Roman Catholic...Christian or Cult?

[convicted1]

Walter,

What are your views on communion.....transubstantiation, purgatory, catholics going to their 'father' and confessing their sins to him? Also, do catholics really pray to Jesus through Mary, or directly to Mary? I ask these because I have heard these as truths, but always 2nd hand knowledge. I ask in sincerity. :saint::wavey::love2::flower:

 

[DHK]

DHK, see the part I put in bold directly above. Could you list some of those heresies? I'm not asking this to instigate anything. Although I value the writings of the early Greek fathers, I also recognize that some of the fathers were wrong on some things. And I never use them to establish doctrine. If it can't be substantiated from scripture, I don't hold to it.

The entire context of 1Tim.4:1-4 is this:
1Ti 4:1-4
(1) Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
(2) Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
(3) Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
(4) For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

The command in verse one is:
"Don't give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils (i.e. demons).
--Both "spirits" and "devils" refer to demonic spirits.

The ESV translates it this way:
(ESV) Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
--A deceitful spirit is a demon.

What these demons do, that is their activity is in verse two:
(2) Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
--They speak lies, hypocritical ones especially.
This ends up in a person having a conscious seared like a hot iron. It is a metaphor. We use some irons to seal bags shut. The contents are "forever shut." The mind here will be forever shut to the truth.

The doctrine of these demons is given in verse three:
(3) Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
This is doctrine taught by a church as a whole and imposed upon their people, or it may be doctrine taught by any group of people trying to impose it upon Christianity in general such as the Judaizers were. If they could they would have imposed the dietary restrictions of Levitical law on new believers, for example.
But it has a much wider application.
If a church says its congregation must be vegetarian it is a doctrine of demons.
The word "meats" is simply a word meaning "food."

Again the ESV translates this verse:
(ESV) who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
--Those who forbid marriage are also included. There were certain sects that didn't marry. They actually believed women were evil and had to propagate their cult by converting others to it.
--But if the RCC does not allow marriage to its priests it falls under the same doctrine, and it is a doctrine of demons. They are "forbidding to marry," even if it is to just one part of their membership--the priests or clergy.

With the scripture given above I have shown you that it is against the norm; against the general plan of God as set forth by both Paul and Christ in the principles of marriage.
God said:
Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
--This was God's plan all along.

1 Corinthians 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
Paul was referring to the present political situation at the time. Christians were facing great persecution, not only from the Jews (their own families when they converted), but also from the Roman government (remember Nero who burned the city of Rome and blamed it on the Christians). Much of this was advice given to those under intense persecution.
--I don't know what more you want me to say about this. Remaining single under certain conditions is not wrong. I explained what the phrase "present distress" in context meant.

Compare that to the qualifications of a pastor:
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
--These 3 or 4 qualifications show that the early pastors were married. Therefore there could not be any imposition of celibacy by the church. It would definitely be a heresy or unbiblical. The pastor was indeed a married person. To say that he MUST be unmarried is to go directly against scripture.

Therefore, 1Cor.7:26 was speaking of a special circumstance, as I explained.
For Paul here explains the qualification.
Even Jesus healed "Peter's wife's mother."


Peter himself said:
1 Peter 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
--Obviously this was a responsibility of every pastor.
--When Peter wrote this he was writing to believers that were suffering during the diaspora and were scattered through several countries. The first verse gives us that information:

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
--This was not an edict from Rome. Peter was not in Rome. He too was one that was on the lam. They were looking for him that they may arrest him "to bring him to justice" according to Roman law and/or Jewish law.
Remember Saul; with such zeal he persecuted the Christians.
Now the Roman government was zealously doing the same thing feeding the Christians to the lions for sport. The only reason Peter ever made it to Rome was to die as a martyr and for no other reason.

Thus he writes what God wants him to write--instruction to pastors that are scattered abroad, to feed the sheep. Every pastor is a shepherd of his own local church. There is no successionism. Paul planted 100 local churches in 3 different missionary journeys and they were all independent of each other. These churches were also independent, and not denominational in any way. There was no "Church" per se, only "churches."

 

[Walter]

Walter,

What are your views on communion.....transubstantiation, purgatory, catholics going to their 'father' and confessing their sins to him? Also, do catholics really pray to Jesus through Mary, or directly to Mary? I ask these because I have heard these as truths, but always 2nd hand knowledge. I ask in sincerity. :saint::wavey::love2::flower:

