Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is just a claim, it has nothing to support it in the passage. Baptism means baptism - generally speaking - and saint Peter doesn't say "baptism saves, I mean by baptism something quite unlike the baptism you received when you entered the Church". And since he says no such thing it is bad exegesis to act as if he did say it, it is in fact eisegesis.Peter is not talking about water baptism
Except that Jesus does in fact say that eating his flesh and drinking his blood give life. He gives every indication, in the discourse, that he is speaking of the last supper, the Eucharist, holy communion. He offers himself as the bread from heaven, which unlike the Manna in the wilderness, is true bread that gives true life.He is not saying you get life from a sacrament.
That's quite a re-writing of the text. I am going with the Word of God, which says "baptism saves" and "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood." In John 6 Jesus also is quite emphatic about eating his true flesh and drinking his true blood.I'm glad you brought that in. This is another pointer to something real. He is not saying you get life from a sacrament. He is saying that unless you receive me into your heart, you will not have life.
So your gonna ignore everything I said without responding at all? At least I know what I'm dealing with now.This is just a claim, it has nothing to support it in the passage. Baptism means baptism - generally speaking - and saint Peter doesn't say "baptism saves, I mean by baptism something quite unlike the baptism you received when you entered the Church". And since he says no such thing it is bad exegesis to act as if he did say it, it is in fact eisegesis.
Yes, and I'm sure you think the bread and wine are his literal flesh and blood. And you think eating and drinking them gives eternal life. Never mind that Jesus said things going in the mouth and passing out the other end cannot enter your heart.That's quite a re-writing of the text. I am going with the Word of God, which says "baptism saves" and "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood." In John 6 Jesus also is quite emphatic about eating his true flesh and drinking his true blood.
Okay, I dealt with your thesis in a previous post. So, the first paragraph is answered.Like I said, Peter is not talking about water baptism. He is talking about our baptism into Christ through participating with Him in His death and resurrection. You are projecting your own beliefs into what he is saying. Same goes for your view of Romans 6. So no, just because he uses the word "baptism" does not mean he was talking about water baptism.
Was Jesus speaking of water baptism when He said, "But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished!" (Lk 12:50)? No. He was speaking of bearing our sins that would make Him one with sin... the death part of His death and resurrection.
Was John the Baptist speaking of water baptism when he said, "He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." (Mt 3:11)? No. He was contrasting water baptism and the Holy Spirit's baptism.
Was Paul speaking of water baptism when he said, "Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink." (1 Co 10:1–4)? No. He was talking about cloud and sea baptism.
Was Paul speaking of water baptism when he said, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Co 12:13)? No. He was talking about the Holy Spirit's baptism.
Was Paul speaking of water baptism when he said, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Ga 3:26–27)? No. He was talking about the Spirit of God coming to live in our hearts, making us first generation offspring of the living God through the Holy Spirit's baptism.
So no, you have not made the case that Peter (in 1 Peter) or Paul (in Romans 6) were taling about water baptism.
No, that is not what I think, nor what the Catholic Church teaches. What the Church teaches is that the host and the content of the chalice is the body and blood [as well as the soul and divinity] of Jesus Christ. This "literal" thing is a tool of Protestant polemics, a nonsense in reality, that people use as a cudgel to beat up Catholics in discussion forums. No Catholic claims "literal" human flesh and "literal" human blood are consumed in communion, but every faithful Catholic believes that the content of the chalice is the blood of Christ and the host is his body. We say "amen" when that is proposed to us as the host is given to us and as the chalice is handed to us.and I'm sure you think the bread and wine are his literal flesh and blood.
John 6:52-65 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”[d] 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um.Yes, and I'm sure you think the bread and wine are his literal flesh and blood. And you think eating and drinking them gives eternal life. Never mind that Jesus said things going in the mouth and passing out the other end cannot enter your heart.
Funny, Jesus targeted the most religious people of His day and called fishermen and tax collectors who were into the scriptures to be His disciples.
Jesus wasn't about a religion, Jesus was about a relationship with God Almighty.
2 Corinthians 11
What's Paul preaching a religion, or a relationship? He calls it the simplicity that is in Christ. It's not a complex religion it's loving Christ, relating to Him, in particular, as a wife to a husband. Now that does mean acting in obedience, acting in respect, deference. But it's not so much about the hoopla and religious rituals.
