Questions for Catholics

Amen.

The ark typifies being in Christ, Noah was separated by the water. In fact, the scripture from Peter only proves that Noah believed God when He said that He would destroy the world by flood. Nowhere in scripture is there warrant to assume that no other human was eternally saved.



Bro. Dallas

 

If one were to take look at the context of baptism in the NT it males sense to believe that someone who was baptized was also saved. During the writing of the NT the emperor was declared as Lord and some thought of themselves as divine. When someone was baptized they now declared Christ as their Lord and therefore placing their allegiance in Christ instead of the emperor. Because of naming Christ as Lord it meant that they in effect were renouncing the emperor as their lord and one could lose their life should the emperor decide to have that new believer executed. The believers during the time of the NT did not separate baptism and salvation as we do. Wouldn’t you say if someone was willing to follow Christ and name him as their Lord and risking their life because of this that they would be saved?

 

Hi Harvest,

Carson, how is me quoting scripture to you proving that i disagree with scripture?

That isn't the case. You explicitly denied that Peter said what he said, and your denial and interpretation is a tradition of men, which negates the Word of God as given to us infallibly in God's divine breathed Word.

And how does scripture equal traditions of men?

It doesn't. It's God's Word to us. That should be good enough for you, but apparently it's not; you have to interpret, I mean, negate 1 Peter 3:18-21 with your tradition of men, which believes that baptism does not save us when Peter says "baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you".

Noah was made righteous by faith not baptism. You insist that Noah was saved by baptism then answer this. At what point was Noah baptized?

Now you're putting words in my mouth Harvest. I never said that Noah was baptized. I said what Peter said. He said, "eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you". Peter says that eight persons (this includes Noah) were saved through the waters of the Great Deluge, which were at once salvatory and deadly. The waters of the Great Flood destroyed sin on earth and at the same time were an instrument in the salvation of eight persons. No baptism is involved. Peter is employing a Biblical interpretive method called typology whereby the events in the OT prefigure what happens in the NT. Peter said that eight persons were saved through water. You deny this. Peter says that baptism saves us. You deny this.

The Word of God is clear my brother. I encourage you to join a Bible-believing Church, which teaches what Peter teaches: baptism, which corresponds to the eight persons being saved through water, now saves you.

That's the Word of God brother, and you can put your money in it; it won't fade or change.

 

Thew word for "Corresponding to that" is the word antitupon. Which means counterpart or antitype. An antitype is "something that is foreshadowed by a type or symbol, as a New Testament event prefigured in the Old Testament."

In the rest of the verse is given the qualification for what the writer means--"baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

How can infants appeal to God?

 

Hi Harvest,

something that your church has believed in since about 300AD.

I encouraged you several posts above on this thread to learn your history. I would like to repeat that encouragement.

St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.

"Whoever are convinced and believe that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: ‘In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit,’ they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven’" (First Apology 61:14–17 [A.D. 151]).

St. Irenaeus succeeded St. Pothinus to become the second bishop of Lyons in 177 A.D. Earlier in his life he studied under St. Polycarp. Considered, one of the greatest theologians of the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies.

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn s, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Show me other verses that prove baptism saves? Surely something as important as salvation is given in more than one place, right?

Brother, if you truly put your trust in the Bible and believed what it said, you wouldn't need more than one affirmation. How many do you need? 2? 3? 4? 5? Do you only believe a truth until it is stated.. what.. 7 times? What is the magical number for a supposed Bible Christian?

This Bible Christian is satisfied with this one passage, for God's Holy Word is true and need not be muddled over with traditions of men.

 

Hi gb93433,

Thew word for "Corresponding to that" is the word antitupon. Which means counterpart or antitype. An antitype is "something that is foreshadowed by a type or symbol, as a New Testament event prefigured in the Old Testament."

I agree with every word that you have stated. It is precisely by the reason that the Great Deluge is a foretype of baptism that we are able to see the saving effects of baptism. This fact only bolsters the truth, which Peter expresses. This truth is that, "eight persons were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you."

Infants can appeal to God for a clear conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ in the same way that all other Christians make this appeal: through baptism.

