Infallibility of Church?

[MT1926]

Again, I would say the exception makes the rule. Most people by themselves do not grow up at peace with God.

Well like I said earlier not sure why anyone would base their rules on exceptions, because there will always be exceptions on both sides.

Once again like I already stated, in my opinion when we do so we sound just like the men in Matthew 20:11 And on receiving it they grumbled at the householder, 12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’

Nope, “and” can definitely conjoin two distinct events.

I must be 63 years old and have contributed to SS to collect.

I’m thinking you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Might be my fault it is difficult to follow. Let me try again.

Jesus says unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The “and” makes this one event because they both relate back to the word born, what needs to be done in order to achieve being born again.

Your sentence doesn’t tie these words together with ONLY the word AND. You are tying them together with “AND HAVE”. HAVE is a verb telling us that you already had to of paid in. In the same way Jesus would have had to add a word like THEN to make this verse say what you think it says.

Does that make sense? You can’t add a word after the AND because it is the word HAVE that tells us it is two distinct events.

Even if you switched it around it would be the same…

I must HAVE contributed to SS and BE 63 years old to collect SS.

The HAVE and the BE show us it is two events. The same with your other example using BECAME twice shows us it is 2 events.

OT saints were not just born in the flesh, but born of the Spirit, a work of grace, even of faith, apprehending the hope in the coming One.

I’m not going to answer this one just yet. I will do some studying and get back to you. It seems you are using your “exception makes the rules” here. Since you really aren’t supplying any OT Biblical references to argue your position I’m not even sure where to start with this. I don’t want to give a vague answer so let me do a little reading on the subject and I’ll come back around to this question. I’ll also try to include this one…

Can u show me where it is written that flesh can be righteous, or where we by nature (flesh) can be spiritually righteous ?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Today, yes when you become born again the Holy Spirit then indwells you. He also baptizes you, and gives power and gifts. I believe the Holy Spirit first regenerates from without, then He comes in.

The apostles I believe were born again when they came to believe in the Messiah, as evidenced by Peter’s famous confession, at the “rock” discourse. (Not sure if and when and by whom they were water baptized). Jesus told them the Holy Spirit was with them, was giving them understanding, even from the Father.

Jesus also said the Spirit would soon be in them. I believe this happened after the resurrection, when Jesus breathed on them and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost”.

Finally they were baptized in the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, receiving power and boldness in the preaching of the Word.(…tarry ye in Jerusalem, till ye be empowered from on high).

A lot of what you say here sounds very Catholic. It sure seems like we believe a lot of the same, it is just the mode in which it happens that we disagree on.

Some of the point you made reminded me of an article I read, says a lot of them same things you say here but ties it to scripture and gives differentiates some things.

Disclaimer: This is not official Catholic teaching, however I believe it encompasses it pretty well.

What makes a Christian charismatic.

I think it is a good read, it says a lot of what you say here. I believe it will respond to your post better than I could.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

Disclaimer: This is not official Catholic teaching, however I believe it encompasses it pretty well.

What makes a Christian charismatic.

Took a look…pretty good refresher for me I must say.(good prooftexts…that I have seen before in my circles).

I did go to several charismatic meetings (Catholic), a long time ago ( back when a priest, even pastors would call us “Jesus freaks”…actually those churches that accepted a lot of long hair hippies were blessed in the end…lot of traditional “mainline” P churches did not.)

Sticky issue, even for P’s, but they reflect my sentiments and that of my church community.

The only thing I saw in article, from a Catholic point of view, is that it could challenge the conception of water baptism as the only way to be regenerated, for the article clearly states that Paul and Cornelius, and perhaps even apostles were born again, even baptized in the Holy Ghost, before or apart from water baptism. I mean the article pretty much distinguishes for some believers “sacramental baptized christian” and a “born againer”. That is something for sure.

That was my only concern at that Catholic meeting, that indeed you must obviously be born again first before any baptism in the Holy Ghost, beyond just referring to ones infant baptism. They all understood my conviction , and made me feel at home otherwise.

Very interesting article. Thank you.

