What is the difference in Protestants being "saved" and Catholic salvation?

[JMM1957]

My problem is that I don’t see the simple words “saved by baptism” without any qualifiers.
There is still the " but" which you ignore, but I have to account for because it is there. And
the symbology further complicates.

However Peter makes a clear unqualified statement in ch 1:23, that we are “born again by the word of God”. I must stay with the writter’s first definition and not force another meaning when returning to the subject. Systematic interpretation demands that we be consistent. I don’t see why I’m the villain for trying to impose some logical principles.

BTW, as noted in my post, I quoted the NLT. If I don’t say, its the KJV. I note that your using the Catholic Bible. NAB. At home I have a Confraternity Douay Rheim with notes that I also like. Wish I had it now.

Every version I checked had it a little different.

BBE: “is an image”
ISV: "is symbolized
KJV: “The like figure”
WEB: “This is a symbol”

As you noted, in v. 20 water is used in reference to Noah. But notice that water is not what saved Noah! He was saved from it or through it but not by it. The water would have killed Noah, except for the ark which was the actual instrument of salvation. The ark is a type of Christ . The water is the judgement of God, symbolizing that we are saved from the wrath of God. ( we are not saved from hell) Water here symbolizes death. We also die in the water of baptism according to Rm6. Water does not wash away sins. Peter credits the blood of Christ
with this action in ch1:2.

We must interpret according to the complete message of scripture and not make “isolated” or "private’ interpretations.

Your magisterium has as much freedom to misinterpret the bible as anyone. There is no automatic foolproof guarantee. They must study and compare the text like anyone else.

easy, please work with me here, I really am trying to help you out in understanding what baptism does according to Scripture.

The qualifier “but” is there to show that baptism “is not a removal of dirt from the body,” it almost seems a “tongue in cheek” or even sarcastic remark from Peter. Removing the qualifier, “but”, you have what Peter is really getting at, “This prefigured baptism (Noah in the ark), which saves you now, is an appeal (or pledge) to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”

You are right, many of the Bibles translate the first part of verse 21 a little differently, but that doesn’t change what Peter is saying. Noah and the other people in the ark obviously were not baptized as we know it today, theirs was only a prefigurement or sign of the baptism that was to come. Being in the ark, they came through the water and were saved, whereas the other people not in the ark were destroyed. This is Peter’s point. We are saved by baptism now, when through faith we pledge to live with a good conscience before God.

 

[adrift]

…However Peter makes a clear unqualified statement in ch 1:23, that we are “born again by the word of God”. …
…As you noted, in v. 20 water is used in reference to Noah. But notice that water is not what saved Noah! He was saved from it or through it but not by it…

I wonder what you mea by “word” here?

You quote the word through as if there is a clear understanding of it.
The Greek word used is dia which according to Strongs means 1223 dia {dee-ah’} a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; TDNT - 2:65,149; prep 1) through 1a) of place 1a1) with 1a2) in 1b) of time 1b1) throughout 1b2) during 1c) of means 1c1) by 1c2) by the means of 2) through 2a) the ground or reason by which something is or is not done 2a1) by reason of 2a2) on account of 2a3) because of for this reason 2a4) therefore 2a5) on this account
Your claim that they were saved from the water is to me not a reasonable interpretation of the verse. Through s not from the water through is the reason for therefore Noah was saved through water the reason for his salvation was the water.

 

[adrift]

My problem is that I don’t see the simple words “saved by baptism” without any qualifiers.
There is still the " but" which you ignore, but I have to account for because it is there. And
the symbology further complicates.

.

Lets take a look at this
“21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”

Baptism now saves you not as a removal of dirt - here comes that but- as an application to God why? for a good conscience. The but does not refer to Baptism saving you but why it saves you. Not because it washes you BUT because it makes application to God.

 

[eazyduzit]

I wonder what you mea by “word” here?

