Was Peter Baptized?

[Major1]

AND it should be pointed out that NONE of the Apostles/Disciples were even "Christians" in the "Born again of the Holy Spirit" sense, UNTIL AFTER the Crucifixion / SIN Offering, when it became POSSIBLE to be "born again". John 20:22 records the point at which the INDWELLING Holy Spirit was imparted to the Disciples/Apostles. Acts 2:4 records the coming of the Holy Spirit UPON the disciples who were already INDWELLED by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit indwells the believer at the moment of salvation.

 

[Albion]

John did water baptism, Jesus taught spirit baptism.

How does an Apostle administer a spirit baptism, then? As we know, Christ told his Apostles to go to all nations, "baptizing them." How would they perform a spirit baptism??

The Great Commission (Mt 28:16-19)
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The Holy Spirit indwells the believer at the moment of salvation.

Yup - that what I said.

However "Salvation" in the "Born again" sense wasn't possible for ANYBODY until after Calvary when the SIN ISSUE was resolved.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

They were already filled with the Holy Spirit because they accepted Christ.

Being Born again allows the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation.

Mark 16:14-16:
4 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Jesus did command baptism for salvation and Peter in his speech recorded in Acts also commands the people to confess and be baptized to be saved.

I Peter 3:20-22 also points this out...
In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

Paul saw and was taught by Christ and he was baptized so why doubt the rest of the disciples of having been baptized...it is a command of God...the Great Commission.

Acts 9:19-17:
Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Mark 16:14-16:
4 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

What does it require to be condemned?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

What does it require to be condemned?

Your question is not the topic of the OP...salvation requirements are the topic. I will quote Romans for you though as the ultimate determining factor in the event one lacks the written and clearly stated requirements for salvation...
Romans 9:15:
For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
All is in God's hands.

 

[Lost4words]

Mark 16:14-16:
4 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Jesus did command baptism for salvation and Peter in his speech recorded in Acts also commands the people to confess and be baptized to be saved.

I Peter 3:20-22 also points this out...
In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

Paul saw and was taught by Christ and he was baptized so why doubt the rest of the disciples of having been baptized...it is a command of God...the Great Commission.

Acts 9:19-17:
Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

Great reply my friend

 

[bbbbbbb]

Your question is not the topic of the OP...salvation requirements are the topic. I will quote Romans for you though as the ultimate determining factor in the event one lacks the written and clearly stated requirements for salvation...
Romans 9:15:
For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
All is in God's hands.

According to our friends, not all is in God's hands if, indeed, one is required to engage in ritual washing in order to save oneself.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

According to our friends, not all is in God's hands if, indeed, one is required to engage in ritual washing in order to save oneself.

This is a careless answer or your part is it not?
In cases where one overlooks baptism and other requirements directed under the new covenant or there had been no opportunity for such requirements to be fulfilled before an individual's death, God is the ultimate Judge. You can see this intention in my first answer.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This is a careless answer or your part is it not?
In cases where one overlooks baptism and other requirements directed under the new covenant or there had been no opportunity for such requirements to be fulfilled before an individual's death, God is the ultimate Judge. You can see this intention in my first answer.

Are you a monergist or a synergist?

 

[Steve97]

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?

Someone may have already mentioned this so forgive the redundancy.
Peter was a jew and it was customary to participate in a tivlah (immersion in water) as part of a mikvah. So, to answer your question, yes, Peter was baptized.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Someone may have already mentioned this so forgive the redundancy.
Peter was a jew and it was customary to participate in a tivlah (immersion in water) as part of a mikvah. So, to answer your question, yes, Peter was baptized.

That gets to the nub of the matter. As you know, there were varieties of baptism at the time, not the least of which were the baptisms of John (the Baptist) and Jesus Christ. It is evident from the book of the Acts that John's baptism was superseded by that of Jesus Christ and that John's followers who became Christians were rebaptized. It is quite implicit that although Peter may have engaged in a variety of baptisms, he was also baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Even today, there are many varieties of Christian baptism which some hold to exclusively and others accept ecumenically.

 

[Hiep]

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?

