Was Peter Baptized?

[Thedictator]

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.

It was Martin Luther who came up with Faith alone in the 1500's. The fact that Baptism is NOT a work that we do, but is something that is done to us by God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, and the Baptizer ( in the Authority and power of God ) fits very well with Faith alone. But it must be the right kind of faith not dead faith that James talks about.

 

[FenderTL5]

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

Obviously this proves beyond doubt that he was never baptized.
There's no Biblical account of him dying either, so that means he's still alive and well somewhere in the Middle East.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

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?

I believe that where there is time and necessary water during this time that one need be baptized to be saved...an exception is perhaps if one has not come to the full understanding of the Gospel.
I do not believe Scripture accounts Peter's baptism directly though I believe it can be assumed.
The record of Paul's baptism is given...Acts 9:18...so the leaders were also obedient.
All Paul's preaching on baptism leaves no exceptions.

 

[AlexDTX]

It was Martin Luther who came up with Faith alone in the 1500's. The fact that Baptism is NOT a work that we do, but is something that is done to us by God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, and the Baptizer ( in the Authority and power of God ) fits very well with Faith alone. But it must be the right kind of faith not dead faith that James talks about.

Yes, Martin Luther realized that salvation was by faith alone, but I think the point of the OP is how that faith is initially expressed. Originally it was by water baptism.

 

[buzuxi02]

The OP is using a flawed argument as by the 1st century BC, Mikvehs (ritual immersions) became a standard jewish practise to purify oneself (hence John 13:9). Also one can make a theological connection between Peter sinking into the water as he walked towards Christ as He walked on water, after this event all recognized him as Son of God and worshipped him.
Thirdly RC and most others view blood baptism as an alternative to water baptism and Peter was martyred. And yes the scripture clearly says the disciples will be baptised one way or another in Mark 10:39

 

[Soyeong]

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.

I can grant that the Bible doesn't directly record Peter getting baptized but that is irrelevant because there are nevertheless many good reasons to infer that he was and no reason whatsoever to infer that he wasn't. If it were true that one must be baptized in order to become saved and if it were true that Peter wasn't baptized, then that would there mean that Peter wasn't saved, but we have no reason to accept the 2nd premise, and the truth of the conclusion would not show that the 1st premise is false. The Bible does not record that Peter was saved, so we have just as little reason to doubt his salvation as we do to doubt that he was baptized.

 

[Goatee]

Obviously this proves beyond doubt that he was never baptized.
There's no Biblical account of him dying either, so that means he's still alive and well somewhere in the Middle East.

Agree

 

[bbbbbbb]

Obviously this proves beyond doubt that he was never baptized.
There's no Biblical account of him dying either, so that means he's still alive and well somewhere in the Middle East.

Maybe not the Middle East. There is a group in northern Japan who worship Jesus Christ, believing that after the resurrection, He migrated to northern Japan, got married and raised a family and (presumably) died at a ripe old age, given the fact that He no longer lives there.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Maybe not the Middle East. There is a group in northern Japan who worship Jesus Christ, believing that after the resurrection, He migrated to northern Japan, got married and raised a family and (presumably) died at a ripe old age, given the fact that He no longer lives there.

Kind of a Japanese version of Mormonism?

 

[Phil 1:21]

Also one can make a theological connection between Peter sinking into the water as he walked towards Christ as He walked on water, after this event all recognized him as Son of God and worshipped him.

Except that Peter began to sink because he lost faith. Wouldn't that kind of be the opposite of a baptism?

 

[dqhall]

I kept rereading the New Testament. I was not able to remember my infant baptism. I wanted to seek baptism although I was not a member of a church. I talked to a Southern Baptist pastor and he agreed to baptize me. I was elated during the ceremony. Long term growth took years. I realized repentance is more important than baptism. I cannot denounce baptism as the Holy Spirit was with Jesus in his baptism, descending like a dove upon him.

 

[Winken]

Are you saying that you are a muslim?

I posted that in several forums, praying that CFers would visit the Prayer Wall for this amazing Christian witness, who appears to be dying.

 

[Major1]

I posted that in several forums, praying that CFers would visit the Prayer Wall for this amazing Christian witness, who appears to be dying.

Got it!

 

[bbbbbbb]

Kind of a Japanese version of Mormonism?

Yes, from what I know there are certain close similarities.