You quote the word through as if there is a clear understanding of it.
The Greek word used is dia which according to Strongs means 1223 dia {dee-ah’} a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; TDNT - 2:65,149; prep 1) through 1a) of place 1a1) with 1a2) in 1b) of time 1b1) throughout 1b2) during 1c) of means 1c1) by 1c2) by the means of 2) through 2a) the ground or reason by which something is or is not done 2a1) by reason of 2a2) on account of 2a3) because of for this reason 2a4) therefore 2a5) on this account
Your claim that they were saved from the water is to me not a reasonable interpretation of the verse. Through s not from the water through is the reason for therefore Noah was saved through water the reason for his salvation was the water.

What Peter meant by “the word” should not be a mystery. The Gospel writers always use it the same way.

Paul said in Eph1:3, “…ye heard the WORD of truth, the gospel of your salvation.”
1Thes2:13, “…the WORD of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
Phil:16, “Holding forth the WORD of life…”
From James
Jas1:18 “Of His own will begat he us with the WORD of truth…”
Jas1:21 “receive with meekness the engraphted WORD which is able to save your
Souls.”
From John, 1Jn1:1"… and our hands have handled of the WORD of life."

From Luke, Acts10:44, …the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the WORD."

Peter, Acts15:7, “…the gentiles by my mouth should hear the WORD of the gospel, and believe.”

The vast consensus is that the WORD is life, or Zoe in Greek. As Peter again explains in 2Pt1:4, “Whereby are given to us great and precious promises [words] that BY THESE ye might be partakers of the divine nature…” ( or that is, saved) .

You are welcome to disbelieve all these writers, but I choose to, with meekness, believe with all my heart.

I am really puzzled that you can’t see that Noah was saved by the ark and not by water. Did not the water bring destruction to the whole earth?

Look at the verse again. Leave out the “prefigure” phrase which is parenthetical and we have,
" Baptism which now saves you also, not by removing dirt from the body[the action of water] , but by asking God for a clear conscience…"

If Peter meant that that Baptism saves, he could have simply said “Baptism saves you” and that would be it. There is no reason to add the words “which now”. That seems unnecessary and confusing unless you add “the” to begin the sentence. It would read “The baptism which now saves you (not washing as in water),but by asking God for a clear conscience.” Seems to clarify it some.

But in the end, to be consistent we can not have Peter to now be changing his basic message. It must remain that the WORD or the Gospel brings life. How? When I simply come into agreement with it. But a belief that is in the heart, not just mind.

 

[eazyduzit]

easy, please work with me here, I really am trying to help you out in understanding what baptism does according to Scripture.

The qualifier “but” is there to show that baptism “is not a removal of dirt from the body,” it almost seems a “tongue in cheek” or even sarcastic remark from Peter. Removing the qualifier, “but”, you have what Peter is really getting at, “This prefigured baptism (Noah in the ark), which saves you now, is an appeal (or pledge) to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”

You are right, many of the Bibles translate the first part of verse 21 a little differently, but that doesn’t change what Peter is saying. Noah and the other people in the ark obviously were not baptized as we know it today, theirs was only a prefigurement or sign of the baptism that was to come. Being in the ark, they came through the water and were saved, whereas the other people not in the ark were destroyed. This is Peter’s point. We are saved by baptism now, when through faith we pledge to live with a good conscience before God.

To understand what baptism does, we simply go to the bible. Rm6 explains that it is death. That is why we go under the water. We are babtised onto His death, and our “old man” of sin is dead. V. 7 “For he that is dead is freed from sin.”

 

[eazyduzit]

1 Peter 3:21 says baptism now saves you. That means…you are…“saved by baptism”.

All things have qualifiers, eazy.

It’s the whisper of the evil one that demands “no qualifiers”.

There is no where in Scripture–no where–that states that you have to have “no qualifiers” for our sotieriology. Nowhere.

Well, I’m glad to know that you acknowledge that your interpretation is fallible.

