Justification Differences between Catholics and Protestants

[BobRyan]

BobRyan, in the Holy Bible it states "whole families " were Baptised, I am 100% positive that whole families contain infant family members now as back then, don't ya think so?

You need an actual text showing a whole family baptized where there was someone baptized who did not listen to the Gospel, who could not possibly accept the message, who had no possibility of any of the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit, who had no hope of "an appeal to God for a clean conscience" as Peter insists -- and yet was baptized "anyway".

We both know you have no such example from the Bible.

That entire doctrine of infants being baptized in the NT is pure fiction, based on extreme "inference" inserted into the text -- supplying infants even in cases where the details in the text do not allow it!!

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

McCree,the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).

More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

"EXCEPT you become "As little children" you cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven."

"To him that KNOWS to do right and does it not - to him it is sin". James 4:17


In each case you manufacture a supposed context for infant baptism when we all know you have not one example of it in all of scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[lakeside]

BobRyan, many of you Protestants point to Mark 16:16 as demonstrating the necessity of faith in order to be saved, but they stop half way. The passage says one who believes will be saved. The Catholic Church teaches this too. But it also includes baptism in addition to believing--something which Fundamentalists who cite the passage conveniently ignore.

Many Protestants, while claiming Mark 16:16 teaches the absolute necessity of faith, don't really believe this. They make exceptions--for example, for infants who die without coming to faith in Christ.

If faith isn't necessary for an infant to be saved, why is it necessary that an infant be baptized? The Catholic Church teaches that faith is a prerequisite for receiving the sacrament of baptism in the case of an adult. Since an infant is incapable of making such an act of faith for himself, he isn't require to do so.

So far as John 3:5 goes, the Greek word translated "man" in the King James is tis, an indefinite pronoun, which really means a certain one or someone--in other words, a human being. Since infants are human beings, they're included.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan, many of you Protestants point to Mark 16:16 as demonstrating the necessity of faith in order to be saved, but they stop half way. The passage says one who believes will be saved. The Catholic Church teaches this too. But it also includes baptism in addition to believing--something which Fundamentalists who cite the passage conveniently ignore.

There is nothing in Mark 16 about infant baptism, about unbelievers being saved, about the unconscious lost person getting saved if you baptize them, about baptism for the dead etc. I think we both know that.

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

The Catholic argument is "whoever does NOT believe and yet is baptized by the priest with magic sacramental water - shall be saved" - in the case of infant baptism. Even your own Catholic Digest admits that infant baptism was NOT practiced by the first century church - rather it "evolved" over time. So also does your own Thomas Bokenkotter in his "Concise History of the Catholic Church".

I am not saying anything new here.

Many Protestants, while claiming Mark 16:16 teaches the absolute necessity of faith, don't really believe this. They make exceptions--for example, for infants who die without coming to faith in Christ.

Baptism is for the one who is a believer.

Infants that die without baptism are covered by the 1John 2:2 and 1 John 4:14 principle since they have not possibility of "faith" which as Mark 16 says is a prerequisite to baptism.

In 1John 4:14- Christ is the Savior of the "World'
In 1John 2:2 Christ is the "atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the Whole WORLD"

Infants do not have the mental ability to reject Christ, or to have faith... baptism for them would make a mockery of the rite.

Even Bokenkotter states that you must first imagine magic powers for the priest - to even begin to consider baptism as having any value at all for infants.

Faith is necessary for those capable of faith.

If faith isn't necessary for an infant to be saved, why is it necessary that an infant be baptized?

Neither one is necessary for an infant. But faith is necessary to be baptized and is the ONLY reason that Baptism has any value at all - it shows a response of the one who has been saved, the believer taking a step forward an act of obedience the outward fruit of an inner change.

For the infant - it means nothing at all. The infant "makes no appeal to God for a clean conscience" which even Peter states is the only true essence - in Baptism.

The Catholic Church teaches that faith is a prerequisite for receiving the sacrament of baptism in the case of an adult.

At least they get that right.

Since an infant is incapable of making such an act of faith for himself, he isn't require to do so.