I do believe you are sincere in asking. Let's take them one at a time. This is one of the biggest difficulties for those asking questions and the joy of those who just want to hurl accusations. Those who just want to hurl accusations can sling out a long list of objections and when one of the few Catholics does not have time/or is away from the board, then the assumption is that the Catholics can't find an answer. You have less than a handful allowed on BB. That is why a thread entitled: Catholic Church, Cult or Christian just turns into a thread with lists of objectable doctrines or perceived heresies with little discussion. It is what it is. I think the biggest difficulty most evangelicals have with the Catholic faith surrounds Mary's intercession. Purgatory probably takes a close second because of it's perception of denying the sufficiency of Christ sacrifice. However, the first difficulty about Mary seems to be the idea that all prayer is worship and therefore praying to a 'dead person' is both idolatry and necromancy. Now, Bob Ryan continually asserts that Catholics are praying to 'dead people' but then I would expect that of someone who believes in Soul Sleep. He is being consistent with SDA doctrine. As a Baptist, I thought generally that prayer was only of one type -prayer to God that necessarily includes adoration. Prayer is not, by definition, necessarily the same as adoration that is due God alone. Prayer can certainly involve an act of adoration when it is directed to God, but the term does not necessarily denote adoration. It can simply mean 'an entreaty'. The Catholic Church has gone to great lengths to define the essential difference between prayer to God and prayer to saints. Now, unless you believe in soul sleep, nobody is asking 'dead saints' to pray for them. Why, because those in heaven are more alive than we are. The Lord is God of the living, not of the dead. The fervent prayer of a righteous man is very powerful James 5:16. Those in heaven are surely righteous, since nothing unclean can enter heaven Rev 21:27. Those in heaven are part of the Mystical Body of Christ and have not been separated from us by death, but surround us as a great cloud of witnesses Heb 12:1. Now, I know DHK's position on the Hebrews passage does not line up with my understanding but I will go with how the Christian Church has interpreted it for two thousand years. Also, we see them (the saints) stand before the throne of God and offer our prayers to him Rev 5:8 and as I mentioned in Hev 12:1-3, they cheer us on as we run the good race. Intercession among members of the body of Christ is pleasing to God 1 Tm 2:1-4 and even commanded by him John 15:17. Those in heaven have a perfected love, so how could they not intercede for us? Christ is the vine, and we are the branches; if we are connected to him, we are inseparably bound together as well. We are not asking Mary to give us things, we are petitioning her to intercede for us. One charge made against it is that the saints in heaven cannot even hear our prayers, making it useless to ask for their intercession. However, this is not true. As I mentioned before, in Scripture we see those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.
You might be thinking that in that verse the prayers being offered were not addressed to the saints in heaven, but directly to God. Yet even this argument would only strengthen the fact that those in heaven can hear our prayers, for then the saints would be aware of our prayers even when they are not directed to them.

I'd love to talk about transubstantiation (I'd much rather use the term Real Presence) because it became very clear to me that the Church has always believed this from the time of the Apostles to the present, but we can save that for later? BTW, contrary to popular opinion by many on this board, Lutherans do NOT believe in consubstantiation (in fact, the LCMS outright condemns it as heresy) and also prefer the term Real Presence. I will leave that discussion to any Lutherans if there are any left participating on the BB.

 

[Walter]

The entire context of 1Tim.4:1-4 is this:
1Ti 4:1-4
(1) Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
(2) Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
(3) Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
(4) For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

The command in verse one is:
"Don't give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils (i.e. demons).
--Both "spirits" and "devils" refer to demonic spirits.

The ESV translates it this way:
(ESV) Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
--A deceitful spirit is a demon.

What these demons do, that is their activity is in verse two:
(2) Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
--They speak lies, hypocritical ones especially.
This ends up in a person having a conscious seared like a hot iron. It is a metaphor. We use some irons to seal bags shut. The contents are "forever shut." The mind here will be forever shut to the truth.

The doctrine of these demons is given in verse three:
(3) Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
This is doctrine taught by a church as a whole and imposed upon their people, or it may be doctrine taught by any group of people trying to impose it upon Christianity in general such as the Judaizers were. If they could they would have imposed the dietary restrictions of Levitical law on new believers, for example.
But it has a much wider application.
If a church says its congregation must be vegetarian it is a doctrine of demons.
The word "meats" is simply a word meaning "food."

Again the ESV translates this verse:
(ESV) who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
--Those who forbid marriage are also included. There were certain sects that didn't marry. They actually believed women were evil and had to propagate their cult by converting others to it.
--But if the RCC does not allow marriage to its priests it falls under the same doctrine, and it is a doctrine of demons. They are "forbidding to marry," even if it is to just one part of their membership--the priests or clergy.

With the scripture given above I have shown you that it is against the norm; against the general plan of God as set forth by both Paul and Christ in the principles of marriage.
God said:
Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
--This was God's plan all along.

1 Corinthians 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
Paul was referring to the present political situation at the time. Christians were facing great persecution, not only from the Jews (their own families when they converted), but also from the Roman government (remember Nero who burned the city of Rome and blamed it on the Christians). Much of this was advice given to those under intense persecution.
--I don't know what more you want me to say about this. Remaining single under certain conditions is not wrong. I explained what the phrase "present distress" in context meant.

Compare that to the qualifications of a pastor:
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
--These 3 or 4 qualifications show that the early pastors were married. Therefore there could not be any imposition of celibacy by the church. It would definitely be a heresy or unbiblical. The pastor was indeed a married person. To say that he MUST be unmarried is to go directly against scripture.

Therefore, 1Cor.7:26 was speaking of a special circumstance, as I explained.
For Paul here explains the qualification.
Even Jesus healed "Peter's wife's mother."


Peter himself said:
1 Peter 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
--Obviously this was a responsibility of every pastor.
--When Peter wrote this he was writing to believers that were suffering during the diaspora and were scattered through several countries. The first verse gives us that information:

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
--This was not an edict from Rome. Peter was not in Rome. He too was one that was on the lam. They were looking for him that they may arrest him "to bring him to justice" according to Roman law and/or Jewish law.
Remember Saul; with such zeal he persecuted the Christians.
Now the Roman government was zealously doing the same thing feeding the Christians to the lions for sport. The only reason Peter ever made it to Rome was to die as a martyr and for no other reason.