And that means that you’re going to be mistaken at some point.

And since you don’t know when you’re going to be mistaken, and I don’t know when you’re going to be mistaken…

I’m going to go with the interpreter that is infallible, thanks.

#gowiththeonewhosgoingtoberight

But unlike your magisterium I am willing to learn and be corrected by God at any time.

 

[eazyduzit]

easy, please work with me here, I really am trying to help you out in understanding what baptism does according to Scripture.

The qualifier “but” is there to show that baptism “is not a removal of dirt from the body,” it almost seems a “tongue in cheek” or even sarcastic remark from Peter. Removing the qualifier, “but”, you have what Peter is really getting at, “This prefigured baptism (Noah in the ark), which saves you now, is an appeal (or pledge) to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”

You are right, many of the Bibles translate the first part of verse 21 a little differently, but that doesn’t change what Peter is saying. Noah and the other people in the ark obviously were not baptized as we know it today, theirs was only a prefigurement or sign of the baptism that was to come. Being in the ark, they came through the water and were saved, whereas the other people not in the ark were destroyed. This is Peter’s point. We are saved by baptism now, when through faith we pledge to live with a good conscience before God.

The people of the OT were saved in exactly the same way we are today, only they had faith in the promise of a savior yet to come Gen. 3:15. God does not change.

“Pledging” is not biblical faith. Faith is trusting in what God promises to do or has done. See Heb.11.

 

[JMM1957]

Look at the verse again. Leave out the “prefigure” phrase which is parenthetical and we have,
" Baptism which now saves you also, not by removing dirt from the body[the action of water] , but by asking God for a clear conscience…"

If Peter meant that that Baptism saves, he could have simply said “Baptism saves you” and that would be it. There is no reason to add the words “which now”. That seems unnecessary and confusing unless you add “the” to begin the sentence. It would read “The baptism which now saves you (not washing as in water),but by asking God for a clear conscience.” Seems to clarify it some.

easy, 1 Peter 3:21 says “This prefigured baptism, which saves you now…” Lets please just deal with this verse as it was translated by those much smarter than us in ancient languages. Virtually all Bibles say either “which saves you now”, or “which now saves you.” So, if we take “which saves you now”, this is considered to be the best translation to convey what Peter intended to say. Why do you insist on trying to reword things in your own way, going against what the translators of the ancient languages (scholars) have decided? Peter was comparing the water that Noah came through, with our baptism of today, “which saves you NOW.” The water was only a type of baptism for Noah, he wasn’t actually immersed in it literally, he was in the ark,** but for us**, the water IS baptism itself, as we are immersed in it.

Do you believe in a baptism of water easy? Do you go under the water with your body and come up out of it? Are you baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time?

 

[PRmerger]

But unlike your magisterium I am willing to learn and be corrected by God at any time.

I like the fact that you tacitly implied that you were indeed being a magisterium to all folks here who don’t agree with your interpretation of Scripture.

Now, please remember that you acknowledge that you are fallible.

And that means, by definition, you are going to be wrong about your interpretations.

Fallible means…Going. To. Be. Wrong.

So tell us why we should go with your interpretation of the Bible when we know that there’s a chance that this very thing you’re telling us is CONTRARY to God’s Will…

vs Christ’s Body, the Catholic Church, which He has promised would NOT BE left alone.

 

[PRmerger]

But unlike your magisterium I am willing to learn and be corrected by God at any time.

And be careful, eazy. There’s a bit of contempt for Catholicism in this statement–something that is not permitted here.

It’s good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so I suggest you temper your posts a bit more.

Just so you know, the magisterium is the servant of God.