Which means - no baptism, no faith, no appeal to God for a clean conscience, no "buried with Christ in Baptism - baptized into His death" Romans 6.

none of that happening for the infant - which is why he/she is not baptized.

The "extreme inference" form of eisegesis practiced in Catholicism in the case of Baptism is seen by the fact that the Bible has zero examples of infant Baptism AND by the fact that even the RCC's own historians admit this practice "evolved" in the RCC over time. It was not the practice of the first century church.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[lakeside]

plain foolishness, not worth answering to.

 

[Rebel]

There is nothing in Mark 16 about infant baptism, about unbelievers being saved, about the unconscious lost person getting saved if you baptize them, about baptism for the dead etc. I think we both know that.

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

The Catholic argument is "whoever does NOT believe and yet is baptized by the priest with magic sacramental water - shall be saved" - in the case of infant baptism. Even your own Catholic Digest admits that infant baptism was NOT practiced by the first century church - rather it "evolved" over time. So also does your own Thomas Bokenkotter in his "Concise History of the Catholic Church".

I am not saying anything new here.



Baptism is for the one who is a believer.

Infants that die without baptism are covered by the 1John 2:2 and 1 John 4:14 principle since they have not possibility of "faith" which as Mark 16 says is a prerequisite to baptism.

In 1John 4:14- Christ is the Savior of the "World'
In 1John 2:2 Christ is the "atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the Whole WORLD"

Infants do not have the mental ability to reject Christ, or to have faith... baptism for them would make a mockery of the rite.

Even Bokenkotter states that you must first imagine magic powers for the priest - to even begin to consider baptism as having any value at all for infants.

Faith is necessary for those capable of faith.




Neither one is necessary for an infant. But faith is necessary to be baptized and is the ONLY reason that Baptism has any value at all - it shows a response of the one who has been saved, the believer taking a step forward an act of obedience the outward fruit of an inner change.

For the infant - it means nothing at all. The infant "makes no appeal to God for a clean conscience" which even Peter states is the only true essence - in Baptism.




At least they get that right.




Which means - no baptism, no faith, no appeal to God for a clean conscience, no "buried with Christ in Baptism - baptized into His death" Romans 6.

none of that happening for the infant - which is why he/she is not baptized.

The "extreme inference" form of eisegesis practiced in Catholicism in the case of Baptism is seen by the fact that the Bible has zero examples of infant Baptism AND by the fact that even the RCC's own historians admit this practice "evolved" in the RCC over time. It was not the practice of the first century church.

in Christ,

Bob

Excellent, Bob. And using Catholic sources was good.

 

[lakeside]

Rebel, I'm not falling for any deceptive tactics.

Many entire families/Whole families today as back then contain children under the age of reasoning.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

The Roman catholic view of Justification and the Protestant view is a strong dividing line between being Roman Catholic and being Protestant.

“Justification is a judicial act of God, in which He declares, on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, that all the claims of the law are satisfied with respect to the sinner. It is unique in the application of the work of redemption in that it is a judicial act of God, a declaration respecting the sinner, and not an act or process of renewal, such as regeneration, conversion, and sanctification. While it has respect to the sinner, it does not change his inner life. It does not affect his condition, but his state, and in that respect differs from all the other principal parts of the order of salvation. It involves the forgiveness of sins, and restoration to divine favor.” Louis Berkhof

Justification is by faith alone.

"The Roman Catholic view of justification [is that] God declares a person to be just when justice (or righteousness) inheres in the person. The person, under divine analysis or scrutiny, is found to be just. God justifies the just. ...By stark and radical contrast the Reformation view of justification is that God declares a person just based upon something [external to them], something not inherent in the person: the imputed righteousness of Christ."

R. C. Sproul

Justification is the process of transforming us from what we were: dead in sin, to what we will be: Like Christ. Justification does not make us good; it imparts Christ’s goodness to us.