Thus he writes what God wants him to write--instruction to pastors that are scattered abroad, to feed the sheep. Every pastor is a shepherd of his own local church. There is no successionism. Paul planted 100 local churches in 3 different missionary journeys and they were all independent of each other. These churches were also independent, and not denominational in any way. There was no "Church" per se, only "churches."

I notice you continue to ignore my posts proving your wrong about the Catholic Church allowing priests to marry within the Eastern Rites (not Eastern Orthodox, don't confuse the two!) As I said, only in the Latin Rite are priests required to remain celibate. The Catholic Church is much larger than just the Latin Rite. I have posted proof, why don't you post proof to the contrary? It does put a fly in the ointment of your 'forbidden to marry' case, doesn't it?

 

[DHK]

I notice you continue to ignore my posts proving your wrong about the Catholic Church allowing priests to marry within the Eastern Rites (not Eastern Orthodox, don't confuse the two!) As I said, only in the Latin Rite are priests required to remain celibate. The Catholic Church is much larger than just the Latin Rite. I have posted proof, why don't you post proof to the contrary? It does put a fly in the ointment of your 'forbidden to marry' case, doesn't it?

I prefer to keep my comments confined to the RCC.
I tried to explain that to you when you referred to the divisions of evangelicalism. Just as the divisions of evangelicalism is a red herring so is the divisions of the Catholic Church a red herring. As I grew up within the RCC, I never heard of the various divisions that you mentioned. I prefer to stick with that which I am familiar with, and that which is known to most as the RCC.

 

[The American Dream]

Walter if you will recall you engaged me, I did not engage you. I cannot understand why you are allowed to post false doctrine, but I do not run the board. Best thing is to ignore me.

 

[Walter]

I prefer to keep my comments confined to the RCC.
I tried to explain that to you when you referred to the divisions of evangelicalism. Just as the divisions of evangelicalism is a red herring so is the divisions of the Catholic Church a red herring. As I grew up within the RCC, I never heard of the various divisions that you mentioned. I prefer to stick with that which I am familiar with, and that which is known to most as the RCC.

Well, maybe you need to admit that you didn't understand that the RCC is much bigger than the Latin Rite (again, the only rite in the Catholic Church which has a requirement celibacy, even though there are exceptions as I have already discussed) and that just because you have never heard of them that doesn't mean they don't exist or are insignificant. I understand, DHK, that when you say 'RCC" you believe that to mean only the Latin/Western Rite. That is what you were brought up in as a child, that is what you are familiar with in Canada, that is probably the only rite you were exposed to as a missionary. But, that is not at all accurate. All the following Rites make up The Holy Catholic Church which is ONE body with the pope as the head of the Church: "Finally, the Church of Christ is sacramentally present in the Universal or Catholic Church spread over the entire world. It is identified by the sign of Christ our Rock, the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter (Mt. 16:18). To be Catholic particular Churches and ritual Churches must be in communion with this Head, just as the other apostles, and the Churches they founded, were in communion with Peter (Gal. 1:18). Through this communion with Peter and his successors the Church becomes a universal sacrament of salvation in all times and places, even to the end of the age (Mt. 28:20)".

https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

 

[Walter]

Walter if you will recall you engaged me, I did not engage you. I cannot understand why you are allowed to post false doctrine, but I do not run the board. Best thing is to ignore me.

No, you don't. And, consider yourself ignored. I honestly don't understand why you would want to discuss the Catholic Church and it's teachings only with people that see things your way, but, that's none of my business.

 

[Rebel]

The entire context of 1Tim.4:1-4 is this:
1Ti 4:1-4
(1) Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
(2) Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
(3) Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
(4) For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

The command in verse one is:
"Don't give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils (i.e. demons).
--Both "spirits" and "devils" refer to demonic spirits.

The ESV translates it this way:
(ESV) Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
--A deceitful spirit is a demon.

What these demons do, that is their activity is in verse two:
(2) Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
--They speak lies, hypocritical ones especially.
This ends up in a person having a conscious seared like a hot iron. It is a metaphor. We use some irons to seal bags shut. The contents are "forever shut." The mind here will be forever shut to the truth.

The doctrine of these demons is given in verse three:
(3) Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
This is doctrine taught by a church as a whole and imposed upon their people, or it may be doctrine taught by any group of people trying to impose it upon Christianity in general such as the Judaizers were. If they could they would have imposed the dietary restrictions of Levitical law on new believers, for example.
But it has a much wider application.
If a church says its congregation must be vegetarian it is a doctrine of demons.
The word "meats" is simply a word meaning "food."

Again the ESV translates this verse:
(ESV) who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
--Those who forbid marriage are also included. There were certain sects that didn't marry. They actually believed women were evil and had to propagate their cult by converting others to it.
--But if the RCC does not allow marriage to its priests it falls under the same doctrine, and it is a doctrine of demons. They are "forbidding to marry," even if it is to just one part of their membership--the priests or clergy.

With the scripture given above I have shown you that it is against the norm; against the general plan of God as set forth by both Paul and Christ in the principles of marriage.
God said:
Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
--This was God's plan all along.

1 Corinthians 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
Paul was referring to the present political situation at the time. Christians were facing great persecution, not only from the Jews (their own families when they converted), but also from the Roman government (remember Nero who burned the city of Rome and blamed it on the Christians). Much of this was advice given to those under intense persecution.
--I don't know what more you want me to say about this. Remaining single under certain conditions is not wrong. I explained what the phrase "present distress" in context meant.

