[Titanites]

That would explain why God's word (the bible) takes the back seat to your religious tradition...

Here's just a quick check. Does your copy of God's Word have these verses in it:

1 Peter 3:20-21 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while [the] ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us -- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

If so, does your tradition believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, in accordance with Scripture?

[Iscool]

Here's just a quick check. Does your copy of God's Word have these verses in it:

And interesting ploy you guys use...I have yet to see a Catholic discuss any scripture posted by a non Catholic...

Clinton didn't invent Triangulation...He got it from you guys...

[the808bass]

If so, does your tradition believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, in accordance with Scripture?

Wow, I've never seen proof-texting on Free Republic before. Are you positing that there is no other way those verses could be interpreted other than the way you're interpreting it?

[Titanites]

In post #77, you stated that for Catholics, God's word takes a backseat to religious tradition.

In response, in post #83, I posted some of God's word about baptism and asked how your tradition views baptism.

You still haven't answered the question in relation to the Scripture posted from 1 Peter 3. We would like to know so that we can be sure you weren't being hypocritical of Catholics.