Was Peter Baptized?

prodromos said:

You seem reluctant to link to your unimpeachable sources.

Click to expand...

Not in the least. I will let you chew on these to your heart's content - The Head of St. John the Baptist at Amiens Cathedral and France, Amiens: Amiens Cathedral & the head of John the Baptist ~ The Catholic Travel Guide and Amiens Cathedral - Wikipedia

Major1 said:

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?

Click to expand...

The funny thing is, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church of the East and Lutheranism all teach that Baptism is in some way salvific.

Why is it that people only remember and bring up the Catholic Church on this issue, and not Orthodoxy or High-Church Classical Protestantism?

This is something I've noticed across the board on a number of topics, and it's kind of a favorite topic for some. Well.... that's weird. Everyone forgets Orthodoxy and much of classical Protestant thought.

Must be just as annoying, for different reasons, for the Orthodox and the Lutherans.

Gracia Singh said:

The funny thing is, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church of the East and Lutheranism all teach that Baptism is in some way salvific.

Why is it that people only remember and bring up the Catholic Church on this issue, and not Orthodoxy or High-Church Classical Protestantism?

This is something I've noticed across the board on a number of topics, and it's kind of a favorite topic for some. Well.... that's weird. Everyone forgets Orthodoxy and much of classical Protestant thought.

Must be just as annoying, for different reasons, for the Orthodox and the Lutherans.

Click to expand...

You are quite correct. I think it may be because the Catholic Church is the biggest target to shoot at.

bbbbbbb said:

Not in the least. I will let you chew on these to your heart's content - The Head of St. John the Baptist at Amiens Cathedral and France, Amiens: Amiens Cathedral & the head of John the Baptist ~ The Catholic Travel Guide and Amiens Cathedral - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

That is not Sainte Chapelle. What is your source for the claim that the Neanderthal skull is that of St John?
Also, one of your links says the skull at Amiens was lost and the cathedral currently carries a replica. Do you read your own sources?

Gracia Singh said:

This is something I've noticed across the board on a number of topics, and it's kind of a favorite topic for some. Well.... that's weird. Everyone forgets Orthodoxy and much of classical Protestant thought.

Must be just as annoying, for different reasons, for the Orthodox and the Lutherans.

Click to expand...

It is annoying in two ways. One, that no one remembers us. Good heavens, the EO is the second largest Christian body in the world with 250 million people but if we are remembered, we're just a bunch of Eastern Europeans with lots of smoke and chanting in languages no one understands.

Two, we have to defend Catholicism AGAIN?

(As a former LCMS Lutheran, it was really frustrating that the official view of Rome is that the office of the papacy is the anti-Christ, but I'd find myself on Rome's side over and over again. )

prodromos said:

That is not Sainte Chapelle. What is your source for the claim that the Neanderthal skull is that of St John?
Also, one of your links says the skull at Amiens was lost and the cathedral currently carries a replica. Do you read your own sources?

Click to expand...

That was my mistake which I quickly discovered. I had unfortunately, failed to correctly remember that Sainte Chapelle houses, among other holy relics of the Passion of Jesus Christ, the complete crown of thorns (which is quite another rabbit trail one could pursue) and that one of the skulls of John the Baptist is actually in Amiens Cathedral. I note that you have no comment concerning that skull.

You also find it interesting that a tooth of John the Baptist is now in the Art institute of Chicago - Reliquary with the Tooth of Saint John the Baptist - Wikipedia Of course the Amiens skull does not contain any teeth, so your allegation, in this instance is viable.

However, there is a complete skull at the Catholic Church of San Silvestro in Capete. It seems that the Catholic Church has had no difficulties in authenticating multiple skulls. Here is the Wikipedia article for your edification - San Silvestro in Capite - Wikipedia

bbbbbbb said:

That was my mistake which I quickly discovered. I had unfortunately, failed to correctly remember that Sainte Chapelle houses, among other holy relics of the Passion of Jesus Christ, the complete crown of thorns (which is quite another rabbit trail one could pursue) and that one of the skulls of John the Baptist is actually in Amiens Cathedral. I note that you have no comment concerning that skull.

Click to expand...

You clearly haven't read all of the post you replied to.

However, there is a complete skull at the Catholic Church of San Silvestro in Capete. It seems that the Catholic Church has had no difficulties in authenticating multiple skulls. Here is the Wikipedia article for your edification - San Silvestro in Capite - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

From the article you linked:


Clearly you have no interest in the truth. You only wish to perpetuate the lie.

prodromos said:

You clearly haven't read all of the post you replied to.

