Was Peter Baptized?

[Major1]

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that one must be baptized in order to be saved.

I believe that we should want to be baptized because we are saved and water baptism is not a part of being saved.

Now in thinking about this, I tried to find a Bible verse which tells us when Peter was baptized.
You see, the RCC claims Peter as their 1st Pope and the thought occurred to me that if we go with the RCC teaching that a man must be baptized in order to be saved and their 1st Pope has no record of baptism then according to their own teaching, Peter would not have been saved.

Now wouldn't that be a hoot????

Someone will try to use John 14 to say that that event was baptism. NO friends that will not work at all so please save us the argument over it. John 14 IS NOT baptism but is "Foot washing" and the context and exegesis is not about immersion for the cleansing of sin and salvation in any way.

Who is going to explain this?

 

[AlexDTX]

I have no interest in defending the position, but not all things are recorded in the Bible. Perhaps Peter was baptized at the same time with Jesus, or near that time. If they are following him, and He was baptized, it is likely his disciples also were baptized by John, too.

 

[Winken]

OK, folks. Get over to the Prayer Wall and pray for this born again Muslim!!! Now!!!

 

[Soyeong]

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that one must be baptized in order to be saved.

I believe that we should want to be baptized because we are saved and water baptism is not a part of being saved.

Now in thinking about this, I tried to find a Bible verse which tells us when Peter was baptized.
You see, the RCC claims Peter as their 1st Pope and the thought occurred to me that if we go with the RCC teaching that a man must be baptized in order to be saved and their 1st Pope has no record of baptism then according to their own teaching, Peter would not have been saved.

Now wouldn't that be a hoot????

Someone will try to use John 14 to say that that event was baptism. NO friends that will not work at all so please save us the argument over it. John 14 IS NOT baptism but is "Foot washing" and the context and exegesis is not about immersion for the cleansing of sin and salvation in any way.

Who is going to explain this?

Every example of saving faith in Hebrews 11 is also an example of someone living in obedience to God's commands, so baptism is likewise an example of saving faith in obedience to God's commands, not something that we need to do in order to become saved. Immersion was a regular occurrence for Jews, so he was no doubt baptized many times, plus he received the Spirit at Pentecost.

 

[Thedictator]

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that one must be baptized in order to be saved.

I believe that we should want to be baptized because we are saved and water baptism is not a part of being saved.

Now in thinking about this, I tried to find a Bible verse which tells us when Peter was baptized.

Your argument is weak, the bible also does not say that Peter believed that Jesus was God, or that he believed in the triune Nature of God.

Now about Baptism, I'm not Catholic, and the Catholics are not the only ones who believe what the Bible teaches about Baptism. If you choose to believe what your denomination teaches over what the Word of God ( the Bible ) teaches about baptism that is your business, but there are lots of Christians groups who choose to believe what the Word of God teaches. Mark 16:16

 

[Major1]

Your argument is weak, the bible also does not say that Peter believed that Jesus was God, or that he believed in the triune Nature of God.

Now about Baptism, I'm not Catholic, and the Catholics are not the only ones who believe what the Bible teaches about Baptism. If you choose to believe what your denomination teaches over what the Word of God ( the Bible ) teaches about baptism that is your business, but there are lots of Christians groups who choose to believe what the Word of God teaches. Mark 16:16

It may or may not be weak but it is a Bible fact. Why not speak to that ?????
Why don't you post some Scripture that will weaken it and destroy it altogether.

You are correct in that the Bible does not say Peter gave testimony of his conversion and in fact there is not a record of any apostles conversion account.

And YES, you are very correct that there are other denominations which teach that water baptism is needed for salvation.

But if you will read the post again you will I hope see that the Catholic church is the only who claimed Peter as its 1st Pope which is the context of the post.

 

[Major1]

Every example of saving faith in Hebrews 11 is also an example of someone living in obedience to God's commands, so baptism is likewise an example of saving faith in obedience to God's commands, not something that we need to do in order to become saved. Immersion was a regular occurrence for Jews, so he was no doubt baptized many times, plus he received the Spirit at Pentecost.

