Was Peter Baptized?

[jaison jose]

God bless you my friend. May the Lord bless you and keep you safe.

thank you and may God also grant your good wishes...my friend
my brother...

 

[Fidelibus]

I have to disagree with you.

You are forcing the Scriptures to say what YOU want them to say instead of just accepting them as they are.

I have explained to you now several the correct teachings on the phrases and Scriptures you posted and I really do not see a need to go on debating something that is really not debatable.

I find these statements quite interesting Major1. Could I ask by what authority is it, that you consider your understanding/interpretations/teachings of phrases and Scripture is correct, and Thedictator's is not?

 

[Major1]

I find these statements quite interesting Major1. Could I ask by what authority is it, that you consider your understanding/interpretations/teachings of phrases and Scripture is correct, and Thedictator's is not?

Good question.

I simply base it on the teaching of Bible scholars, teachers and commentators and the correct understanding of the Scriptures in focus.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God' may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Now when the preponderance of Scriptures teaches us something, but some people believe it says something else, then every thing on that subject must be weighed with the filter of the Holy Spirit and how he speaks to us.

 

[Fidelibus]

Now when the preponderance of Scriptures teaches us something, but some people believe it says something else, then every thing on that subject must be weighed with the filter of the Holy Spirit and how he speaks to us.

Okay, however, what if 'Thedictator' claims that the Holy Spirit spoke to him as well in the disagreement the two of you had, who is in error, you or him, for the Holy Spirit cannot teach error, one of you has to be in error, right?

 

[Thedictator]

1 Peter 3:21..............
Thankfully, though, we don’t have to guess at what Peter means in this verse because he clarifies that for us with the phrase “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience.”

While Peter is connecting baptism with salvation, it is not the act of being baptized that he is referring to (not the removal of dirt from the flesh). Being immersed in water does nothing but wash away dirt. What Peter is referring to is what baptism represents, which is what saves us (an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ). In other words, Peter is simply connecting baptism with belief. It is not the getting-wet part that saves but is the “appeal to God for a clean conscience” which is signified by baptism, that saves us. The appeal to God always comes first. First belief and repentance, then we are baptized to publicly identify ourselves with Christ.

I stated in a former post that I did not believe in what is called baptismal regeneration. So yes, there is not magical powers in the waters of baptism, and that is what Paul was talking about when he said " the Removal of dirt". Paul was also saying that baptism was more than just a physical thing but that there was a spiritual dimension to baptism. He is showing the spiritual side of baptism by making a comparison to the Flood, The floor removed sin physical and spiritually from the Earth, the waters of the flood removed all sin and evil. Sin is not really physical it is spiritual, Man is the physical and sin is the spiritual. So just like the flood, baptism removes sin, and because of God's grace 8 people where saved from the flood, in the same way spiritually the Baptismal waters washes away the sins of man. That is the context of what Paul is saying.

Paul is saying that the spiritual dimension of water baptism ( with the spiritual reenactment of the Death, burial, and resurrection) saves us by the Power of God in the Resurrection. Not any kind of Physical removal, but a spiritual removal of sin.

 

[Goatee]

I have to say here that Major1 is an expert on all things Scripture based. He is indeed, the only one who knows how to read them and interpret them......

 

[Wolf_Says]

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'm just going to say this and be done, considering I think MANY people here have forgotten this.

THE.BIBLE.IS.NOT.A.HISTORY.BOOK.

NOT.EVERYTHING.IS.WRITTEN.DOWN.

Just because something is not written in the Bible, does not mean that it DIDN'T happen! I mean, do we see Ceaser's death in the Bible? Or the first Ice Age? No!

Now before you start with "well those don't pertain to faith", neither does if the Bible specifically shows Peter's baptism or not. Why? Because all that matters to us is that Jesus specifically claimed that we need baptism.

I would imagine that, as Peter was one of the Apostles; Jesus' closest disciples, that he would have gotten Baptized if he wasn't already due to Jewish tradition.

