That’s exactly what I meant, being born again of water and the Spirit in Baptism.
Sounds good to me.I would also say that running the race is not possible if not for the work of the Holy Spirit moving one to the finish line but also us allowing the Holy Spirit to work through us .
Jon, in general, Lutherans and High Church Anglicans are very close to Catholics in terms of salvation. The main differences today are in understandings of the Eucharist, how many sacraments there are, and the authority of the Pope. Why? Because Lutherans and High Church Anglicans mean something completely different by “Faith alone” and “Scripture alone” than many other Protestants (especially so-called “born-again” Christians) mean. This is actually why the Catholic Church often does not object to ordaining former Anglican priests (especially) and sometimes even former Lutheran ministers as Catholic priests, even if they are married - as long as they are in valid marriages and are otherwise eligible to be ordained (that is, baptized male, married no more than once - Confirmation, of course, is bestowed on the pastors when they convert to Catholicism).That’s exactly what I meant, being born again of water and the Spirit in Baptism.
No apology needed, Karen. I just like to make sure the lurkers don’t get the wrong idea.
“Protestant” is a term of questionable accuracy.
Sounds good to me.
Jon
What you’ve stated is, essentially, what I wanted the lurkers no know. And why the term protestant can be so misleading.
It’s funny that you accuse me of this, when you are the one who wants to ignore that Peter clearly taught that “baptism…now saves you”. You want to compile a multitude of verses that you twist to interpret as disagreeing with what Peter taught, so that you can ignore what Jesus and Peter taught. Baptism’s not optional, no matter how many verses you twist and cite that you believe tell you otherwise.
Keep reading that chapter, all the way to verses 37-41, when they ask Peter what they must do. Why do you ignore this part of Scripture?
Repentance IS the first step. No Catholic argues this. You wish to stop the Christian faith here, but that is not what Jesus nor the Apostles taught. As noted above, just a few verses earlier, Peter laid out what must be done, baptism.
Why do you stop reading at this verse? Why don’t you continue until at least verse 48? What does Peter command so that this remission of sins is carried out.
“Believe” isn’t a verbal or mental assent. We must DO something to “believe”. Even demons “believe”, but aren’t saved. You are trying to take God’s New Covenant and cut away everything you don’t like, but it doesn’t work like that.
You are introducing your own words now. It says to repent, which all Catholics agree with. But it does NOT say that repentance is ALL we must do. That is you reading your personal theology into the text.
Again, reading your own theology into the text. Paul is merely saying that his particular role is as an evangelist, not as a baptizer. Because in the same passage he does admit that he DID baptize some. Your personal interpretation of this passage fails.
Then why in the VERY NEXT VERSE, does Paul baptize them?
The Holy Spirit comes down through baptism and sanctifies, as is shown several times in Acts.
The “word” referred to here is Jesus, not the Bible. And Jesus and the Holy Spirit act through baptism to make one born again.
Correct, there is confession to believing in Jesus just before one is baptized. If you note in verse 16, obedience to the gospel is key. You seem to think that “belief” is divorced from actions, when it is not.
And you wish to make the New Covenant stop right there. But Jesus and the Apostles didn’t teach that. You appeal to God, AND THEN follow in obedience to His commands and become baptized. You don’t receive salvation from a sinners prayer.
Correct. Which puzzles me why you ignore so much of it. And why you don’t listen to the Church which tells you the Bible is God’s word?
I find the opposite. Today man wants to continually cut away portions of the New Covenant that they don’t like. They want to cling to one or two verses and think salvation is easy. Jesus commanded many things that are required of us, and commanded we pick up our crosses. That’s not easy, and salvation isn’t cheap.It is man that wants to complicate it. Each time Jesus ministered salvation it was profoundly simple.
Correct, “protestant” doesn’t describe any one set of beliefs. In fact, the ONLY doctrine that all Protestants can agree on is that the Catholic Church is wrong.That’s exactly what I meant, being born again of water and the Spirit in Baptism.
No apology needed, Karen. I just like to make sure the lurkers don’t get the wrong idea.
“Protestant” is a term of questionable accuracy.
And they said we couldn’t agree on anything.Correct, “protestant” doesn’t describe any one set of beliefs. In fact, the ONLY doctrine that all Protestants can agree on is that the Catholic Church is wrong.
Thanks for the reply zz. I had already gone over 1Pt3:21 in part 1. I looked through dozens of commentaries at Bible Hub. Most agree that this is a difficult verse. I wanted to understand why baptism “now” saves us. Has baptism “now” replaced something else that saved us before? Is Peter informing the elders of something new?
Baptism saves us from death, just as the ark saved Noah from death. They both involve water. But baptism is greater than the ark, as it is the reality that the ark foreshadowed. Baptism is also how be enter the New Covenant, as it was also foreshadowed by and replaces circumcision.
Amen!