 

[Major1]

I can grant that the Bible doesn't directly record Peter getting baptized but that is irrelevant because there are nevertheless many good reasons to infer that he was and no reason whatsoever to infer that he wasn't. If it were true that one must be baptized in order to become saved and if it were true that Peter wasn't baptized, then that would there mean that Peter wasn't saved, but we have no reason to accept the 2nd premise, and the truth of the conclusion would not show that the 1st premise is false. The Bible does not record that Peter was saved, so we have just as little reason to doubt his salvation as we do to doubt that he was baptized.

I hope you did not misunderstand me. I did not say that I believed that Peter was not baptized.
In fact I said that I believe that he was.

However, what I am pointing out is that the Roman Catholic Church demands that one must be baptized in order to be saved. That is Catholic dogma and is not Biblical.

So then by their own dogma they had their 1st Pope who may not have been baptized as there is NO record one way or the other and that would be as you stated that he, according to their own teaching was not saved.

 

[Winken]

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?

Precisely. I've read this entire thread. Unbelievable how scripture can be twisted! It was mandatory in Judaism to be water baptized so that they could greet the promised Jewish Messiah --- that's before they met Him.
Water was incorporated into Jewish religion. John came baptizing in water.

No one is baptized in water in order to receive Jesus as Savior since the Cross. Jesus fulfilled, completed, every requirement of Law. Once that was accomplished ANYONE on the face of the earth could confess Him as Savior, no strings attached! God's assurance of eternal security upon one's confession did not come with "if" you do thus and so.

How many years will non-Christians and Christians waste fighting over such a straight-forward Truth?!!

 

[Major1]

I believe that where there is time and necessary water during this time that one need be baptized to be saved...an exception is perhaps if one has not come to the full understanding of the Gospel.
I do not believe Scripture accounts Peter's baptism directly though I believe it can be assumed.
The record of Paul's baptism is given...Acts 9:18...so the leaders were also obedient.
All Paul's preaching on baptism leaves no exceptions.

Actually there is NO Biblical directive that one must be baptized in order to be saved.
Yes, a saved should want to be baptized as an outward sign of an inward change in their life.
You see, we are saved from the INSIDE OUT and water baptism tells those who know us that we have changed.

Now, assumption can be a very dangerous thing.

A lot of people assumed that Jim Jones was a Christian preacher, when in fact he was a suicidal lunatic who killed 1000 people.

Many people assumed that Judas was a disciple but he was a devil.

Adolf Hitler was assumed to be a great political ruler who brought Germany out of the great depression but in reality he was an anti-Christ.

Millions of people hear the name, "Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" and assume that they are Christians when in fact they deny Christ as God and believe that He and Satan are brothers.

 

[Major1]

Precisely. I've read this entire thread. Unbelievable how scripture can be twisted! It was mandatory in Judaism to be water baptized so that they could greet the promised Jewish Messiah --- that's before they met Him.
Water was incorporated into Jewish religion.

No one is baptized in water in order to receive Jesus as Savior since the Cross. Jesus fulfilled, completed, every requirement of Law. Once that was accomplished ANYONE on the face of the earth could confess Him as Savior, no strings attached! God's assurance of eternal security upon one's confession did not come with "if" you do thus and so.

How many years will non-Christians and Christians waste fighting over such a straight-forward Truth?!!

Agreed 100%.

You have grasped the idea thoroughly.

Just for fun to those who believes a lost person MUST be saved in order to be saved, allow me to give an example to those people.

Lets say that YOU and me go to the hospital room of someones father who is lost. That person has had a car wreck and broken their neck and back and can not be moved.

We get there and talk to him and low and behold he asks us what it takes to be saved. We, YOU and me lead him to the Lord Jesus Christ and then ask him to pray the sinners prayer and he does. Then he dies right there in front of us without being able to baptize him. According to those who demand that baptism is need to be saved, they have just condemned their own father to hell BECAUSE HE DID NOT GET WET.

Now does any logical thinking person really believe that that is what God has in mind???????

 

[Major1]

Obviously this proves beyond doubt that he was never baptized.
There's no Biblical account of him dying either, so that means he's still alive and well somewhere in the Middle East.

There is no record that he had a Sears credit card but I have it on good assumption that he did.

 

[Major1]

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.

You said.........
"The truth is that the Word of God actually says that Baptism is need for salvation".

Please post the Scriptures which say that salvation comes by being baptized.