 

[MT1926]

The only thing I saw in article, from a Catholic point of view, is that it could challenge the conception of water baptism as the only way to be regenerated, for the article clearly states that Paul and Cornelius, and perhaps even apostles were born again, even baptized in the Holy Ghost, before or apart from water baptism.

Not sure if you are saying the Catholic Church believes baptism is the only way or if you mean someone else believes this?

All we are saying is Baptism is the normative rather than absolute way.

As I said on several occasions we believe God when He says…

Matthew 20:15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?

We don’t tie God’s hands and tell Him nope you gave an exception therefor you must create a new rule so all can take advantage of this exception. We don’t believe exceptions make the rules.

The Catholic Church basically states: "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also tells us: “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).

On an interesting side note I found that even 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).

Here are some other non-Catholics who wrote about Baptismal regeneration.

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

“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).

Yes, Luther believed in baptismal regeneration. There is still a debate, however, within Protestantism about the efficacy of water baptism. I think we can reduce all of these expressions – born again, regeneration, and the idea of being made a new creation in Christ – to this basic question: What makes a person a Christian?

Titus 3:5 says, “He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.” This passage is often referenced in regard to baptismal regeneration, specifically the statement, “by the washing of regeneration.” Does this refer to water baptism? Is this what makes someone a Christian? The Bible commentator Matthew Henry said this:

“Here is the outward sign and seal thereof in baptism, called therefore the washing of regeneration. The work is inward and spiritual; this is outwardly signified and sealed in this ordinance. Slight not this outward sign and seal; yet rest not in the outward washing, but look to the answer of a good conscience, without which the outward washing will avail nothing. The worker therein is the Spirit of God; it is the renewing of the Holy Ghost. Through him we mortify sin, perform duty, walk in God’s ways. All the working of the Divine life in us, and the fruits of righteousness without, are through this blessed and holy Spirit. The Spirit and his saving gifts and graces, come through Christ, as a Savior, whose undertaking and work are to bring us to grace and glory.”

So Henry says, “Slight not this outward sign and seal; yet rest not in the outward washing, but look to the answer of a good conscience, without which the outward washing will avail nothing.” In other words, he places the emphasis, as do most Protestants, upon the inward work of the Holy Spirit, because he is the one by whom we “walk in the ways of God.”

 

[MT1926]

In other words, he places the emphasis, as do most Protestants, upon the inward work of the Holy Spirit, because he is the one by whom we “walk in the ways of God.”

I’m pretty sure we all agree that it is the inward working of the Holy Spirit. No one is denying how one is regenerated I think the issue is when.

Don’t totally agree but I have no issue with the point the commentary you shared is trying to make. Would like to share the one from my Bible, that I felt was informative and would like to see what you think.

Regeneration (Tit 3:5)

Palingensia (Gk): refers to a “rebirth”, “restoration”, or “renewal”. The term is used only twice in the Bible, here and in

Matthew 19:28. Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

In Titus, Paul links the idea of regeneration with a baptismal washing that cleanses us of sin and gives us a new birth in the family of God (John 3:5 & Eph 5:26). He is saying that the washing of the body is an efficacious sign of the invisible work of the Spirit, whose actions in the sacrament renews and renovates our souls with divine grace (Acts 2:38 & 1 Pet 3:21)

So would agree with Matthew Henry when he says it is a sign. The difference is we believe “both/and” it is also an efficacious sign.

However would disagree with

yet rest not in the outward washing, but look to the answer of a good conscience, without which the outward washing will avail nothing.”

To me this is illogical. Paul is talking about Baptism here. Even Matthew Henry agrees with this. As I pointed out this word for regeneration means rebirth. Why would I not “REST” in Paul’s words here, connecting baptismal washing to rebirth and renewal in the Holy Spirit? and instead rest in my own “good conscience” when Paul never even mentions our conscience in this teaching?

I don’t mean this disrespectfully I just can’t understand the logic behind him reading this statement into the verse.

Basically, the main point I was making with this is, of the 95 issues on Luther’s 95 Thesis, Baptismal regeneration was not one of them. He, as well as many other non-Catholics, had no problems seeing that this regeneration occurred when one was Baptized just trying to understand the reasoning why they don’t agree with Luther on this.