The trappings of religion, men do to try to interact with an invisible creator that is distant from them, trying to appease Him. But religion is ultimately a symptom of fallenness, mankind at his worst. Sinners trying to earn God's favor.
"I can do all things through a verse out of context"Since it is saint Peter who explicitly states that baptism saves it is not an interpretation that presents the words "baptism saves" but the apostle himself in the scripture passage.
You will need to do better than claim it is interpretation that you shoot down when you contradict what the apostle wrote. You need to explain why you contradict his words. That means you must find a credible exegesis of the words that allows the interpreter to dismiss "baptism saves" in the passage.
Well, saint Pater said that Noah's ark and the flood are like baptism that now saves us.Peter was saying this was a picture
Because Jesus alone saves, not the sacraments.
If the sacraments saved us, then my youngest nephew, who was baptised and confirmed in a Greek Orthodox church when he was 3 months old - and probably was given communion, I don't remember - would be saved. In spite of the fact that he doesn't go to church and may not even believe in God. No doubt you would agree with the priest who said that he entered the church a sinner (at the age of 3 months!); he will leave a Christian.
If sacraments saved us then not many people would need to become Christians - since many are, or have been, baptised as babies.
If baptism saved us then my husband, who was baptised as a baby and brought up in a non Christian household, would not have needed to "become a Christian." Because he was baptised in an Anglican church, when he decided that he wanted to know more about God, he went to that church to find answers. Did the Anglican church save him? No. God used the Anglican church to put him in contact with other Christians and hear the Gospel. Did baptism save him? No, or he would not have needed to become a Christian.
Supposing Hitler had been baptised? Or Pol Pot? Mugabe? Or any other dictators/criminals/murderers? Would their baptism have saved them? No.
How, exactly, do you know what THEY BELIEVE? If you take the time to read what the Catholic Church teaches you will not find the things you've said because the Catholic Church does not teach that.They believe that the Jesus she hates will drag her kicking and screaming to heaven, while my savior who I love will reject me because a priest that they claim had magic spells to make him inherit apostolic power didn't cast a magic spell on me while I was a baby.
I meant the Catholics I talked to about the situation. They said my mom's going to heaven, I'm going to hell, because my mom had the sacraments done in a Catholic church, despite being an unbeliever and actually hating Christianity, and I did not.How, exactly, do you know what THEY BELIEVE? If you take the time to read what the Catholic Church teaches you will not find the things you've said because the Catholic Church does not teach that.
Ah, I see; well, they are wrong - or may be wrong. It is not task for human beings to decide who goes to heaven and who to hell. That's God's privilege because he is the judge. We are better to let God be judge and us be merciful and kind.I meant the Catholics I talked to about the situation. They said my mom's going to heaven, I'm going to hell, because my mom had the sacraments done in a Catholic church, despite being an unbeliever and actually hating Christianity, and I did not.
So If I say, Paul baptized (verb) a few people, that has nothing to do with those people's baptism (noun)?Okay, I dealt with your thesis in a previous post. So, the first paragraph is answered.
The second paragraph is not relevant to saint Peter's words in 1 Pater 3:21 which is what we're discussing. So, the second paragraph is answered by observing it is irrelevant to the discussion of the meaning of 1 Peter 3:21.
The same comment applies to the third paragraph; it is not relevant, unless your contention is that "baptism" almost never means baptism [with water]. Anyway, it is not relevant.
1 Cor 10:1-4 doesn't use the word "baptism" so it doesn't seem to be useful to your argument; it is another irrelevance.
My point was that just because the word baptism is used, it does not necessarily mean water baptism. But it is Ok if you think everything I said is irrelevant.The same is true for 1 Cor 12:13.
Galatians 3:26-27 is in fact talking about [water] baptism, but it is not especially relevant to 1 Peter 3:21, except if you have decided that saint Pater really is talking about [water] baptism saving us, in which case saint Paul's usage in Gal 3:26-27 is supportive of saint Peter's usage in 1 Peter 3:21.
