by the following verse:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."


The problem we have today is that some people don't seem to understand what is meant by the word "fulfill". This word is derived from the Greek word "pleroo"; the meaning of which is to complete, to carry through to the end, to accomplish, to carry out. What Jesus meant was that He had come to carry out, or to complete the Law, so as to become, in a word, the Perfect Sacrifice for sin. Jesus' Death on the Cross put an end to reliance upon obedience to the Old Testament laws in order to obtain Salvation. More specifically, I'm referring to the ritualistic laws. This does NOT mean that we are now free to murder, to steal, to commit adultery, etc., and that we won't have to pay the consequences. So what does it mean? Please keep reading to find out.

Please go to part three for the continuation of this series.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the BBB Bible website. There are many treasures for you to discover.