Compare that to the qualifications of a pastor:
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
--These 3 or 4 qualifications show that the early pastors were married. Therefore there could not be any imposition of celibacy by the church. It would definitely be a heresy or unbiblical. The pastor was indeed a married person. To say that he MUST be unmarried is to go directly against scripture.

Therefore, 1Cor.7:26 was speaking of a special circumstance, as I explained.
For Paul here explains the qualification.
Even Jesus healed "Peter's wife's mother."


Peter himself said:
1 Peter 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
--Obviously this was a responsibility of every pastor.
--When Peter wrote this he was writing to believers that were suffering during the diaspora and were scattered through several countries. The first verse gives us that information:

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
--This was not an edict from Rome. Peter was not in Rome. He too was one that was on the lam. They were looking for him that they may arrest him "to bring him to justice" according to Roman law and/or Jewish law.
Remember Saul; with such zeal he persecuted the Christians.
Now the Roman government was zealously doing the same thing feeding the Christians to the lions for sport. The only reason Peter ever made it to Rome was to die as a martyr and for no other reason.

Thus he writes what God wants him to write--instruction to pastors that are scattered abroad, to feed the sheep. Every pastor is a shepherd of his own local church. There is no successionism. Paul planted 100 local churches in 3 different missionary journeys and they were all independent of each other. These churches were also independent, and not denominational in any way. There was no "Church" per se, only "churches."

Thank you for answering my question, and doing so in detail.

One thing the later fathers taught (post 200 AD) was infant baptism which they were clearly wrong about. Also apostolic succession because in the NT 'bishop' and 'elder' were used interchangeably.

 

[The American Dream]

No, you don't. And, consider yourself ignored. I honestly don't understand why you would want to discuss the Catholic Church and it's teachings only with people that see things your way, but, that's none of my business.

No its not. And by the same token, why on earth would a Catholic want to come to a Baptist forum and argue for his or her faith. If I went to a Catholic forum and called other Catholics ignorant I would be immediately kicked out of the room. You on the other hand call Baptists ignorant on a Baptist Board. The most amazing thing is you get by with it. I suppose in a way it is a good thing, because it shows the intolerance of the RCC compared to NT Christians.

 

[Walter]

No its not. And by the same token, why on earth would a Catholic want to come to a Baptist forum and argue for his or her faith. If I went to a Catholic forum and called other Catholics ignorant I would be immediately kicked out of the room. You on the other hand call Baptists ignorant on a Baptist Board. The most amazing thing is you get by with it. I suppose in a way it is a good thing, because it shows the intolerance of the RCC compared to NT Christians.

I didn't 'come here', I was already here and converted to the Holy Catholic Faith. I should have said I thought you are uninformed about the Catholic faith. You claimed that 'Catholics teach their pope is sinless'. That is not accurate at all. At any rate, I apologize for offending you. I was annoyed at what I perceived was animosity and arrogance and I regret saying that. I ask your forgiveness.

 

[The American Dream]

I didn't 'come here', I was already here and converted to the Holy Catholic Faith. I should have said I thought you are uninformed about the Catholic faith. You claimed that 'Catholics teach their pope is sinless'. That is not accurate at all. At any rate, I apologize for offending you. I was annoyed at what I perceived was animosity and arrogance and I regret saying that. I ask your forgiveness.

Well Walter, you have a way of making someone feel like a heel. The remark about going from Baptist/Protestant to Catholic was uncalled for, and for that I apologize. When this thread started, "Catholic Church, Cult or Church, I did not realize there was a practicing Catholic. After I did, I should have stopped being so aggressive.

What I would like to do is start over from scratch, and address issues one at a time, maybe two in this case. First, I would be interested in knowing what about the Baptist faith, and what about the Catholic faith that caused you to change other than the Lords direction. Also and this is what confuses me, is this statement by various Popes throughout history......

“Outside the Church there is no salvation” (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) is a doctrine of the Catholic Faith that was taught By Jesus Christ to His Apostles, preached by the Fathers, defined by popes and councils and piously believed by the faithful in every age of the Church. Here is how the Popes defined it:
◦“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
◦“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
◦“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Now, given that, I assume you were saved while a Baptist. So in the light of the above doctrine, since you were saved while being a Baptist, how did you look at your faith in Christ in the light of the above statement? Were you required to be rebaptised and go through some type of communicant's class to become a Catholic? I ask this in all sincerity, and feel you are saved and went from one to the other denomination with that salvation intact. What I am asking I guess, in a different way, does the Catholic Church consider you as an individual not saved while a Baptist?

Another issue briefly, we can expand on this. You brought up the sinless Pope issue. Has this from Catholic doctrine been changed since 1870?

In the year 1870 after Christ, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Papal
Infallibility.

That is from a brief summary of RCC history. So my next question is what did Pope Pius mean with his decree in 1870 if not sinless, and has that been changed since then?

As I said above, I apologize for the Baptist to Catholic remark. Please disregard previous posts in this thread.

 

[PreachTony]

Another issue briefly, we can expand on this. You brought up the sinless Pope issue. Has this from Catholic doctrine been changed since 1870?

In the year 1870 after Christ, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Papal
Infallibility.

That is from a brief summary of RCC history. So my next question is what did Pope Pius mean with his decree in 1870 if not sinless, and has that been changed since then?