Yes, we are finally getting to the heart of the issue. There is a difference between water baptism and Spirit baptism. John the Baptist was the first one to make the distinction:And your conclusion is incorrect; what baptism is Paul writing about in Romans 6? If it writes about some [spirit] baptism, which is in your view distinct from [water] baptism, then Romans 6 is useless as an argument in favour of baptism by submersion, and is that where you really want to go? For me baptism is baptism because I make no distinction between baptism as a sacrament and [spirit] baptism which seems to be an invention of your theological system rather than a "real thing" in scripture.
I don't see any real difference between "literal" and your description.No, that is not what I think, nor what the Catholic Church teaches. What the Church teaches is that the host and the content of the chalice is the body and blood [as well as the soul and divinity] of Jesus Christ. This "literal" thing is a tool of Protestant polemics, a nonsense in reality, that people use as a cudgel to beat up Catholics in discussion forums. No Catholic claims "literal" human flesh and "literal" human blood are consumed in communion, but every faithful Catholic believes that the content of the chalice is the blood of Christ and the host is his body. We say "amen" when that is proposed to us as the host is given to us and as the chalice is handed to us.
Why would you think that?So If I say, Paul baptized (verb) a few people, that has nothing to do with those people's baptism (noun)?
Baptism usually means baptism and one is baptised with water (in water if you prefer). What is irrelevant is the claim that baptism isn't baptism but something else, "spirit baptism" is think is the thing you were asserting it was. In 1 Peter 3:21 baptism is baptism, the kind that uses water, that is why Saint Peter said that the water of the floods was like the baptism that now saves us.My point was that just because the word baptism is used, it does not necessarily mean water baptism. But it is Ok if you think everything I said is irrelevant.
Except that saint John [the Baptist] never said a thing about water as opposed to spirit baptism, what he said was that Jesus would baptise with Fire and the Holy Spirit. But saint Peter in 1 Peter 3:21 is writing about water - first the waters of the flood and then the water of baptism - while he makes the point that it was water that saved Noah and his family from the wicked world of those days and that it is water that saves us now. He is not attempting to discuss baptism with fire and the Holy Spirit, I cannot think you'd think he was.Yes, we are finally getting to the heart of the issue. There is a difference between water baptism and Spirit baptism. John the Baptist was the first one to make the distinction:
That may be because your understanding of "literal" isn't literal. In any case when Jesus says "this is my body" he means that it is his body but not that "this is literally my body" because in that case he'd be asserting something that he didn't assert, namely, that the bread in his hand was his body - presumably his entire body - rather than that the bread was his body and the wine his blood in a way he chose not to explain. They simply are what he said they are and we are to believe it rather than dissect it and pick the explanation that we most prefer.I don't see any real difference between "literal" and your description.
lol. I would think they were related. That's like saying Jesus saves (verb) has no relation to being saved (noun). Of course they are related.Why would you think that?
lol. According to the Bible, John the Baptist said, "I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." (Mk 1:8) He is contrasting the water baptism that he performed with the Spirit baptism that Jesus would later perform. How can you say John the Baptist never said a thing about water as opposed to spirit baptism. Maybe you think John the Baptist is the same John that wrote the Gospel according to John? I say this because you don't use the name the Bible gives him (i.e., "John the Baptist"), you call him, "saint John [the Baptist]".Except that saint John [the Baptist] never said a thing about water as opposed to spirit baptism, what he said was that Jesus would baptise with Fire and the Holy Spirit.
It is clear that you have no knowledge of the baptism that Jesus performs with the Holy Spirit. Like I said above, Spirit baptism is the real baptism that moves a person from death to life. Water baptism does not and can not move a person from death to life. Only Spirit baptism can do that. Said another way, when Jesus floods our hearts with the Holy Spirit and comes to make His home in us, we are raised from the dead and become new creatures in Christ. This is the baptism every person needs to escape eternal death and live with God forever. Maybe you understand it now that I have explained it. I hope so.But saint Pater in 1 Peter 3:21 is writing about water - first the waters of the flood and then the water of baptism - while he makes the point that it was water that saved Noah and his family from the wicked world of those days and that it is water that saves us now. He is not attempting to discuss baptism with fire and the Holy Spirit, I cannot think you'd think he was.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?