That is an "Assumption" and not Biblical truth.

I am assuming that you are using both of your hands to type your messages but in fact you may have a pencil glued to your nose for all I know.

Now I did NOT say that Peter was not baptized. I said that I could not find any Scripture which says that he was.

 

[Major1]

I have no interest in defending the position, but not all things are recorded in the Bible. Perhaps Peter was baptized at the same time with Jesus, or near that time. If they are following him, and He was baptized, it is likely his disciples also were baptized by John, too.

You may certainly be correct. I just thought how strange it is that the Catholic church demands baptism for salvation and their 1st Pope may not have been baptized, or at least there is no record of that event in the Scriptures.

 

[Major1]

OK, folks. Get over to the Prayer Wall and pray for this born again Muslim!!! Now!!!

Are you saying that you are a muslim?

 

[Goatee]

Major1, you not still Catholic bashing are you?

Look, Jesus was baptised. Don't you think that his Disciples would follow suit? Wouldn't the pupils do what the teacher did?

 

[Goatee]

John 3:22
22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.

Why would He not baptised Peter and the others when He was in Judea baptizing the multitudes Anyway? Why would He leave them out and not baptised them?

 

[St_Worm2]

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that one must be baptized in order to be saved.

I believe that we should want to be baptized because we are saved and water baptism is not a part of being saved.

Now in thinking about this, I tried to find a Bible verse which tells us when Peter was baptized.
You see, the RCC claims Peter as their 1st Pope and the thought occurred to me that if we go with the RCC teaching that a man must be baptized in order to be saved and their 1st Pope has no record of baptism then according to their own teaching, Peter would not have been saved.

Now wouldn't that be a hoot????

Someone will try to use John 14 to say that that event was baptism. NO friends that will not work at all so please save us the argument over it. John 14 IS NOT baptism but is "Foot washing" and the context and exegesis is not about immersion for the cleansing of sin and salvation in any way.

Who is going to explain this?

Hi Major1, our friends in the RCC (and EOC) will no doubt point you to this verse and this word λούω [louo]...

John 13
10 Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.”​

...as a reference to baptism (notice also the phrase in bold). I don't agree with it (and, in fact, believe that this interpretation does harm to the intended implications/meaning of the entire passage by focusing on the outward/physical rather of the inward/spiritual), but is it really a surprise that the RCC would interpret this passage in the same manner they interpret so many others?

You will never convince our friends in the RCC that λούω in v10 does not refer to the Apostles' water baptism, nor can you prove that they are wrong, or that St. Peter was or was not baptized (and you don't have to convince Protestants), so why go down this road at all?

Yours and His,
David

 

[Soyeong]

That is an "Assumption" and not Biblical truth.

I am assuming that you are using both of your hands to type your messages but in fact you may have a pencil glued to your nose for all I know.

Now I did NOT say that Peter was not baptized. I said that I could not find any Scripture which says that he was.

Jews were required to become baptized before they could enter the temple area, so when the Bible speaks about people who were in the temple area, then it is reasonable to inference that they were baptized. Yes, the Bible doesn't directly say that they were, but there is no reason to doubt that they were. So, yes, it is possible that I am typing with a pencil glued to my nose, but there is no reason to think that is the case. The Bible doesn't say that Jesus didn't dress in neon pink robes, so it is possible that he did, but there is no reason to think that to be the case. Scripture doesn't record that Peter trimmed his fingernails, but what of it?

 

[AlexDTX]

You may certainly be correct. I just thought how strange it is that the Catholic church demands baptism for salvation and their 1st Pope may not have been baptized, or at least there is no record of that event in the Scriptures.

The belief that water baptism was necessary for salvation lasted 1800 years until DL Moody changed that. It was Moody who began what we now call the "Sinner's Prayer". Of course, congregations still recognized the need for water baptism as an act of obedience and encourage all to be water baptized. I was water baptized 6 months after both my new birth experience and my baptism in the Holy Ghost experience. It made no sense of change in me, but I did so merely as an act of obedience.