I now believe that the Protestant doctrine of Justification which is that we are eternally secure in Christ because we have contributed nothing towards our redemption is biblically sound and correct. The beauty and awesomeness of this doctrine is that we are secured and saved by our faith alone. We do good works because we are in Christ but we can not save ourselves through works as Roman Catholicism teaches.

II Cor. 5: 21

For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

God counts the people He has called as righteous by means of their faith and not their works. This does not mean the elect are counted righteous on the basis of their faith. Since faith is itself a gift from God, no one can boast of this as if he has done anything to merit it.

Eph. 2: 8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Christians are counted righteous on the basis of Christ’s righteousness which has been applied to us through the vehicle of faith.

Rom. 3: 21-24 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all] who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

Paul uses a legal term to explain how and why the elect are justified. The Greek word to justify is diakioun. Whenever a Greek verb ends in –oun, it means to treat someone as something. It never means to make someone something. When we stand before God, as we all will some day, we need to recognize that in us, there is nothing which makes us worthy of God’s grace; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

We are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God treats us as righteous because of what Jesus did on the Cross.

Heb. 9: 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

When we stand before God, as we all will some day, we need to recognize that in us, there is nothing which makes us worthy of God’s grace; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

We are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God treats us as righteous because of what Jesus did on the Cross.

The beauty and awesomeness of the Protestant doctrine of Justification is that we are eternally secure in Christ because we have contributed nothing towards our redemption.

I am a Protestant today because I believe completely in the Protestant teaching of Justification.

God counts the people He has called as righteous by means of their faith and not their works. This does not mean the elect are counted righteous on the basis of their faith. Since faith is itself a gift from God, no one can boast of this as if he has done anything to merit it.

Eph. 2: 8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Credit to Dudley Davis


`

In the Bible, pertaining to men, there are three types, or phases, of Justification. There is justification by blood, justification by faith, and justification by works.

Justification by Blood (Rom 5:9). This is legal justification in the sight of God. This happened ONCE in the history of all the Earth, when Christ made Himself an offering on the Cross. When Christ was made an offering for sins, God the Father was pleased with the Son's sacrifice and we were legally justified (declared just). This verdict occurs in God's courtroom!

Justification by Faith (Rom 4). This is experiential. In short, when a born again person trusts solely in Christ's power to raise the dead, that faith is "counted unto him" for righteousness. The reality of being redeemed (justified by blood) is understood by the believer. That person, upon believing, experiences peace with God (5:1).

Justification by works (James 2). This occurs in the “courtroom of others' opinions.” By good works, we show ourselves to be righteous to other people. To quote James 2, we “show our faith by our works.”



To sum up justification:

•By blood: God's courtroom.


•By faith: The courtroom of a believer's conscience.


•By works: The courtroom of onlookers' opinions.

 

[lakeside]

If we disobey God persistently, will we go to heaven?

If we obey God persistently, will we do good works?

Is obedience an act of will or an irresistible impulse?

 

[BrotherJoseph]

You Baptists totally ignore the writings of/historical record of the Early Church when it clearly supports the fact that the Christian Church has been baptizing infants from the start of the Church. None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it? Hmmm? None, zippo, nada!

The writings of the early church after Paul's time are not reliable because the apostle himself warned of a falling away that would occur shortly after his death by stating, "29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears." (Acts 30:29-31)

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Many Protestants, while claiming Mark 16:16 teaches the absolute necessity of faith, don't really believe this. They make exceptions--for example, for infants who die without coming to faith in Christ.

If faith isn't necessary for an infant to be saved, why is it necessary that an infant be baptized? The Catholic Church teaches that faith is a prerequisite for receiving the sacrament of baptism in the case of an adult. Since an infant is incapable of making such an act of faith for himself, he isn't require to do so.

Babies like all human beings that become born again are regenerated in the same manner (see John 3:8)-by the Sovereign quickening of the Holy Spirit that makes a dead sinner alive. David wrote, "But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts." (Psalm 22:9). Also, John the Baptist had the Holy Ghost from inside his mother's womb "For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb." (Luke 1:15). This is a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit, thus Jesus states, "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" (John 3:8). See also, "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;" (Ephesians 2:1). Also read Ephesians 2:5 and Colossians 2:13.