As I said above, I apologize for the Baptist to Catholic remark. Please disregard previous posts in this thread.

Not to jump in and step on toes, but this is a point I'm curious about as well. I've worked with many Catholics, and when I bring up terminology that is quite common to Baptists (being saved, altar call, preaching) they have always looked at me as though I was speaking a foreign language. Some have said that there is no "preaching" at their church. Their leader (I don't know the term to use, sorry) would simply read from a liturgy and they would take communion and go home.

As a part of these discussions, I asked about Papal Infallibility. One person told me the Pope was sinless. Another added the caveat that the Pope was sinless and perfect in his execution of the office of the Pope. In other words, when not doing Pope stuff, the Pope is like any other sinful human. But the moment he starts doing Pope stuff, he somehow becomes perfected. It was quite confusing. If you can offer any clarification, Walter, I would appreciate it.

 

[Bro. James]

Just a short kibbitz please.

Sinless describes Jesus. No man can be sinless, regardless of religious dogma. The misunderstanding is in the teaching of ex officio which means when the pope speaks in an official capacity, what he says is infallible. That is to say: without error. Problem is: no man is infallible either. This also includes so-called holy fathers and church councils.

However, ex officio is a convenient excuse for serious error. i.e. If the pope is wrong, he was not in ex officio mode. This will cover a multitude of atrocities including inquisitions and condordats. See history of the inquisitions also Hitler and Pius XII. See also recent papal apologies for such things.

To say that the holy see has or has had any connection with the Church referenced in Mt. 16, is delusionary. This is not unusual, the world has been given over to strong delusion since the Sin of Adam.

Jesus said, "You can know the Truth; the Truth will make you free."

Your turn, Walter.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Walter]

Not to jump in and step on toes, but this is a point I'm curious about as well. I've worked with many Catholics, and when I bring up terminology that is quite common to Baptists (being saved, altar call, preaching) they have always looked at me as though I was speaking a foreign language. Some have said that there is no "preaching" at their church. Their leader (I don't know the term to use, sorry) would simply read from a liturgy and they would take communion and go home.

As a part of these discussions, I asked about Papal Infallibility. One person told me the Pope was sinless. Another added the caveat that the Pope was sinless and perfect in his execution of the office of the Pope. In other words, when not doing Pope stuff, the Pope is like any other sinful human. But the moment he starts doing Pope stuff, he somehow becomes perfected. It was quite confusing. If you can offer any clarification, Walter, I would appreciate it.

Yeah, there are many cultural Catholics out there that could not tell you who the writers of the four gospel are if their life depended on it, never mind explaining 'infallibility' or what goes on at mass. There are also too many regular attendees at mass that wouldn't be able to tell you what book the gospel reading came out of for that mass they just attended. Of course, as a Baptist, there were a lot of people who wouldn't have been able to tell you what the pastor preached on that day while they were circling the 'type-O's' in the bulletin. And your right, certain terms like 'saved', 'altar call', and even 'preaching' wouldn't have the same meaning to most Catholics as it would most evangelicals. As far as the first term 'saved', the Catholic position is that the bible says this about it:

Here are some verses that do indicate that salvation occurs in our past:

Romans 8:22-24: We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?

Ephesians 2:4-8: But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God.

But then here are some verses that indicate that salvation is happening now:

2 Corinthians 2:15: For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing,

Phillipians 2:12: Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

1 Peter 3:21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, 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,

And here are some verses which indicate that salvation occurs in the future:

Romans 5:9-10: Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

1 Corinthians 3:12-15: Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Matthew 24:13: But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Simply put, Catholics believe: I am saved, I am being saved and if I persevere to the end in faith, I will be saved. Obviously we don't hold to Eternal Security but that isn't just a Catholic position.

Now, an 'altar call' happens at each mass after the 'preaching' (homily) which should focus on the gospel reading for that day and is an invitation for each participant at mass to receive holy communion.

As to 'infallibility', I normally avoid posting websites or video's featuring Catholic apologists or that bolster Catholicism, but I would appreciate your watching Scott Hahn's (former Presbyterian pastor) short video about the subject and ask for your feedback. This post is already too long and I think Dr. Hahn might raise some issues you might want to discuss. As I said before, we know that the pope is not sinless or there would be no need for him to regularly go to confession (which he does) and (not on his own but by the workings of the Holy Spirit) the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine ... http://www.catholic.com/video/scott-hahn-explains-papal-infallibility

 

[Walter]

The American Dream: Thank you for your gracious apology and we can definitely start over. Before we begin discussing 'No salvation outside the Church', I would like to share some of my testimony with you. I was brought up in a Baptist family, came to Christ (repented of my sins and trusted Christ as my Savior and Lord) at the age of eleven and was taught that if something is Catholic it has to be wrong.

Liturgy is definitely part of Catholic worship and so it was to be rejected as ritualistic and repetitive praying. As an evangelical I thought the symbolism and ritual of Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheran or any high church as devoid of meaning, empty, rote, and mindless. Of course there have been cases or even tendencies at times for people to lose track of the meanings of their religious practices, and to do them without thinking about why they do them– but Baptists do this too– sometimes even with their prayers, devotions, church-going, etc. To say that all symbolic ritual in the Catholic church is rote and thoughtless ritualism is as uncharitable as someone saying that evangelicalism is legalistic unthoughtful literalism which practices bibliolatry with no concern for making a concrete difference in this world. But I digress!