Even if someone conclude Peter wasn't baptized, it would be crazy to claim that he's not going to heaven.

 

[thecolorsblend]

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

This is one reason why nobody should listen to explanations of Catholic thought from any other source except Catholics. Because poorly thought out, poorly worded ideas like the above are inevitably what you get. As ever, there are intricacies and nuances to that which straw men posts typically ignore.

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

As if to prove my point...

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.

I am unaware of Sacred Scripture recording St. Peter's baptism. But that doesn't mean he wasn't baptized.

Similarly, I am also unaware of Sacred Scripture recording St. Peter's birth. But that doesn't mean he wasn't born.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This is one reason why nobody should listen to explanations of Catholic thought from any other source except Catholics. Because poorly thought out, poorly worded ideas like the above are inevitably what you get. As ever, there are intricacies and nuances to that which straw men posts typically ignore.

As if to prove my point...

I am unaware of Sacred Scripture recording St. Peter's baptism. But that doesn't mean he wasn't baptized.

Similarly, I am also unaware of Sacred Scripture recording St. Peter's birth. But that doesn't mean he wasn't born.

Nor, of course, does Sacred Scripture inform us of the actual number of heads which John the Baptist had, so one can easily believe that all of the six fully authenticated (by the Catholic Church) skulls of John the Baptist really and truly were his. The speculation is whether or not they were successive heads on the same neck or whether they were concurrent heads on individual necks.

 

[prodromos]

Nor, of course, does Sacred Scripture inform us of the actual number of heads which John the Baptist had, so one can easily believe that all of the six fully authenticated (by the Catholic Church) skulls of John the Baptist really and truly were his. The speculation is whether or not they were successive heads on the same neck or whether they were concurrent heads on individual necks.

Haven't we put this stupidity to rest already?

Each of the relics of the skull of St John the Baptist are parts of the same skull. Put them all together and you will have one complete skull. It is common for the reliquary of a partial relic to be in the shape of a whole part, eg. a silver hand reliquary may only hold the bones of a finger, thumb or some of the wrist bones, or a reliquary shaped as a forearm may only contain the radius or the ulna.
The Amiens Cathedral in France has the supraorbital and infraorbital foramen, the St. Sylvester Church in Rome has the occipital bone, the Topkapi Palace Museum in Istanbul has the parietal bone, and the other locations have the relics completely concealed so it is difficult to say which of the remaining parts of St John's skull is at each location. One of them will have his mandible and the others whatever is left.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Haven't we put this stupidity to rest already?

Each of the relics of the skull of St John the Baptist are parts of the same skull. Put them all together and you will have one complete skull. It is common for the reliquary of a partial relic to be in the shape of a whole part, eg. a silver hand reliquary may only hold the bones of a finger, thumb or some of the wrist bones, or a reliquary shaped as a forearm may only contain the radius or the ulna.
The Amiens Cathedral in France has the supraorbital and infraorbital foramen, the St. Sylvester Church in Rome has the occipital bone, the Topkapi Palace Museum in Istanbul has the parietal bone, and the other locations have the relics completely concealed so it is difficult to say which of the remaining parts of St John's skull is at each location. One of them will have his mandible and the others whatever is left.

Tell that to the folks at Sainte Chapelle in Paris which has this as the authentic skull of John the Baptist -

That doesn't leave much, if anything for the other skulls, does it?

 

[prodromos]

Tell that to the folks at Sainte Chapelle in Paris which has this as the authentic skull of John the Baptist - View attachment 271352

That doesn't leave much, if anything for the other skulls, does it?

That is a Neanderthal skull. Always check your sources.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That is a Neanderthal skull. Always check your sources.

It might be a Neanderthal skull, but that apparently did not inhibit the Catholic Church from authenticating it in the thirteenth century as the bona fide skull of John the Baptist. I rather doubt that there were many experts at that time about Neanderthals.

 

[prodromos]

It might be a Neanderthal skull, but that apparently did not inhibit the Catholic Church from authenticating it in the thirteenth century as the bona fide skull of John the Baptist. I rather doubt that there were many experts at that time about Neanderthals.

You seem reluctant to link to your unimpeachable sources.