 

[lakeside]

BrotherJoseph, we mustn't forget this passage: "In those days Mary.......And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary the babe leaped in her womb..... "

 

[Yeshua1]

BobRyan, many of you Protestants point to Mark 16:16 as demonstrating the necessity of faith in order to be saved, but they stop half way. The passage says one who believes will be saved. The Catholic Church teaches this too. But it also includes baptism in addition to believing--something which Fundamentalists who cite the passage conveniently ignore.

Many Protestants, while claiming Mark 16:16 teaches the absolute necessity of faith, don't really believe this. They make exceptions--for example, for infants who die without coming to faith in Christ.

If faith isn't necessary for an infant to be saved, why is it necessary that an infant be baptized? The Catholic Church teaches that faith is a prerequisite for receiving the sacrament of baptism in the case of an adult. Since an infant is incapable of making such an act of faith for himself, he isn't require to do so.

So far as John 3:5 goes, the Greek word translated "man" in the King James is tis, an indefinite pronoun, which really means a certain one or someone--in other words, a human being. Since infants are human beings, they're included.

The RCC has built its entire theology of sotierology upon the false premise of Sacramentalism grace, as the church of rome indeed denies that we can be made right with God by the death of jesus alone, received thru faith alone, as one MUST get water baptised in order to hav e original Sin expudged away, and to get regenerated...

NONE of that thought was held by Jesus/peter/paul/John etc, and they do hold that one MUST become changed enough by co operating with God in the sacraments in order to merit God saving them...

NNE will ever get saved if God has to wait until he saw any of us though right enough to merit salvation!

 

[lakeside]

John 1:32 - when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, "Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." When Jesus said "water and the Spirit," He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).

John 3:22 - after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus' teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.

John 4:1 - here is another reference to baptism which naturally flows from Jesus' baptismal teaching in John 3:3-5.

 

[Yeshua1]

John 1:32 - when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, "Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." When Jesus said "water and the Spirit," He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).

John 3:22 - after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus' teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.

John 4:1 - here is another reference to baptism which naturally flows from Jesus' baptismal teaching in John 3:3-5.

Problem with water baptism regeneration iks that NO verses support it, as the verses used by the RCC for that all either refer to the water being the scriptures themselves cleansing us, or the Holy Spirit baptising us into Jesus when we received him thru faith!

And there is NO NT scriptures to support that a sinner receives the holy Spirit apart from faith in jesus and he is them their Lord, and then receive the Spirit of promise!

 

[lakeside]

1 Peter 3:21


"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

Most Protestant churches teach that baptism is just symbolic and does not actually save us. Why, then, does Peter say that baptism does indeed save us? Because baptism, contrary to Protestant teaching, is salvific (effecting salvation). Through the merits of Christ's resurrection, baptism, the sacrament of Christian initiation instituted by Christ, washes us clean of original sin, makes us adopted sons and daughters of God, and brings us to salvation.

Unlike Protestant teaching, baptism is not just a symbolic act of pouring, sprinkling or immersing one in water (otherwise Peter would not have said that it saves us). It is not just an appeal to God through a symbolic gesture. This is why Peter says it is "not as a removal of dirt from the body." Most scholars say that Peter was referring to circumcision (the ritual of initiation in the Old Covenant) when he writes about the “removal of dirt from the body.” Circumcision was a symbolic gesture before God that could never save us. But, at a minimum, Peter is teaching that baptism does not deal with the exterior, but the interior life of the person.

Thus, Peter teaches that baptism saves us “for a clear conscience.” This deals with the interior life. Similarly, the author of Heb. 10:22, in regard to being washed with the pure water (of baptism), says we are sprinkled “clean from an evil conscience.” Baptism removes original sin which darkens our consciences. It purifies the interior life of the person. Baptism is not just an external, symbolic, ceremonial gesture (otherwise, the sacred writers would not write about the purification of the conscience, where sin is born).