This entire thread is merely a way to try and attack the Catholic Church, and it is abundantly clear with your "wouldn't that be a hoot?" line.

I gave my thoughts, and now I am done.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I stated in a former post that I did not believe in what is called baptismal regeneration. So yes, there is not magical powers in the waters of baptism, and that is what Paul was talking about when he said " the Removal of dirt". Paul was also saying that baptism was more than just a physical thing but that there was a spiritual dimension to baptism. He is showing the spiritual side of baptism by making a comparison to the Flood, The floor removed sin physical and spiritually from the Earth, the waters of the flood removed all sin and evil. Sin is not really physical it is spiritual, Man is the physical and sin is the spiritual. So just like the flood, baptism removes sin, and because of God's grace 8 people where saved from the flood, in the same way spiritually the Baptismal waters washes away the sins of man. That is the context of what Paul is saying.

Paul is saying that the spiritual dimension of water baptism ( with the spiritual reenactment of the Death, burial, and resurrection) saves us by the Power of God in the Resurrection. Not any kind of Physical removal, but a spiritual removal of sin.

Just a minor correction here. It was Peter who wrote that, not Paul. I Peter 3.

 

[PanDeVida]

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?

Major, here is where you and other protestants go wrong, and that is when one use the word "I BELIEVE"... such as you did.

Major, there is no bible verse that states the Peter went out to the Out House, either. However, you know it is only common sense that Peter did, am I correct in saying so? Of Course I am.

Major, do you believe that Peter would contradict himself by Baptizing others and he himself not been baptized??? lol to believe that Peter contradicts himself, in this way as you Believe. Major, you are Majorly Wrong lol

Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).

Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]" (CCC 1257).

The Christian belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is so unshakable that even the Protestant Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He wrote: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted" (Large Catechism 4:6).

Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through "baptism of blood," martyrdom for Christ, or through "baptism of desire", that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism.

Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).

As the following passages from the works of the Church Fathers illustrate, Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood.




Hermas
"‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’" (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).

Justin Martyr
"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Tertullian
"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and.asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away from the water!" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).

"Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (ibid., 12

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Water baptism is merely the beginning. To say that it procurs salvation is to agree with OSAS which means that a person has accepted the Father's one and only offer of salvation given thru repentance. However once that baptism of repentance into His death is contractual there is still the rising into His ascention into a resurrected life that is accomplished thru fire baptism. That hasn't anything to do with salvation because it's tied to rewards...

 

[Major1]

Major, here is where you and other protestants go wrong, and that is when one use the word "I BELIEVE"... such as you did.

Major, there is no bible verse that states the Peter went out to the Out House, either. However, you know it is only common sense that Peter did, am I correct in saying so? Of Course I am.

Major, do you believe that Peter would contradict himself by Baptizing others and he himself not been baptized??? lol to believe that Peter contradicts himself, in this way as you Believe. Major, you are Majorly Wrong lol

Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).

Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]" (CCC 1257).

The Christian belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is so unshakable that even the Protestant Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He wrote: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted" (Large Catechism 4:6).

Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through "baptism of blood," martyrdom for Christ, or through "baptism of desire", that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism.

Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).

As the following passages from the works of the Church Fathers illustrate, Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood.




Hermas
"‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’" (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).

Justin Martyr
"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Tertullian
"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and.asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away from the water!" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).

"Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (ibid., 12

I am always amused and amazed at what people say. Now friend, IF you had read the post thoroughly you would have seen and read that I DO NOT say that Peter WAS NOT baptized.

How then can I be wrong over something I did not say??????

I encoursge you to do the actual Bible study on Baptism instead of copy and pasting Catholic web sites and you will be amazed at what you will be able to learn.

As an example you said..........
"Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12)."

Totally incorrect my friend.