“Yet this **Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. **It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#86

 

[JMM1957]

But unlike your magisterium I am willing to learn and be corrected by God at any time.

easy, this is good to hear you say that you are willing to learn and be corrected by God at any time. I just hope this is referring to your understanding of Scripture along with your personal life. Easy, we as individuals are all fallible, this is the very reason that we have been given the Church magisterium founded on Peter to discern between truth and lies. The body of the magisterium has been given the Spirit (which does not and cannot lie) to guide the Church into all Truth, and to protect it from those that wish to distort it. In this way, all generations of believers can be confident that their worship is not in vain.

 

[adrift]

What Peter meant by “the word” should not be a mystery. The Gospel writers always use it the same way…

The vast consensus is that the WORD is life, or Zoe in Greek. As Peter again explains in 2Pt1:4, “Whereby are given to us great and precious promises [words] that BY THESE ye might be partakers of the divine nature…” ( or that is, saved) .

You are welcome to disbelieve all these writers, but I choose to, with meekness, believe with all my heart.

Come on now these writers have not defined word as life that is your definition. What I was trying to find out is how YOU define word. Giving me a bunch of Scripture using it is not a definition.

I am really puzzled that you can’t see that Noah was saved by the ark and not by water. Did not the water bring destruction to the whole earth?

I am looking at the verse itself it says through which meaning is by reason of so by reason of the water not the ark. Peter did not say the ark saved them from the water. He was contrasting the water of Noah and the water of baptism.

Look at the verse again. Leave out the “prefigure” phrase which is parenthetical and we have,
" Baptism which now saves you also, not by removing dirt from the body[the action of water] , but by asking God for a clear conscience…"

If Peter meant that that Baptism saves, he could have simply said “Baptism saves you” and that would be it. There is no reason to add the words “which now”. If there is no reason why is it there That seems unnecessary and confusing unless you add “the” to begin the sentencethis seems to be changing scripture to fit your theory. It would read “The baptism which now saves you (not washing as in water),but by asking God for a clear conscience.” Seems to clarify it some.

Baptism now saves you not as a removal of dirt - here comes that but- as an application to God why? for a good conscience. The but does not refer to Baptism saving you but why it saves you. Not because it washes you BUT because it makes application to God. It doesn’t clear it up as you have to ignore the sentence as stated.

But in the end, to be consistent we can not have Peter to now be changing his basic message. It must remain that the WORD or the Gospel brings life. How? When I simply come into agreement with it. But a belief that is in the heart, not just mind.

You ask if Peter meant that Baptism saves you why didn’t he just say that? But that leaves the obvious question why did he say “This prefigured baptism, which saves you now” but the word you ignore is “now”. To be consistent we must remember Jesus words “Unless you be born again of water and the Spirit” “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” Of course this is consistent with Peter’s, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.”

 

[adrift]

easy, 1 Peter 3:21 says “This prefigured baptism, which saves you now…” Lets please just deal with this verse as it was translated by those much smarter than us in ancient languages. Virtually all Bibles say either “which saves you now”, or “which now saves you.” So, if we take “which saves you now”, this is considered to be the best translation to convey what Peter intended to say. Why do you insist on trying to reword things in your own way, going against what the translators of the ancient languages (scholars) have decided? Peter was comparing the water that Noah came through, with our baptism of today, “which saves you NOW.” The water was only a type of baptism for Noah, he wasn’t actually immersed in it literally, he was in the ark,** but for us**, the water IS baptism itself, as we are immersed in it.

Do you believe in a baptism of water easy? Do you go under the water with your body and come up out of it? Are you baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time?

Excellent post:thumbsup:

 

[rinnie]

But unlike your magisterium I am willing to learn and be corrected by God at any time.

Huh? When was there ANY time the Magisterium was unwilling to learn or be corrected by God?

Just ONE time. Could you show me?

 

[andrewstx]

I was raised evangelical/fundamentalist and the two traditions Catholic and protestant could not be more different.

Catholics rely on the sacraments, esp baptism. physical acts are a part of it.

The biggest Protestant group the Baptists deny the existence of sacraments completely calling them ordences.