From the article you linked:

The basilica is also famous for a relic, a fragment of a head purported to be that of John the Baptist, kept in a chapel to the left of the entrance.​

Clearly you have no interest in the truth. You only wish to perpetuate the lie.

Click to expand...

Purported by whom? The Catholic Church, of course. Do you think they would intentionally purport something that they know is not the truth? If they purport (believe with utmost certainty) that this is an actual portion of the skull of John the Baptist, does it not seem more than a little odd to you that they are also purporting that the skull (minus the jawbone) in Amiens Cathedral is also a skull of John the Baptist?

While you are munching on that, you can also take a look at this - The Relics of Munich Residenz

bbbbbbb said:

Purported by whom? The Catholic Church, of course. Do you think they would intentionally purport something that they know is not the truth? If they purport (believe with utmost certainty) that this is an actual portion of the skull of John the Baptist, does it not seem more than a little odd to you that they are also purporting that the skull (minus the jawbone) in Amiens Cathedral is also a skull of John the Baptist?

Click to expand...

I've already noted that one of the links you posted earlier states that the portion of the skull in Amiens Cathedral is a replica, not the actual skull, and I'll repeat what I posted in #236, perhaps you will actually read it this time

While you are munching on that, you can also take a look at this - The Relics of Munich Residenz

Click to expand...

Why? You haven't engaged with anything I've posted. It's clear that you don't read what I post and you don't even read the links that you post yourself.

The notion that you need to be baptize to be saved disregards the gift of Jesus. If someone foreign to the faith believes and then gets into an accident, then he'll go to hell base on that theology. It is a very bad theology.

Hiep said:

The notion that you need to be baptize to be saved disregards the gift of Jesus. If someone foreign to the faith believes and then gets into an accident, then he'll go to hell base on that theology. It is a very bad theology.

Click to expand...

Good thing no one teaches that.
Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Communion are the threefold sacraments established by God for being grafted into Christ's body, but God is by no means bound to that and is able to save who He wills by whatever means He finds suitable. We should humble ourselves and follow the rule rather than assume we are the exception.

deleted

Hiep said:

The notion that you need to be baptize to be saved disregards the gift of Jesus. If someone foreign to the faith believes and then gets into an accident, then he'll go to hell base on that theology. It is a very bad theology.

Click to expand...

Time and again I see these kinds of statements--but this isn't what any of the historic churches believe. Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, et al do not believe that a person goes to hell simply because they haven't received the Sacrament of Baptism.

The problem seems to stem from a much deeper issue when it comes to the topic of salvation: Namely there are some who see salvation in strictly mechanical, formulaic terms. It's a very black and white, one either has done X, Y, and Z and is therefore saved; or one has not done X, Y, and Z and is therefore not saved.

That simply isn't how Christianity has approached salvation historically. Salvation is not mechanistic. Salvation, instead, covers the entire broad work of God healing, renewing, and redeeming the world. Our participation in this is our salvation. And this salvation is found in Jesus Christ, by His life and work.

Baptism isn't an obstacle a person much overcome, a work that must be achieved, in order to secure a spot at the pearly gates. Baptism, as a Sacrament, is the means through which God has chosen to act by which He takes Christ and all which He accomplished for us and brings it to us, applying it to us. That is why Paul says in Romans 6 that we were dead, buried, and raised to new life with Christ in baptism. It's why the same Apostle in Galatians 3:27 says all who have been baptized have been clothed with Christ, and in Colossians 2 saying again that we have been buried and raised with Him by baptism. Baptism unites us to Jesus, it brings us into Christ, therefore it gives us new life--a new birth--and we are new creations in Christ. What once was has been buried, and what is raised is the new man, the new life, found in Jesus Christ. That's Baptism. And because that's what Baptism is, then yes we can agree with St. Peter who in his first epistle writes that Baptism now saves us. Not as some mere bath rinsing dirt off our flesh, but as the pledge of a new conscience toward God by the power of Christ's resurrection.

This does not mean that if someone happens to not be baptized and they die before receiving it that they are damned. That's never been the teaching of the Christian Church.

Because, again, it's not some mechanical, formulaic, black or white thing. The working of God in our lives, saving us, is a living and dynamic work of God. And we have His promise that what He began in us He will continue to do until the day the Lord returns.

Trying to figure out who is and who isn't saved seems to be a puzzle that a lot of Christians like playing. But that's not how most of Christianity operates. Instead we put our faith and hope in Christ, trusting in God's grace and mercy. Not just for ourselves, but also for everyone else.

-CryptoLutheran