I began a bible study in my church of the book of Hebrews and I saw just how important liturgy was for the covenant and that became increasingly evident to me as I studied the book of Hebrews. Also I found that overwhelming historical evidence exists proving it was important to the Early Church. I came to believe that liturgy represents the way God fathered his covenant people and He renewed that on a regular basis. It became evident to me as to what the relationship of the Old Testament was to the New and how the New Testament Church became a fulfillment and not an abandonment of the Old. These ideas were confirmed by the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Reading the ECF's, I began to believe that the Catholic Church might most accurately reflect the intentions of the Early Church Fathers and found other evangelicals seeking a church whose roots run deeper than the Reformation. However, I had always believed that people only leave the Catholic Church for 'True Christianity' and not the other way around. But, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life’s 2007 Religious Landscape Survey, roughly 8 percent of Catholics were raised in other churches as evangelicals. This compares with 9 percent of evangelical Christians who were raised Catholic. Not much difference.

As I continued to study I became aware that the one only place where Jesus used the word 'covenant' was when He instituted 'The Lord's Supper'. Yet, we only observed communion four times a year.
I began to study the Gospel of John and became aware that the Gospel was chock full of sacramental imagery. I was raised to believe that liturgy and sacraments were to be rejected and certainly not to be studied. These things I was programed not to be open to. But going through Hebrews I noticed the writer made me see that liturgy and sacraments were an essential part of God's family life. Then in John six, I came to realize that Jesus could not have been talking metaphorically when He taught us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. The Jews in His audience would not have been outraged and scandalized by a mere symbol. Besides, if the Jews had merely misunderstood Jesus to be speaking literally and He meant His words to be taken figuratively, why would he not simply clarify them? But He never did! Nor did any other Christian for over a thousand years!

All this and the fact that my Aunt, a Baptist missionary, had announced to her family that she was becoming a Catholic and this started me looking deeper into a Church I had long considered heretical and even the Great Whore of Babylon (I had read David Hunt's book). Then I began to read some of the writings of the recent popes. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been highly regarded in the evangelical community. Their writings are very focused on the person of Jesus Christ and very attentive to scripture. That was certainly important to us evangelicals.

Of course there were the questions about supposed 'Mary worship' (Catholics place Mary and the saints above Christ and Catholics bow to idols, don't they?) and I was taught in my Baptist church that Catholics believe Purgatory is place where people are given a 'Second Chance' at salvation. Of course, I knew that was un-biblical. And wasn't Catholicism a 'works-rigteousness' based religion? The list went on and on so I began to read and see for myself what the Catholics had to say to my objections to their 'un-biblical' doctrines. My first book was 'Born Fundamentalist, Born-Again Catholic' by David Currie. This answered most of the nagging questions I had had as to whether or not the Catholic Church was biblical or not. I then read 'Crossing The Tiber: Evangelicals Discover The Ancient Faith' by Steve Ray, a former Baptist. Then came books by other evangelical converts such as Scott Hahn and books by Karl Keating.

There are many other reasons why I and other former evangelicals convert to Catholicism. One reason is: Certainty
To have certainty and knowledge of truth leads many evangelicals to look elsewhere beyond all the doctrinal differences and “choose-your-own-church syndrome” within evangelical churches. I had the desire for certain knowledge, this is something I could not find within evangelical churches. If I were to ask ten evangelicals what their churches teach about marriage and divorce, how many different answers might I get?

Another reason for conversion is that I wanted to be connected to the ENTIRE history of the Christian Church and not just from the Reformation forward. I do not buy into Baptist successionism as their is a lack of historical evidence for it. Baptists trying to connect themselves to various groups that split from Catholicism prior to the Reformation falls short. Their beliefs and practices were closer to Catholicism than present day Baptists. The Waldenses are an example.

Also, I have issue with the "interpretive diversity” that occurs in evangelicalism, I prefer to accept the authority of the Catholic Church instead of trying to sort through the numerous interpretations of evangelical pastors and theologians. The authority that is found in the Catholic Church’s Magisterium has been consistant for two thousand years. The non-ending threads on the BB pitting Christian against Christian over doctrine many times resulting in either board members directly or indirectly questioning each others salvation and the myriad of denominations created because of such squabbling is evidence enough of the dangers of 'interpretive diversity' or 'individual interpretation' of scripture.

 

[DHK]

Well, maybe you need to admit that you didn't understand that the RCC is much bigger than the Latin Rite (again, the only rite in the Catholic Church which has a requirement celibacy, even though there are exceptions as I have already discussed) and that just because you have never heard of them that doesn't mean they don't exist or are insignificant. I understand, DHK, that when you say 'RCC" you believe that to mean only the Latin/Western Rite. That is what you were brought up in as a child, that is what you are familiar with in Canada, that is probably the only rite you were exposed to as a missionary. But, that is not at all accurate. All the following Rites make up The Holy Catholic Church which is ONE body with the pope as the head of the Church: "Finally, the Church of Christ is sacramentally present in the Universal or Catholic Church spread over the entire world. It is identified by the sign of Christ our Rock, the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter (Mt. 16:18). To be Catholic particular Churches and ritual Churches must be in communion with this Head, just as the other apostles, and the Churches they founded, were in communion with Peter (Gal. 1:18). Through this communion with Peter and his successors the Church becomes a universal sacrament of salvation in all times and places, even to the end of the age (Mt. 28:20)".

https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

Even if there are different segments of the "Catholic" Church as a whole, it doesn't make a difference. If the Pontiff has declared that celibacy is required for just one segment (the RCC), then that is still an imposition on a part of the members of the church, which is still unbiblical and falls under the teaching of the "doctrines of demons," per 1Timothy 4:1-4. Yes, I admit, there may be segments that allow marriage, but there are segments that don't allow it. And that is what matters.