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

Matthew 19:28. Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Yes, the same Greek word in this context seems to have a different meaning, more in line with God’s final re-creation of the heavens and the earth. Something similar occurs with the word justification, as in Luke 7:35: "Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.” We know that in this context, the word justification is understood more in the sense of vindication, that is, knowing that something is wise by the fruit that it bears. In the same way, I think we need to understand how the Greek word regeneration is used in its context.

Basically, the main point I was making with this is, of the 95 issues on Luther’s 95 Thesis, Baptismal regeneration was not one of them. He, as well as many other non-Catholics, had no problems seeing that this regeneration occurred when one was Baptized just trying to understand the reasoning why they don’t agree with Luther on this.

Maybe my own wrestling with the question will help you understand the different sides of the debate within Protestantism. On the one hand, I am afraid of placing my confidence in an external ordinance rather than in the shed blood of Jesus. On the other hand, I am fearful of offending God if, as Matthew Henry says, I “slight” this important “seal” of the Holy Spirit. It is a mystery to me. Jesus commanded us to baptize, and I personally see no reason why we should withhold this sign from our children. Since I don’t really know with absolute assurance who is right in this matter of baptismal regeneration, I cling to Jesus and to his finished work for me on the cross.

I want to believe that baptism is more than simply a sign, that there is something supernatural at work when it is administered. On the other hand, I also want to believe that it is God’s grace alone that saves a repentant sinner like me, and that salvation is ultimately a matter of God changing my heart. If there is anything that I must personally perform to be accepted by God, other than simply lifting empty hands of faith, then it is always possible that I have left something out, that I have inadvertently missed some important step or action.

In general, I think those who deny that there is intrinsic merit in water baptism are fearful of placing their hope of salvation in anything other than what Christ has done for us. They are afraid of offending God by placing their hope in some external act rather than in Christ’s blood and the internal work of the Holy Spirit. And I can identify with that.

 

[MT1926]

in this context seems to have a different meaning

Re-creation can be a synonym for rebirth. That’s what happens when we are born again? Take off the old self and put on a new.

Concentrate less on the difference and more on the similarities. Only 2 times is the word used in the Bible. Not a coincidence. Jesus here uses this word to denote a renewal of heaven and earth. Paul uses the same word with water (Baptism) describing our renewal in the Holy Spirit.

I agree the context is different, but that doesn’t change the meaning of the word. It still means rebirth.

placing my confidence in an external ordinance

I understand the internal wrestling with this issue and I don’t want to minimize conscience. I’m just having a hard time trying to understand how one can wrestle with the Biblical evidence …“born of water and spirit”, “Baptism now saves”, or “believe and be baptized”, etc…not placing confidence on the words on the page. Yet believe they can have assurance based on their “good conscience”.

For me it makes more sense that God would say you wash and I will give you rebirth, than for me to say yep my conscience is good the Holy Spirit can come on in now.

I “slight” this important “seal” of the Holy Spirit.

Agree, but from my point of view looking to my conscience instead of to the Sacrament of Baptism, given to us by Christ, would be slighting the Holy Spirit. It would be like saying “how can this man give us the Holy Spirit through water.”

this sign

Why do people believe Jesus gave us a bunch of signs that do nothing? Why command us to Baptize if it does nothing? Why command us to celebrate the Eucharist, as often as we meet, if it does nothing? Why command the Apostles to forgive or retain sins if they really can’t? Why have them lay hands on their successors if nothing happens including it doesn’t really make them successors? It seem like Jesus taught a lot of useless stuff, if it is all just a bunch of signs?

God’s grace alone that saves

Why is it so hard to believe that God would choose to use Baptism as the means in which He desired to save you?

other than simply lifting empty hands of faith

Why is being washed in Baptism a work but lifting your empty hands isn’t? Sure we can say we aren’t doing anything but in the end we still had to do something, we had to accept what God gave us.

placing their hope in some external act

This tells me that there is a misunderstanding of Baptism in God’s plan for our salvation. God desires us to want to freely love Him. He wants our cooperation, that’s why He gave us free will.