 

Maybe you didn't read my earlier post so I will quote it here:

If one were to take look at the context of baptism in the NT it males sense to believe that someone who was baptized was also saved. During the writing of the NT the emperor was declared as Lord and some thought of themselves as divine. When someone was baptized they now declared Christ as their Lord and therefore placing their allegiance in Christ instead of the emperor. Because of naming Christ as Lord it meant that they in effect were renouncing the emperor as their lord and one could lose their life should the emperor decide to have that new believer executed. The believers during the time of the NT did not separate baptism and salvation as we do. Wouldn’t you say if someone was willing to follow Christ and name him as their Lord and risking their life because of this that they would be saved?

 

Maybe you didn't read my earlier post so I will quote it here:

If one were to take look at the context of baptism in the NT it males sense to believe that someone who was baptized was also saved. During the writing of the NT the emperor was declared as Lord and some thought of themselves as divine. When someone was baptized they now declared Christ as their Lord and therefore placing their allegiance in Christ instead of the emperor. Because of naming Christ as Lord it meant that they in effect were renouncing the emperor as their lord and one could lose their life should the emperor decide to have that new believer executed. The believers during the time of the NT did not separate baptism and salvation as we do. Wouldn’t you say if someone was willing to follow Christ and name him as their Lord and risking their life because of this that they would be saved? </font>[/QUOTE]So salvation is not by faith, nor is it by Grace, but by the work of public profession and then can't be shown to be certain except in regions in which you will certainly lose your life by making such profession, therefore, salvation is not only through profession or baptism, but now through martyrdom.

I am beginning to understand now, but I don't see 'by Grace through faith'. Maybe I am just a slow learner.

Bro. Dallas

 

Hi gb93433,

it makes sense to believe that someone who was baptized was also saved.

I agree.

The believers during the time of the NT did not separate baptism and salvation as we do.

Yes. It is precisely because baptism is the instrument of faith - by which we receive the Holy Spirit, are born anew, receive the forgiveness of sins, and are justified - that baptism and salvation cannot be separated. Baptism is an essential element in one's salvation because it is the beginning of the Christian life, as Christ's baptism was the beginning of his ministry; it was through his baptism that Christ was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power, as Peter says in Acts 10.

Wouldn’t you say if someone was willing to follow Christ and name him as their Lord and risking their life because of this that they would be saved?

I suppose you are bringing up the issue of the unbaptized "Christian". There is such a thing as "baptism of desire" in the Apostolic Tradition, which is when a person committed to following Christ dies before receiving baptism. This desire for baptism may be either implicit or explicit and both are salvific.

 

Maybe you didn't read my earlier post so I will quote it here:

If one were to take look at the context of baptism in the NT it males sense to believe that someone who was baptized was also saved. During the writing of the NT the emperor was declared as Lord and some thought of themselves as divine. When someone was baptized they now declared Christ as their Lord and therefore placing their allegiance in Christ instead of the emperor. Because of naming Christ as Lord it meant that they in effect were renouncing the emperor as their lord and one could lose their life should the emperor decide to have that new believer executed. The believers during the time of the NT did not separate baptism and salvation as we do. Wouldn’t you say if someone was willing to follow Christ and name him as their Lord and risking their life because of this that they would be saved? </font>[/QUOTE]So salvation is not by faith, nor is it by Grace, but by the work of public profession and then can't be shown to be certain except in regions in which you will certainly lose your life by making such profession, therefore, salvation is not only through profession or baptism, but now through martyrdom

I am beginning to understand now, but I don't see 'by Grace through faith'. Maybe I am just a slow learner.

Bro. Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]Isn't folowing Christ by faith? At least that's what Heb. 11:6 says.

If you are not walking by faith then how can you be following Christ?

Wouldn't you say that someone who is willing to take the kind of stand I talked about is trusting in Christ by faith for their salvation. Otherwise it is for nohing other than a public spectacle.

 

Hi Harvest,

You are accusing me of following the traditions of men, when all I have quoted you is scripture

Hardly. You "explained away" 1 Peter 3:18-21 in your own words when, if you had simply posted Scripture, you would have said, "eight persons were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." That's what Scripture says, and you aren't content with just what it says. You had to muddle over it with your tradition of men which says that baptism doesn't save us.