 

[Walter]

Even if there are different segments of the "Catholic" Church as a whole, it doesn't make a difference. If the Pontiff has declared that celibacy is required for just one segment (the RCC), then that is still an imposition on a part of the members of the church, which is still unbiblical and falls under the teaching of the "doctrines of demons," per 1Timothy 4:1-4. Yes, I admit, there may be segments that allow marriage, but there are segments that don't allow it. And that is what matters.

Thanks, DHK. I do understand your position.

 

[Rebel]

The American Dream: Thank you for your gracious apology and we can definitely start over. Before we begin discussing 'No salvation outside the Church', I would like to share some of my testimony with you. I was brought up in a Baptist family, came to Christ (repented of my sins and trusted Christ as my Savior and Lord) at the age of eleven and was taught that if something is Catholic it has to be wrong.

Liturgy is definitely part of Catholic worship and so it was to be rejected as ritualistic and repetitive praying. As an evangelical I thought the symbolism and ritual of Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheran or any high church as devoid of meaning, empty, rote, and mindless. Of course there have been cases or even tendencies at times for people to lose track of the meanings of their religious practices, and to do them without thinking about why they do them– but Baptists do this too– sometimes even with their prayers, devotions, church-going, etc. To say that all symbolic ritual in the Catholic church is rote and thoughtless ritualism is as uncharitable as someone saying that evangelicalism is legalistic unthoughtful literalism which practices bibliolatry with no concern for making a concrete difference in this world. But I digress!

I began a bible study in my church of the book of Hebrews and I saw just how important liturgy was for the covenant and that became increasingly evident to me as I studied the book of Hebrews. Also I found that overwhelming historical evidence exists proving it was important to the Early Church. I came to believe that liturgy represents the way God fathered his covenant people and He renewed that on a regular basis. It became evident to me as to what the relationship of the Old Testament was to the New and how the New Testament Church became a fulfillment and not an abandonment of the Old. These ideas were confirmed by the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Reading the ECF's, I began to believe that the Catholic Church might most accurately reflect the intentions of the Early Church Fathers and found other evangelicals seeking a church whose roots run deeper than the Reformation. However, I had always believed that people only leave the Catholic Church for 'True Christianity' and not the other way around. But, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life’s 2007 Religious Landscape Survey, roughly 8 percent of Catholics were raised in other churches as evangelicals. This compares with 9 percent of evangelical Christians who were raised Catholic. Not much difference.

As I continued to study I became aware that the one only place where Jesus used the word 'covenant' was when He instituted 'The Lord's Supper'. Yet, we only observed communion four times a year.
I began to study the Gospel of John and became aware that the Gospel was chock full of sacramental imagery. I was raised to believe that liturgy and sacraments were to be rejected and certainly not to be studied. These things I was programed not to be open to. But going through Hebrews I noticed the writer made me see that liturgy and sacraments were an essential part of God's family life. Then in John six, I came to realize that Jesus could not have been talking metaphorically when He taught us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. The Jews in His audience would not have been outraged and scandalized by a mere symbol. Besides, if the Jews had merely misunderstood Jesus to be speaking literally and He meant His words to be taken figuratively, why would he not simply clarify them? But He never did! Nor did any other Christian for over a thousand years!

All this and the fact that my Aunt, a Baptist missionary, had announced to her family that she was becoming a Catholic and this started me looking deeper into a Church I had long considered heretical and even the Great Whore of Babylon (I had read David Hunt's book). Then I began to read some of the writings of the recent popes. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been highly regarded in the evangelical community. Their writings are very focused on the person of Jesus Christ and very attentive to scripture. That was certainly important to us evangelicals.

Of course there were the questions about supposed 'Mary worship' (Catholics place Mary and the saints above Christ and Catholics bow to idols, don't they?) and I was taught in my Baptist church that Catholics believe Purgatory is place where people are given a 'Second Chance' at salvation. Of course, I knew that was un-biblical. And wasn't Catholicism a 'works-rigteousness' based religion? The list went on and on so I began to read and see for myself what the Catholics had to say to my objections to their 'un-biblical' doctrines. My first book was 'Born Fundamentalist, Born-Again Catholic' by David Currie. This answered most of the nagging questions I had had as to whether or not the Catholic Church was biblical or not. I then read 'Crossing The Tiber: Evangelicals Discover The Ancient Faith' by Steve Ray, a former Baptist. Then came books by other evangelical converts such as Scott Hahn and books by Karl Keating.

There are many other reasons why I and other former evangelicals convert to Catholicism. One reason is: Certainty
To have certainty and knowledge of truth leads many evangelicals to look elsewhere beyond all the doctrinal differences and “choose-your-own-church syndrome” within evangelical churches. I had the desire for certain knowledge, this is something I could not find within evangelical churches. If I were to ask ten evangelicals what their churches teach about marriage and divorce, how many different answers might I get?