Interesting how you claim many purposes for baptism except for the one thing that the bible says it is for in Rm 6. Baptism itself illustrates what it does. Going under the water is like a burial. Why? Because we die with Christ. Thus, says Paul, we are saved from our sin nature or “the old man”. You ignored that Peter said Noah was saved by the water. The flood did not save him from death, but from the evil world. As some commentaries point out, it was the same with Moses and the Hebrews. They were saved from Egypt (the world) by the sea as it drowned the Egyptian army. but they were saved from death by the Blood on the doorpost, an illustration of the sacrifice of Christ, just as Noah was saved by the Ark, an illustration of Christ.
That’s the only thing the Bible says baptism is for? Jesus and Peter didn’t say anything about salvation and baptism, huh?
Nothing in here I disagree with. And baptism is greater than the waters of the flood, greater than Noah’s ark, greater than the waters of the Red Sea, greater than the blood on the doorpost.
I think I’ve found the problem. You view baptism in purely material/carnal senses. You see it as only getting wet. Baptism is not “simply getting us wet”. It is an invocation of God Himself to come to us through the waters of baptism, to anoint us spiritually, and cleanse us spiritually of sins (notice I said spiritually, NOT symbolically). You miss this, so you downplay and ignore the importance of baptism. God Himself acts through the waters of baptism to enter the person into the New Covenant.
We are joined to the sacrifice of Christ, and forgiven through His sacrifice, THROUGH baptism.
Jesus said we are to be born again through water AND spirit. Why you wish to throw out the water portion, when God included it, I have no idea.
Once again I will review for you what I said about Jn3. Jesus does not mention baptism at all. He is speaking of the spiritual water which is the Spirit just as in Jn7:38. Jesus then illustrated his point for Nicodemus in v. 14, “And as Moses .lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” The bronze serpent was an illustration of salvation. Anyone who looked on it with faith would be healed. Jesus again explained the same in Jn6:40, “…that everyone which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life…”
This is your personal, fallible, manmade interpretation of the passage. Most of Christianity has understood Him to be discussing baptism.
You undermine your own point. Jesus really WAS lifted up on a pole. We really ARE baptized. And for those who wished to be healed in the desert, they actually had to GO to the bronze serpent and pray. It wasn’t enough to just “believe”. They had to DO an action. Their faith had to be put into action for it to save them. Faith alone did not save them, just as the Bible says that faith alone will not save us.
And in the same passage He said you must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life. So actions ARE required. Faith alone does not save.
God disagrees with your personal and fallible interpretation of this, as does His Church.
You seem to want to reduce the New Covenant down to some single requirement, and declare that everything else is not necessary. Jesus doesn’t agree. He set up the New Covenant in a certain way. It is not in our authority to change, amend, delete, alter or ignore parts of it we don’t like.
This is not my invention zz. I’m not that smart. It is from Ez.36 Water signifies the Spirit.
Many other commentaries see baptism in this passage, but they generally acknowledge that it is faith that saves.So it is the invention of someone else. That is their manmade invention. Nothing in Ez 36 indicates that it must be symbolic water. That is reading your own theology into the text.
Faith, with works. Otherwise that faith is dead and does not save. Why you keep trying to divorce faith and works, I’ll never understand. God doesn’t. Why do you?
Well the bronze serpent was in a central location, and the bitten Israelites had to actually GO to it from their camps. And you honestly think they didn’t pray to God? They just went and looked on it, without prayer? Not a chance.
I’m not adding anything. You seem to be stripping the New Covenant of any meaning or structure/form. God gave the Old Covenant to prepare us for the New Covenant. He set the Old up as the prototype and prefigurement of the New. The Old was given so that we could understand the New.
Agreed. But we must cooperate with God’s grace with our faith and works.
Careful about being so smarmy. Because in reality, it is you who fails to understand. I understand fully that Jesus gets all the credit and glory. That you even think this shows how little you truly understand the Catholic position.
I must admit I have my doubts if you truly do want to understand. But in any event, I’ll explain.
The confusion lies with you. Let’s look at the whole passage. I’ll even use the NKJV translation to show your error.
The Church also says that the OT is a prefigurement of the NT, and the Old Covenant is the foreshadowing of the New Covenant. That doesn’t mean that circumcision was the ACTUAL way that people were made a part of the Old Covenant. It didn’t matter if they mentally assented to it, or declared their belief in God. Until they were circumcised, they were not part of the covenant. Same with baptism.
Then your understanding of what I’m saying is severely flawed if that is what you think I am saying.
Males were not made a part of the old covenant when they were born. You are in error here. They had to be circumcised. And people are born again when they are baptized, which makes them part of the New Covenant.
Obey the two great commandments
Okay, I’m not getting what your trying to say. I think the major part of our differences hinge on how we interpret James since Catholics invariably go to this portion of scripture to explain the plan of salvation.