 

[Major1]

The belief that water baptism was necessary for salvation lasted 1800 years until DL Moody changed that. It was Moody who began what we now call the "Sinner's Prayer". Of course, congregations still recognized the need for water baptism as an act of obedience and encourage all to be water baptized. I was water baptized 6 months after both my new birth experience and my baptism in the Holy Ghost experience. It made no sense of change in me, but I did so merely as an act of obedience.

Agreed.

I will not argue the point on Dr. Moody but I am very sure that he was not the 1st person to reject water baptism plays a part in salvation.

As for the "Alter Call", I believe that you will find that one of the 1st men to do that was a Methodist preacher Peter Cartwright in about 1800 and Charles G. Finney later in the 1830's.

 

[Major1]

Jews were required to become baptized before they could enter the temple area, so when the Bible speaks about people who were in the temple area, then it is reasonable to inference that they were baptized. Yes, the Bible doesn't directly say that they were, but there is no reason to doubt that they were. So, yes, it is possible that I am typing with a pencil glued to my nose, but there is no reason to think that is the case. The Bible doesn't say that Jesus didn't dress in neon pink robes, so it is possible that he did, but there is no reason to think that to be the case. Scripture doesn't record that Peter trimmed his fingernails, but what of it?

Nice thoughts for sure.

The point however still remains in that there is no Biblical record of Peter being baptized.

Anything we say or come up with is nothing but a smoke screen to cover up that fact.

I actually do agree with what you have said, but I am pointing out the absurdity of the Catholic teaching that "One must be baptized in order to be saved".

I only pointed out that there own 1st Pope has no record of baptism which show us that baptism is not required to be saved.

 

[Major1]

Hi Major1, our friends in the RCC (and EOC) will no doubt point you to this verse and this word λούω [louo]...

John 13
10 Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.”​

...as a reference to baptism (notice also the phrase in bold). I don't agree with it (and, in fact, believe that this interpretation does harm to the intended implications/meaning of the entire passage by focusing on the outward/physical rather of the inward/spiritual), but is it really a surprise that the RCC would interpret this passage in the same manner they interpret so many others?

You will never convince our friends in the RCC that λούω in v10 does not refer to the Apostles' water baptism, nor can you prove that they are wrong, or that St. Peter was or was not baptized (and you don't have to convince Protestants), so why go down this road at all?

Yours and His,
David

2 Tim 2:15............
"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth."

WHY?............WHY NOT!

 

[AlexDTX]

Agreed.

I will not argue the point on Dr. Moody but I am very sure that he was not the 1st person to reject water baptism plays a part in salvation.

As for the "Alter Call", I believe that you will find that one of the 1st men to do that was a Methodist preacher Peter Cartwright in about 1800 and Charles G. Finney later in the 1830's.

I could be wrong about Moody. It may be Finney. However, you are right. I think there were others who realized that salvation was by faith alone, and that water baptism was not the saving factor. Those believers were the ones persecuted.

 

[Thedictator]

I actually do agree with what you have said, but I am pointing out the absurdity of the Catholic teaching that "One must be baptized in order to be saved".

I only pointed out that there own 1st Pope has no record of baptism which show us that baptism is not required to be saved.

There is only one little problem with your argument and it is called TRUTH. Who cares if Paul was saved or not. There have been some Popes that were very evil and were not saved, the Catholic Church even recognizes that. One of Jesus Christ's original Disciples is in Hell now, so your position is weak and on sinking sand. The truth is that the Word of God actually says that Baptism is need for salvation. It is amazing that people actually deny what the Bible really says.

 

[Thedictator]

I actually do agree with what you have said, but I am pointing out the absurdity of the Catholic teaching that "One must be baptized in order to be saved".

I only pointed out that there own 1st Pope has no record of baptism which show us that baptism is not required to be saved.

There is only one little problem with your argument and it is called TRUTH. Who cares if Paul was saved or not. There have been some Popes that were very evil and were not saved, the Catholic Church even recognizes that. One of Jesus Christ's original Disciples is in Hell now, so your position is weak and on sinking sand. The truth is that the Word of God actually says that Baptism is need for salvation. It is amazing that people actually deny what the Bible really says.