What is required for a valid baptism, and does baptism save you?

A valid baptism requires real water applied to the person while the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" are spoken by someone who intends to do what the Church does, and yes, that baptism is the very thing that saves, because it washes away original sin and infuses the grace of God into the soul. Let me start with the mechanics, because people get this wrong constantly. You need real, natural water. Not Coca-Cola, not rose petals, not a symbolic gesture. The Council of Trent was blunt about it: if anyone says real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and twists the words of Jesus in John 3:5 into some sort of metaphor, let him be anathema. Then you need the form, the trinitarian formula from Matthew 28:19: I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And you need a minister who intends to do what the Church does. In an emergency any person can baptize, provided he has that intention and he pours the water while saying the words. The water and the words go together. That is why I tell people who were baptized in a Baptist church where the words were said first and the immersion came afterward that there is nothing wrong with asking for a conditional baptism. The Church does conditional baptism precisely because she was not there and cannot verify what happened. I do not want to gamble my salvation on a maybe. I want to sleep at night. On the mode, do not let anyone tell you immersion is the only valid way. Pouring and sprinkling are both ancient and both valid. When the Philippian jailer and his whole household were baptized immediately, after midnight, in the middle of the wreckage of an earthquake, nobody was hunting for a river. Peter's own comparison in 1 Peter 3:20-21 points that way too. The forty days of rain that cleansed the earth prefigure the water poured over the head. Now the bigger question, and the one that divides us from most Protestants. Does baptism save? Yes. Peter says it in so many words: baptism, the antitype of the flood, now saves you, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Notice what Peter is doing. He is heading off the objection that this is just a bath. It is not a bath. The water takes away the filth of the soul. Jesus says in John 3:5 that unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God, and the Church took him literally, as she took him literally when he said this is my body. Paul calls it the laver of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit in Titus 3:5. Peter tells the crowd in Acts 2:38 to repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of your sins. The Greek preposition there, eis, carries aim and purpose. The forgiveness is the goal of the baptism, not a status you already had before it. Protestants generally treat baptism as a symbol you receive after you are already saved. That gets the order exactly backwards. You may well be prepared for baptism beforehand, since an adult has to be taught what salvation is before he can want it, and repentance is required. But baptism is the act by which God regenerates your spirit. Trent says it plainly: the guilt of original sin is remitted, and in those born again God hates nothing. What remains is concupiscence, an inclination that has to be wrestled with, and the Council was careful to say that is not properly sin in the baptized. And it works ex opere operato, from the work performed, meaning its power does not depend on how holy the minister is. Now infants. If baptism removes original sin, and infants inherit original sin from Adam, then infants need baptism. The argument from Scripture is the covenant argument. In the Old Testament the sign of the promise was circumcision, given to eight-day-old boys. Peter in Acts 2:39 says the promise is to you and to your children. The sign changed, from circumcision to baptism, and it now includes girls as well as boys, but the promise did not shrink. On top of that, Scripture repeatedly reports whole households being baptized: Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Crispus, Stephanas. The Greek oikos includes children of every age. It is highly improbable that not one of those five households had a child in it. Nowhere in Scripture is infant baptism ever denied, in practice or in theology. One last thing. Trent, Session 7, Canon 5: if anyone says baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema. That is not a debating point. That is a canon with an anathema attached to it.