Just one last thought. If God doesn’t find importance in using external physical signs to bring about something greater then why did Jesus have to physically die on the cross?

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

I agree the context is different, but that doesn’t change the meaning of the word. It still means rebirth.

That’s fine. But both “washing” and “pouring” can be interpreted symbolically as the manner in which the Holy Spirit operates, that is, “from above.” But once a person has embraced the language in a literal sense of water baptism, it is easy to interpret every reference to regeneration or water or baptism in accordance with that notion.

In Isaiah, God speaks: “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose.” Jeremiah foretold of the “spring of living water.” And Jesus told the woman at the well that “whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” Is this not the essence of our salvation?

For me it makes more sense that God would say you wash and I will give you rebirth, than for me to say yep my conscience is good the Holy Spirit can come on in now.

A good conscious is not the basis by which we receive the Holy Spirit. It is the internal evidence that he has already come.

Why is being washed in Baptism a work but lifting your empty hands isn’t? Sure we can say we aren’t doing anything but in the end we still had to do something, we had to accept what God gave us.

I refer back to the passage in Ephesians that I quoted earlier, that even our “faith is a gift.” Jesus said that no one comes to him “unless the Father draws him.” He also said that without him, “we can do nothing.” It is grace from the very beginning. Even if I simply raise my empty hands, it is God who enables me to do that.

 

[Glenn]

I’m just having a hard time trying to understand how one can wrestle with the Biblical evidence …“born of water and spirit”, “Baptism now saves”, or “believe and be baptized”, etc…not placing confidence on the words on the page.

One can wrestle with the words because there are also numerous passages that speak of the salvific work of the Spirit apart from baptism. Immediately after Jesus’ statement that one must be “born of water and the Spirit” (which I previously mentioned has been interpreted “as with water”), Jesus says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

The emphasis of this passage is on the work of the Spirit, not the act of baptism. Jesus continues: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

There are hundreds of passages in the Bible that speak of salvation based upon believing in the Son, with no reference whatsoever to water baptism. Those words are just as plain and far more prolific than the passages that appear to connect baptism with salvation. In Hebrews, in the role call of the OT saints, over and over again, the writer says, “by faith… by faith… by faith…” The physical signs, according to the text, have been supplanted by the spiritual reality: “Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.”

If God doesn’t find importance in using external physical signs to bring about something greater then why did Jesus have to physically die on the cross?

“But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:26). “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4). Yes, Jesus had to physically die our death. He took our place on the cross. But everything has been summed up in him. The external signs point to what he has already accomplished.

 

[mcq72]

For me it makes more sense that God would say you wash and I will give you rebirth, than for me to say yep my conscience is good the Holy Spirit can come on in now.

Did people change, repent, believe before or after John’s baptism? Did the 3000 people who listened to Peter change, repent, believe, before or after water baptism? Did Cornelius repent, change, believe before or after water baptism?

Is repentance, belief, even a change, evidence of new birth, of being born again?

 

[MT1926]

The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” Is this not the essence of our salvation?

Agree. It all comes from Christ. Once again never claimed the water in and of itself is what regenerates us. I think this is part of the issue you are having, you can’t see through the water to Christ. The essence comes from Christ, all I am saying is He chose to use the water, not our conscience, for our rebirth.

A good conscious is not the basis by which we receive the Holy Spirit. It is the internal evidence that he has already come.

I understand you aren’t saying your conscience is the basis, my point was why is it so easy to believe an internal sign, when Jesus never mentions this internal sign when He speaks of rebirth. However, you won’t except the external sign, Baptism, when Jesus outright tells us that our rebirth occurs with Baptism. That’s what doesn’t make sense to me.

I refer back to the passage in Ephesians that I quoted earlier, that even our “faith is a gift.”

Amen

Jesus said that no one comes to him “unless the Father draws him.”

Amen

He also said that without him, “we can do nothing.”

Amen

It is grace from the very beginning.

Amen

Even if I simply raise my empty hands, it is God who enables me to do that.

