Author Topic: Does "baptism of desire" grant the grace of baptismspiritual rebirth? (Read 13146 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #20 on:** April 24, 2014, 10:26:02 AM »

While the MHFM arguments sometimes have holes in them, their logic here is absolutely unassailable.

Major: Trent -- there can be no justification without spiritual birth.
Minor: Trent -- spiritual rebirth completely cleanses the soul from anything that might offend God and would cause such a soul to immediately go to heaven (sorry, Nishant)
Conclusion: St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus were both clearly wrong in their explanation of BoD because they essentially say that someone can be justified without spiritual rebirth (as defined by Trent)

Now, BoDers could hold on to BoD by admitting that the St. Thomas / St. Alphonsus explanation is just wrong and that BoD does in fact cause spiritual rebirth and the remission of all temporal punishment due to sin.

But they'd be entirely reluctant to do so because admitting that St. Thomas / St. Alphonsus explain BoD incorrectly, the very theory of BoD loses credibility because then why couldn't they have been mistaken about the entire thing?

Nishant · « **Reply #21 on:** April 24, 2014, 10:33:25 AM »

I'm incredulous. Trent said this - "cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof", your claim was that the double negative here did not amount to a positive. So I gave the example. If anything, "except" is even stronger than "without".

But let it be as you prefer, we'll use without then - So, is the statement "creation cannot be effected by God's action or His Word's" not logically equivalent to the statement "creation can be effected without God's action or His Word's"? The double negative makes a positive, this is a basic rule of grammar.

And you are leaving aside that authorities like St. Robert and St. Alphonsus read the teaching of Trent this way - are you going to claim your understanding of Latin is superior to theirs? Let alone their proximity to and understanding of the intent of the Tridentine Fathers in defining this.

Hi, Ladislaus. It is the minor above that is not entirely correct, in the passage mentioned, Trent is controverting the Protestants heretical notion of imputed justification. Trent says in those justified by water baptism, there is nothing that God hates, and nothing would prevent them from entering heaven immediately if they die.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** April 24, 2014, 10:36:33 AM »

Major: Men cannot be justified without being born again.

Quote from: Trent Session VI Chapter 3

...so if [men] were not born again in Christ, they would never be justified, since in that new birth there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace by which they are made just.

Minor: Those who are born again have nothing in them which would hinder their entrance into heaven (e.g. not even temporal punishment due to sin).

Quote from: Trent Session V Chapter 5

For in those who are born again God hates nothing, because there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death, who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man and putting on the new one who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to hinder their entrance into heaven.

Conclusion: St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus were clearly wrong. In fact, their explanation is, objectively speaking, clearly proximate to heresy.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #23 on:** April 24, 2014, 10:41:41 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

I'm incredulous. Trent said this - "cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof", your claim was that the double negative here did not amount to a positive. So I gave the example. If anything, "except" is even stronger than "without".

I'm not arguing here about BoD per se, just about the St. Thomas / St. Alphonsus explanation. So let's put the broader issue aside for now.

Nishant · « **Reply #24 on:** April 24, 2014, 10:41:46 AM »

Edit: The first part of my reply above was to "patientiam", not to you, Ladislaus.

Argh. The ink dried. Meant to say, to patientiam, "is the statement "creation cannot be effected without God's action or His Word's" not logically equivalent to the statement "creation can be effected by God's action or His Word's."

Anyway, Ladislaus Trent explains in the second passage that it is speaking clearly of those who have been justified by water baptism, for it continues "For in those who are born again God hates nothing, because there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death", and no one denies that in water baptism, the remission of sins is plenary, removing the entirety of the temporal punishment.