1 Peter 3:21 is not talking about water baptism but instead Peter is talking about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Now I believe in water baptism and every person who is "born again" should be baptized, however the act of baptism only gets you wet and doe not save you.

Peter is NOT referring to water baptism as he knows it is not water that cleanses our spirt from filth but instead he knows that is is only the blood of Christ.

 

[Wolf_Says]

I am always amused and amazed at what people say. Now friend, IF you had read the post thoroughly you would have seen and read that I DO NOT say that Peter WAS NOT baptized.

Then the point of this thread is.......???

If the title of the thread is "Was Peter Baptized?" and you are trying to make a jab at the Catholic Church: "wouldn't that be a hoot?", and now you say that you never claimed that Peter wasn't baptized....

what is the point of the thread?

 

[Major1]

Okay, however, what if 'Thedictator' claims that the Holy Spirit spoke to him as well in the disagreement the two of you had, who is in error, you or him, for the Holy Spirit cannot teach error, one of you has to be in error, right?

Every Bible teaching must be filtered and understood by our logic and our ability to learn and grow.

Let me try this example for you. Lets say that your mother is terminally ill and that she is not a born again Christian. She is on her death bed and you call me and ask if I will come and visit with her and present the gospel to her just one more time. I do that and low and behold she says YES, I do want to be saved and she prays the sinners prayer and is saved. But befor we can get her off her death bed and into a pool to get her baptized......she dies.

Now is she going to heaven or is she going to hell?

What if a man gets saved in a church, accepts all the things and doctrines and Christ and has a car wreak and dies before he is baptized. According to the doctrine that is being present , in both cases those people go to hell because they did not get wet with water.

If you believe that just because she was not baptized and is going to hell then there is really no need for us to talk about this anymore.

My dear friend, I personally did exact thing for my wife's uncle. I do not know how many time that has happened on the battlefield with men who are wounded and died.

Now if every single person on this web site believes that those who accept Christ at death and do not get baptized go to hell then folks, you have some kind of theology which is totally alien to me and you are welcome to it because that is nothing I want a part of.

Acts 16:30-31.......
Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Romans 10:13 says:........
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

 

[Major1]

Then the point of this thread is.......???

If the title of the thread is "Was Peter Baptized?" and you are trying to make a jab at the Catholic Church: "wouldn't that be a hoot?", and now you say that you never claimed that Peter wasn't baptized....

what is the point of the thread?

It is to show how wrong the RCC's teaching is on one must be baptized in order to be saved.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Every Bible teaching must be filtered and understood by our logic and our ability to learn and grow.

Let me try this example for you. Lets say that your mother is terminally ill and that she is not a born again Christian. She is on her death bed and you call me and ask if I will come and visit with her and present the gospel to her just one more time. I do that and low and behold she says YES, I do want to be saved and she prays the sinners prayer and is saved. But befor we can get her off her death bed and into a pool to get her baptized......she dies.

Now is she going to heaven or is she going to hell?

What if a man gets saved in a church, accepts all the things and doctrines and Christ and has a car wreak and dies before he is baptized. According to the doctrine that is being present , in both cases those people go to hell because they did not get wet with water.

If you believe that just because she was not baptized and is going to hell then there is really no need for us to talk about this anymore.

My dear friend, I personally did exact thing for my wife's uncle. I do not know how many time that has happened on the battlefield with men who are wounded and died.

Now if every single person on this web site believes that those who accept Christ at death and do not get baptized go to hell then folks, you have some kind of theology which is totally alien to me and you are welcome to it because that is nothing I want a part of.