Another reason for conversion is that I wanted to be connected to the ENTIRE history of the Christian Church and not just from the Reformation forward. I do not buy into Baptist successionism as their is a lack of historical evidence for it. Baptists trying to connect themselves to various groups that split from Catholicism prior to the Reformation falls short. Their beliefs and practices were closer to Catholicism than present day Baptists. The Waldenses are an example.

Also, I have issue with the "interpretive diversity” that occurs in evangelicalism, I prefer to accept the authority of the Catholic Church instead of trying to sort through the numerous interpretations of evangelical pastors and theologians. The authority that is found in the Catholic Church’s Magisterium has been consistant for two thousand years. The non-ending threads on the BB pitting Christian against Christian over doctrine many times resulting in either board members directly or indirectly questioning each others salvation and the myriad of denominations created because of such squabbling is evidence enough of the dangers of 'interpretive diversity' or 'individual interpretation' of scripture.

Walter, I know you were not replying to me, but I appreciate what you have written. In your search, did you ever consider the Eastern Orthodox Church?

 

[The American Dream]

Here are some verses that do indicate that salvation occurs in our past:

Romans 8:22-24: We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?

Ephesians 2:4-8: But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God.

But then here are some verses that indicate that salvation is happening now:

2 Corinthians 2:15: For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing,

Phillipians 2:12: Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

1 Peter 3:21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, 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,

And here are some verses which indicate that salvation occurs in the future:

Romans 5:9-10: Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

1 Corinthians 3:12-15: Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Matthew 24:13: But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Simply put, Catholics believe: I am saved, I am being saved and if I persevere to the end in faith, I will be saved. Obviously we don't hold to Eternal Security but that isn't just a Catholic position.

scott-hahn-explains-papal-infallibility[/url]

One point we do agree on is that Baptists do not go back to the apostles. There is no evidence. The best one can say I that there were churches of like faith and order that existed along side of the RCC before the Reformation, but there is no evidence of a line of succession from the modern Baptist local church.

I will watch the video but would like you to address the issue of salvation outside the Catholic church and how the Catholic views your salvation while a Baptist. More details in my first post.

I grew up in a denomination (until I wa 27) that had creeds, liturgy, and communicants class, just not to the degree of the Catholics. So I do know what you mean by repetitive actions. One is the Apostles Creed which we said every Sunday. I could tell by watching people that it had become a chant and no thought was given to the words. I am sure each denomination has the same problem in a different manner. In the Baptist church, it is walking to the altar every Sunday. It is a repetitive thing. The one thing I loath the most is the "Sinners Prayer." Repeat after me and you are saved. Its like say the magic words.........

Ill end this post with an article on 1 Pet 3:21 I do not believe the Bible contradicts itself, and salvation is by grace through faith only.

Question: "Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?"

Answer: As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation. For more information, please visit our webpage on "Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works?"

Those who believe that baptism is required for salvation are quick to use 1 Peter 3:21 as a “proof text,” because it states “baptism now saves you.” Was Peter really saying that the act of being baptized is what saves us? If he were, he would be contradicting many other passages of Scripture that clearly show people being saved (as evidenced by their receiving the Holy Spirit) prior to being baptized or without being baptized at all (like the thief on the cross in Luke 23:39-43). A good example of someone who was saved before being baptized is Cornelius and his household in Acts 10. We know that they were saved before being baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit, which is the evidence of salvation (Romans 8:9; Ephesians 1:13; 1 John 3:24). The evidence of their salvation was the reason Peter allowed them to be baptized. Countless passages of Scripture clearly teach that salvation comes when one believes in the gospel, at which time he or she is sealed “in Christ with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13).

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.

An excellent explanation of this passage is given by Dr. Kenneth Wuest, author of Word Studies in the Greek New Testament. “Water baptism is clearly in the apostle's mind, not the baptism by the Holy Spirit, for he speaks of the waters of the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and in this verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it saves them only as a counterpart. That is, water baptism is the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as a counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament sacrifices were counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did not actually save the believer, only in type. It is not argued here that these sacrifices are analogous to Christian water baptism. The author is merely using them as an illustration of the use of the word 'counterpart.'

"So water baptism only saves the believer in type. The Old Testament Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering was only his outward testimony that he was placing faith in the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type....Water baptism is the outward testimony of the believer's inward faith. The person is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is the visible testimony to his faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith. Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby regenerated, for he says, 'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.' Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing for the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he defines what he means by salvation, in the words 'the answer of a good conscience toward God," and he explains how this is accomplished, namely, 'by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,' in that the believing sinner is identified with Him in that resurrection.”

Part of the confusion on this passage comes from the fact that in many ways the purpose of baptism as a public declaration of one’s faith in Christ and identification with Him has been replaced by “making a decision for Christ” or “praying a sinner’s prayer.” Baptism has been relegated to something that is done later. Yet to Peter or any of the first-century Christians, the idea that a person would confess Christ as his Savior and not be baptized as soon as possible would have been unheard of. Therefore, it is not surprising that Peter would see baptism as almost synonymous with salvation. Yet Peter makes it clear in this verse that it is not the ritual itself that saves, but the fact that we are united with Christ in His resurrection through faith, “the pledge of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21).

Therefore, the baptism that Peter says saves us is the one that is preceded by faith in the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ that justifies the unrighteous sinner (Romans 3:25-26; 4:5). Baptism is the outward sign of what God has done “by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).