Thus, through the resurrection of Christ, baptism now actually saves our spiritual lives, just as Noah's ark (which Peter says baptism "corresponds to") saved his family's natural lives. In baptism, we are washed clean of original sin and become adopted sons and daughters of the Father. This is why Paul writes to Titus, in reference to baptism, that “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” Titus 3:5-7. Paul echoes Peter’s teaching that baptism saves us by regenerating our interior lives, namely, our souls, which are now endowed with God’s divine and sanctifying grace. We thus become children of God and heirs of the kingdom.

Only the Catholic Church teaches that baptism, by virtue of the merits of Christ and their application to us, is salvific. The Protestant churches, contrary to 1 Peter 3:21 (and Titus 3:5-7; John 3:5; and Heb. 10:22) teach that baptism is only symbolic.

 

[lakeside]

When Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Who do you follow??? I follow Jesus.

 

[Yeshua1]

When Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Who do you follow??? I follow Jesus.

Did jesus need to do that in order then to get the new birth?

Again, there is NO scripture support for sinners getting regenerated in the water!

 

[Yeshua1]

1 Peter 3:21


"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

Most Protestant churches teach that baptism is just symbolic and does not actually save us. Why, then, does Peter say that baptism does indeed save us? Because baptism, contrary to Protestant teaching, is salvific (effecting salvation). Through the merits of Christ's resurrection, baptism, the sacrament of Christian initiation instituted by Christ, washes us clean of original sin, makes us adopted sons and daughters of God, and brings us to salvation.

Unlike Protestant teaching, baptism is not just a symbolic act of pouring, sprinkling or immersing one in water (otherwise Peter would not have said that it saves us). It is not just an appeal to God through a symbolic gesture. This is why Peter says it is "not as a removal of dirt from the body." Most scholars say that Peter was referring to circumcision (the ritual of initiation in the Old Covenant) when he writes about the “removal of dirt from the body.” Circumcision was a symbolic gesture before God that could never save us. But, at a minimum, Peter is teaching that baptism does not deal with the exterior, but the interior life of the person.

Thus, Peter teaches that baptism saves us “for a clear conscience.” This deals with the interior life. Similarly, the author of Heb. 10:22, in regard to being washed with the pure water (of baptism), says we are sprinkled “clean from an evil conscience.” Baptism removes original sin which darkens our consciences. It purifies the interior life of the person. Baptism is not just an external, symbolic, ceremonial gesture (otherwise, the sacred writers would not write about the purification of the conscience, where sin is born).

Thus, through the resurrection of Christ, baptism now actually saves our spiritual lives, just as Noah's ark (which Peter says baptism "corresponds to") saved his family's natural lives. In baptism, we are washed clean of original sin and become adopted sons and daughters of the Father. This is why Paul writes to Titus, in reference to baptism, that “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” Titus 3:5-7. Paul echoes Peter’s teaching that baptism saves us by regenerating our interior lives, namely, our souls, which are now endowed with God’s divine and sanctifying grace. We thus become children of God and heirs of the kingdom.

Only the Catholic Church teaches that baptism, by virtue of the merits of Christ and their application to us, is salvific. The Protestant churches, contrary to 1 Peter 3:21 (and Titus 3:5-7; John 3:5; and Heb. 10:22) teach that baptism is only symbolic.

Peter was directing us towards that which saves a sinner, namely, the ark of salvation, which is jesus himself!

water Baptism is the outward symbolic sign as to that who has already saved us, Jesus, as ONLY believer sin him already were to have administered baptism to them, as their proclamation was that jesus died for my sins, and rose again for me, RCC just mahles this doctrine, as they distort the scriptures unto their own destruction!

 

[lakeside]

Yeshua, you are a dyed-in-the- wool anti-Catholic, why do you say such half truths and outright lies about Christ's Church. Of course as Catholics we believe in the Sacrifice of the Cross and Resurrection. The Ark and the parting of the Red Sea, both had to have water to accomplish the mission of the 'saved ', similar to God using other people and objects to accomplish the 'Work of God " ie Judas and the Cross. On Baptism read { John 3:3- }