Really when it comes down to it, protestants bring “getting saved” into a purely mental thing. typically they go to the front of the church, shake hands with the preacher. Then they say a “salvation” prayer mentally. For OSAS they are set for life. Then the might be baptized or not. Baptism to them only gets you wet.

I was raised hearing this, in the southwest it is taken for granted.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

I was raised evangelical/fundamentalist and the two traditions Catholic and protestant could not be more different.

Catholics rely on the sacraments, esp baptism. physical acts are a part of it.

The biggest Protestant group the Baptists deny the existence of sacraments completely calling them ordences.

Really when it comes down to it, protestants bring “getting saved” into a purely mental thing. typically they go to the front of the church, shake hands with the preacher. Then they say a “salvation” prayer mentally. For OSAS they are set for life. Then the might be baptized or not. Baptism to them only gets you wet.

I was raised hearing this, in the southwest it is taken for granted.

Not even close .

 

[eazyduzit]

And be careful, eazy. There’s a bit of contempt for Catholicism in this statement–something that is not permitted here.

It’s good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so I suggest you temper your posts a bit more.

Just so you know, the magisterium is the servant of God.

“Yet this **Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. **It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#86

Sorry if I had a wrong understanding of CC teaching. My understanding is that once something is proposed or defined, it cannot be changed or altered for ever. That’s the thing about infallibility.

You say that the Magisterium serves the word of God, but it also serves the CC.You would expect it to have a bias towards the organization it serves.

I however, am not the servant of any organization. I have no traditions to uphold or defend.

 

[eazyduzit]

And be careful, eazy. There’s a bit of contempt for Catholicism in this statement–something that is not permitted here.

It’s good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so I suggest you temper your posts a bit more.

Just so you know, the magisterium is the servant of God.

“Yet this **Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. **It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#86

Sorry if I had a wrong understanding of CC teaching. My understanding is that once something is proposed or defined, it cannot be changed or altered for ever. That’s the thing about infallibility.

You say that the Magisterium serves the word of God, but it also serves the CC.You would expect it to have a bias towards the organization it serves.

I however, am not the servant of any organization. I have no traditions to uphold or defend.

 

[adrift]

…

You say that the Magisterium serves the word of God, but it also serves the CC.You would expect it to have a bias towards the organization it serves.

I however, am not the servant of any organization. I have no traditions to uphold or defend.

I am guessing that when you write CC you mean the Catholic Church which was founded by God. It isn’t separate from the word of God. It is one and the same.

 

[eazyduzit]

easy, 1 Peter 3:21 says “This prefigured baptism, which saves you now…” Lets please just deal with this verse as it was translated by those much smarter than us in ancient languages. Virtually all Bibles say either “which saves you now”, or “which now saves you.” So, if we take “which saves you now”, this is considered to be the best translation to convey what Peter intended to say. Why do you insist on trying to reword things in your own way, going against what the translators of the ancient languages (scholars) have decided? Peter was comparing the water that Noah came through, with our baptism of today, “which saves you NOW.” The water was only a type of baptism for Noah, he wasn’t actually immersed in it literally, he was in the ark,** but for us**, the water IS baptism itself, as we are immersed in it.

Do you believe in a baptism of water easy? Do you go under the water with your body and come up out of it? Are you baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time?

I think this is a difficult verse and I am trying to break it down to analyze it’s parts.
On a surface level it seems to disagree with 1Pt 1:23 as well as with Peter’s speech in Acts 15:7 and Jas. 1:18,21, and Eph 1:13, and many more . That is why I have difficulty with your understanding. Why would Peter be against himself and the other holy writers? Something is amis. Peter plainly says in 2Pt1:4 “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature.”

I believe water baptism is necessary, but for the purposes outlined in Rm.6. There are also other baptisms in the bible. Do you believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit? And the baptism of Fire?

However, I understand why this is a major verse for Catholics. perhaps I will consult some commentaries.