Same goes with Baptism. Even if we get Baptized or Baptize an infant it is God who enables us to do this. My only point was that they are on technically on the same level, they are both something we do. However, they are both something being done because it is what God desires not because of what we want in return.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

The emphasis of this passage is on the work of the Spirit, not the act of baptism.

Sure but the emphasis of the chapter is Baptism. Didn’t you just say 2 posts ago that context is important? The entire Chapter of John 3 is in the context of Baptism. Shouldn’t we read these verses with this context in mind? Once again why does it need to be and either/or why can’t Jesus be teaching us both/and?

There are hundreds of passages in the Bible that speak of salvation based upon believing in the Son, with no reference whatsoever to water baptism.

I wouldn’t say hundreds but I understand your point. Once again both/and. Sure totally agree believing is necessary. But from my point of view to believe means BOTH to believe in Jesus as the Christ AND to believe in what He taught us to do.

Also, why should we expect Jesus to teach everything we must believe every single time He spoke?

“But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:26). “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4). Yes, Jesus had to physically die our death. He took our place on the cross. But everything has been summed up in him. The external signs point to what he has already accomplished.

This doesn’t really answer the question I asked. My point was God could have redeemed us by saying a word, but instead He chose to use Jesus physical death to accomplish something for us. Why is it so hard to believe that He would use water to also accomplish something for us?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Did people… John’s baptism?

First we don’t know the Bible doesn’t tell us what occurred in every single persons heart. Also John’s Baptism is not the same as Jesus’ Baptism.

Did the 3000 …after water baptism?

Well I guess it depends on how you interpret the verse. When I read the verse I hear Peter say what he wrote…

38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized (do these 2 things) every oneof you (every man, woman and child) in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(this is what God will do for you after you do the above two things) 39 For the promise is to you (every adult present, which back then could include 12 year olds, since that is how young they got married) and to your children (basically would be every human being under the age of 12) and to all (every man, woman and child) that are far off, every one _(every man, woman and child)_whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

Where as it seems you are hearing him say…

38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every oneof you (only males and females above the age of reason) in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; (disclaimer Jesus forgives your sins, even though I said for I meant who will forgive your sins. Your repentance nor your baptism has anything to do with the fact that you will actually be forgiven) and you shall (at some later date) receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children (if and only if they are above the age of reason) and to all (except infants) that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” Oh and by the way if you feel like giving everyone around you a sign that you repented and believe go ahead and get wet.

Did Cornelius…after water baptism?

Once again we don’t base our rules on exceptions.

If you read all of Acts 10 I believe this chapter is more about teaching St. Peter what he is suppose to do than teaching us about what we are suppose to do. Cornelius was a Gentile. Gentiles weren’t the chosen people like the Jews. The Apostles couldn’t get it through their thick heads that Jesus also came for the Gentiles. That is what is going on here. God made an exception to prove to Peter that the Gentiles should be allowed into his covenant family. This has nothing to do with teaching us we can receive the Holy Spirit without Baptism.

45 And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.

The Jews were amazed that Gentiles could receive the Holy Spirit. They weren’t saying wow we were doing this all wrong, we don’t really need Baptism it must just be a sign.

Why would Peter say can anyone forbid baptizing these people? Why would anyone need to forbid a SIGN that accomplishes nothing?

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

The entire Chapter of John 3 is in the context of Baptism…
Once again why does it need to be and either/or why can’t Jesus be teaching us both/and?

If I may interject, a “both and” rendering of John 3 and I dare say any text dealing with baptism will have equal context of “believing”,etc, the inward Working.

Now I would say, and have been saying, not really equal contexts but of an inward work being sealed, proven by an outward sign, that one follows the other, the inward causing the outward, and not vice versa.

That is where I strongly agree on “both and”, a strong even scriptural association of new birth and baptism. Just that the outward does not drive the inward, but vice versa.

 

[AlNg]

It would help if you gave an example of a doctrine which you cannot support in good conscience.