Acts 16:30-31.......
Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Romans 10:13 says:........
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

For that reason what the RC stated as exceptions are indications of a circumcised heart (ceremonially speaking)

 

[Major1]

I stated in a former post that I did not believe in what is called baptismal regeneration. So yes, there is not magical powers in the waters of baptism, and that is what Paul was talking about when he said " the Removal of dirt". Paul was also saying that baptism was more than just a physical thing but that there was a spiritual dimension to baptism. He is showing the spiritual side of baptism by making a comparison to the Flood, The floor removed sin physical and spiritually from the Earth, the waters of the flood removed all sin and evil. Sin is not really physical it is spiritual, Man is the physical and sin is the spiritual. So just like the flood, baptism removes sin, and because of God's grace 8 people where saved from the flood, in the same way spiritually the Baptismal waters washes away the sins of man. That is the context of what Paul is saying.

Paul is saying that the spiritual dimension of water baptism ( with the spiritual reenactment of the Death, burial, and resurrection) saves us by the Power of God in the Resurrection. Not any kind of Physical removal, but a spiritual removal of sin.

Several points here.

We agree that there is not such thing as "Water Regeneration"...........Excellent!

Now the baptism Paul was speaking of is the Baptism of The Holy Spirit. That act is the one by which we are regenerated. That is the spiritual application.

For the flood.....the flood did not remove any sin and no evil at all.

Sin is actually both spiritual and physical. The "thought" come from the heart of man but it then is finished by the "Hands" of man.

Cain had the THOUGHT to kill Abel, but it was by his hands which he killed his brother.

Paul is not saying that the spiritual dimension of water baptism saves us by the power of God in the resurrection. The act of water baptism allow us to be identified with Christ in that He died, and resurrected from the dead but the act itself does not save us.

By shedding His blood on the cross, Jesus took the punishment we deserve and offered us His righteousness. When we trust Christ for our salvation, essentially we are making a trade. By faith, we trade our sin and its accompanying death penalty for His righteousness and life.

In theological terms, this is called "substitutionary atonement." Christ died on the cross as our substitute. Without Him, we would suffer the death penalty for our own sins....

The writer to the Hebrews puts it this way: "And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Hebrews 9:22). For God to forgive our sins, His judgment had to be satisfied and that required the shedding of blood.

 

[Major1]

For that reason what the RC stated as exceptions are indications of a circumcised heart (ceremonially speaking)

So the RCC teaches water baptism for salvation, "BUT"...............there are certain circumstances that that doctrine can just be sat aside.

Why? Why would it be able to be ignored because of circumstances.

Because is it not needed for salvation and that fact that there can be certain circumstance which the RCC allow proves that very fact.

 

[Wolf_Says]

It is to show how wrong the RCC's teaching is on one must be baptized in order to be saved.

Then you have already failed if you believe that Peter was baptized.

Honestly, what is it that you have against the Catholic Church?

It is clearly stated, by Jesus himself, that we must be born again of water and spirit to enter heaven.

I fail to understand how to are "proving the Catholic Church wrong!"

So the RCC teaches water baptism for salvation, "BUT"...............there are certain circumstances that that doctrine can just be sat aside.

Why? Why would it be able to be ignored because of circumstances.

Because is it not needed for salvation and that fact that there can be certain circumstance which the RCC allow proves that very fact.

So...you say that the Catholic Church is wrong....and then you agree with them??

 

[Major1]

Then you have already failed if you believe that Peter was baptized.

Honestly, what is it that you have against the Catholic Church?

It is clearly stated, by Jesus himself, that we must be born again of water and spirit to enter heaven.

I fail to understand how to are "proving the Catholic Church wrong!"



So...you say that the Catholic Church is wrong....and then you agree with them??

Because you are a Catholic and you do not want to know.

Again, I did not say Peter was not baptized. I said that there is no record of that event.

Jesus DID NOT say we were to be baptized with water in order to be saved. Do the homework friend and you will see that the "water" in John 3 is the Word of God.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

So the RCC teaches water baptism for salvation, "BUT"...............there are certain circumstances that that doctrine can just be sat aside.

Why? Why would it be able to be ignored because of circumstances.

Because is it not needed for salvation and that fact that there can be certain circumstance which the RCC allow proves that very fact.

Are you baptised? Most professed Christians are because of an inward compulsion.