Author Topic: Does "baptism of desire" grant the grace of baptismspiritual rebirth? (Read 13056 times)

Ambrose · « **Reply #70 on:** June 10, 2014, 12:30:00 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:

Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

You can see the dishonesty at work here. First you use the false "except through" translation ... on purpose. Secondly, you insert an artificial paragraph break to make it seem as if the second part is not a direct qualifier of the first. Thirdly, the word "desire" is incredibly misleading, as even the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia admits; it really refers to the entire set of requisite dispositions as detailed in the part about the necessary predispositions for justification via Baptism. Fourthly, you render the phrase, "desire for it" as "its desire" to further obfuscate the true meaning of the quote.

So let me fix it for you:

Quote from: Trent
This translation [=justification], however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, happen without the laver of regeneration or the disposition for it, as it is written, "Unless a man be born again of water AND the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

laver:water::disposition:Holy Ghost (see the entire treatise on justification)

So it's like saying that the expression:

"Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since he says that we need a bat and a ball to baseball." really means that we can play baseball with either a bat or a ball.

I copied it directly from the source I posted. I do not trust Dimond "scholarship."

Centroamerica · « **Reply #71 on:** June 10, 2014, 12:34:54 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

So it's like saying that the expression:

"Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since he says that we need a bat and a ball to baseball." really means that we can play baseball with either a bat or a ball.

No, I disagree completely. It is not like that expression. The keyword was underlined or. In your translation you did not change this word. The meaning differs little in your translation from the other. In the expression, the word "or" is what implies that you may play baseball with "either" a bat "or" a ball. Clearly, in the translations the "or" was not the relevant issue.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #72 on:** June 10, 2014, 12:40:22 PM »

That is the old "it doesn't say what it says" or "it doesn't mean what it means" objection. Even Father Feeney realized that one could be justified apart from water based on his understanding of Trent. That is why he felt compelled to invent his theory that one can be justified but still not saved if he dies justified apart from water baptism. Most Feeneyites disagree with him [~~her~~] and claim one cannot be justified apart from water.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #73 on:** June 10, 2014, 12:42:12 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Ladislaus

So it's like saying that the expression:

"Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since he says that we need a bat and a ball to baseball." really means that we can play baseball with either a bat or a ball.

No, I disagree completely. It is not like that expression. The keyword was underlined or. In your translation you did not change this word. The meaning differs little in your translation from the other. In the expression, the word "or" is what implies that you may play baseball with "either" a bat "or" a ball. Clearly, in the translations the "or" was not the relevant issue.

So Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius XII and countless other weighty theologians misunderstood Trent. Got it.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #74 on:** June 10, 2014, 01:18:56 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Centroamerica
Quote from: Ladislaus

So it's like saying that the expression:

"Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since he says that we need a bat and a ball to baseball." really means that we can play baseball with either a bat or a ball.

No, I disagree completely. It is not like that expression. The keyword was underlined or. In your translation you did not change this word. The meaning differs little in your translation from the other. In the expression, the word "or" is what implies that you may play baseball with "either" a bat "or" a ball. Clearly, in the translations the "or" was not the relevant issue.

So Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius XII and countless other weighty theologians misunderstood Trent. Got it.

Who said anything about anyone's understanding of Trent. I was speaking very clearly about the relevance of the baseball analogy regarding the two translations. Since translating is my profession, I thought I would point that out.

You should try to grasp what someone is saying before willy-nillyly throwing wild accusations of heresy at them.