YOU are the one quoting "First Apology 61:14–17" That is not scripture, that is men!

I'm quoting Justin Martyr to refute your statement that my belief only goes back to 300 A.D.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law

Do you have any clue as to what ergon nomou are to a First-Century Jew?

 

The Baptism of Christ did what? It identified him with the church. Was he not born the Son of God? Was he not sent into the World as the only Begotten Son? Did he not live a perfectly sinless life prior to water baptism?

I believe he did, I believe he is the Lamb of God. I must admit that a person believing as I do must be careful to not have faith in their faith, does that make sense, I hope so. I say that because as Christians our object of faith in that which will ultimately and eternally deliver us must be the merit of the Son of God alone. If I add anything to it then it becomes a work that I am holding up between myself and the Christ of God and thereby becomes my idol, whether I recognize it or not.

Bro. Dallas

 

Maybe you didn't read my earlier post so I will quote it here:

If one were to take look at the context of baptism in the NT it males sense to believe that someone who was baptized was also saved. During the writing of the NT the emperor was declared as Lord and some thought of themselves as divine. When someone was baptized they now declared Christ as their Lord and therefore placing their allegiance in Christ instead of the emperor. Because of naming Christ as Lord it meant that they in effect were renouncing the emperor as their lord and one could lose their life should the emperor decide to have that new believer executed. The believers during the time of the NT did not separate baptism and salvation as we do. Wouldn’t you say if someone was willing to follow Christ and name him as their Lord and risking their life because of this that they would be saved? </font>[/QUOTE]So salvation is not by faith, nor is it by Grace, but by the work of public profession and then can't be shown to be certain except in regions in which you will certainly lose your life by making such profession, therefore, salvation is not only through profession or baptism, but now through martyrdom

I am beginning to understand now, but I don't see 'by Grace through faith'. Maybe I am just a slow learner.

Bro. Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]Isn't folowing Christ by faith? At least that's what Heb. 11:6 says.

If you are not walking by faith then how can you be following Christ?

Wouldn't you say that someone who is willing to take the kind of stand I talked about is trusting in Christ by faith for their salvation. Otherwise it is for nohing other than a public spectacle. </font>[/QUOTE]I do not disagree with what you are saying in principle. But I disagree in equating this 'act' or any other of meriting[sp?] eternal salvation.

In speaking of the type of Noah and the ark, it is not baptism that is important, it is being in the Ark, it is the Ark that typifies Christ. Now, to say there is such a thing as a 'desire' to be baptized but being legitimately hindered doesn't line up with scripture either.

Christ never made specification such as a desire for anything. He plainly and clearly stated:

Mark 16:16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

If baptism is a means for me, then it becomes a means for the Son of God to become what he already was the Lamb of God.

Bro. Dallas

[ October 06, 2003, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

TheHarvest,

How about you respond to my last response to you, since that is what you started this thread for.

 

Hi Dallas,

The Baptism of Christ did what? It identified him with the church. Was he not born the Son of God? Was he not sent into the World as the only Begotten Son? Did he not live a perfectly sinless life prior to water baptism?

Yes, all of what you just said - I agree with.

The reason that Jesus was "baptized" is because it was the point at which he was Christened (or "Anointed") with the Holy Spirit. Christ went through this (even though he was already fully divine and sinless) because it is in baptism that we receive the Holy Spirit, become beloved sons, and are anointed with the mission to be other Christs to the world. The sacraments are participations in the events of Christ's life, and in baptism, we participate in Christ's own baptism. Christ was baptized - not because he needed it, but because we need it.

I do must be careful to not have faith in their faith, does that make sense, I hope so.

Actually, you just made a profound insight that I couldn't stress the importance of. It is precisely the making of one's faith the object of one's faith that the Protestant Reformation brought about. To the Reformers (because of their nominalist philosophy), faith could not have a definitive object that came from outside the person in the form of dogmatic statements, but rather, it had to inhere within the person - the result was a sort of "faith in faith", and this very consequence has caused numerous debates and divisions within Protestantism itself.