The annulment teaching is a difficult one for me to believe. An example I am familiar with: A man is married 15 years and has several children. To provide for his family, he works a second job and is not home several nights a week because of that job. In the meantime, after 15 years, his wife is unfaithful to the marriage. In fact it is with a priest and as well with one or two others. One of the other men feels guilt and asks the husband for forgiveness. the husband then confronts the wife and she then sues for divorce and with the help of the priest files for an annulment and gets it. So the Church decides that after 15 years of marriage and children, there really was no sacramental marriage. As Cardinal Kasper has pointed out, this looks like a Catholic divorce in a dishonest sense, and it is not really true that there was no sacramental marriage to begin with.

 

[Glenn]

Once again both/and. Sure totally agree believing is necessary. But from my point of view to believe means BOTH to believe in Jesus as the Christ AND to believe in what He taught us to do.

Yes, absolutely. Protestants maintain that baptism is important. They all teach that everyone who comes to Christ must follow him in baptism. The question is whether baptism actually communicates the Spirit or celebrates the Spirit.

We all follow Christ through obedience to what he commands. Protestants simply want to protect the merit of Christ by distinguishing between what actually saves us, namely, the blood of Jesus, and that which celebrates what he did for us, our baptism.

The Holy Spirit communicates to us what Jesus did on the cross. His work is the giving of new life. Baptism is part of living the new life.

 

[mcq72]

This doesn’t really answer the question I asked. My point was God could have redeemed us by saying a word, but instead He chose to use Jesus physical death to accomplish something for us. Why is it so hard to believe that He would use water to also accomplish something for us?

Actually, God does save us by saying a word, in fact many of them. The focal point then became the Living Word, finally at Calvary.

“For God so chose by the foolishness of preaching that man should be saved”.

Of course the preaching (using words) is to believe, repent and be baptized. In that order it seems. The water is not the actuator, but the sign of an inward Work.

 

[Theo520]

The annulment teaching is a difficult one for me to believe. An example I am familiar with: A man is married 15 years and has several children. To provide for his family, he works a second job and is not home several nights a week because of that job. In the meantime, after 15 years, his wife is unfaithful to the marriage. In fact it is with a priest and as well with one or two others. One of the other men feels guilt and asks the husband for forgiveness. the husband then confronts the wife and she then sues for divorce and with the help of the priest files for an annulment and gets it. So the Church decides that after 15 years of marriage and children, there really was no sacramental marriage. As Cardinal Kasper has pointed out, this looks like a Catholic divorce in a dishonest sense, and it is not really true that there was no sacramental marriage to begin with.

That sounds like the process has been corrupted, not that the process is inherently faulty.
Switch the Priest with corrupt Judge and you could have a man being taken to the cleaners in a divorce settlement, even though he had a prenup that required fidelity.

The Church claims the teachings are infallible, not that the priests execute their duties without error.

Ignoring the corrupt Priest helping the woman, there may be valid grounds for annulment, that the wife was not able to make the contract.

• Defect of contract: If it was not a marriage that was contracted, such as if there was a defect of intent on either side. This can occur if either party lacked the intent to enter into a lifelong, exclusive union, open to reproduction. In the Church’s understanding, the marriage contract can only be between a woman and a man.
• Defect of will: Because of “mental incapacity, ignorance, error about the person, error about marriage, fraud, knowledge of nullity, simulation, conditioned consent, force or grave fear”.[[8]]

I don’t mean to dismiss your example, it was very though provoking. I don’t know much about this area so others may also chime in.

 

[mcq72]

Well I guess it depends on how you interpret the verse. When I read the verse I hear Peter say what he wrote…

Actually my question dealt with the verses dealing with the 3000, that they were and convicted by the Holy Ghost, had a change of heart and mind. They had rejected any previous baptism by John or apostles, and finally may have cried out crucify Him. Now it seems they have been transformed to gladly believe in Christ’s work as Messiah, truly “turning around”, repenting and gladly now being baptized.

Key point , or question, was were they not transformed before the water baptism? What does the text say ? What is the order of things? Why do you read so little into what Peter named first to do, and just what that meant, repent? Why do you think that does not mean be born again ?