Author Topic: Does "baptism of desire" grant the grace of baptismspiritual rebirth? (Read 13054 times)

Centroamerica · « **Reply #80 on:** June 10, 2014, 03:21:07 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
You and LoT are saying the same thing.

and don't even know it.

I figured it out when I went back and read his previous comments. I asked him to please attempt to understand what I am talking about before attacking as if I am promoting some sort of heresy. Than I look at his previous comments and he agrees with my position.

I think he jumped the gun for what ever sensibilities there may be.

Elena · « **Reply #81 on:** June 10, 2014, 05:35:33 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Elena
Quote from: Ambrose
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy. For those that reject this de fide teaching of the Church, you place your soul in grave peril.

Please provide the de fide statement...

The Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter IV:

Quote
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE

In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.

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.[18]

(Emphasis added)

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent6.htm

C'mon now, that is not a de fide statement on baptism of desire. That is a statement on the requisites for baptism. The word "without" applies to both subjects (the requisites) in the sentence as follows: One cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration. One cannot have justification without the desire for it. Hence, one cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it. Both laver and desire are necessary for baptism. This is the clear interpretation of that sentence and it is impossible to view it otherwise, since doing so automatically negates the necessity of baptism , which renders the meaning of the sentence a haphazard view of some kind of faith alone belief for salvation and, contrarily, it negates the need for desire for baptism as if we could go around baptizing the unwilling. All that is condemned. Since the sentence can only be viewed properly the way I've shown, it is not only common sense, but good will that gives up a bad idea, no matter who else holds the notion. You cannot make a doctrine out of a sentence at the expense of doctrine.

Ambrose · « **Reply #82 on:** June 10, 2014, 06:00:58 PM »

Quote from: Elena

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Elena
Quote from: Ambrose
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy. For those that reject this de fide teaching of the Church, you place your soul in grave peril.

Please provide the de fide statement...

The Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter IV:

Quote
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE

In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.

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.[18]

(Emphasis added)

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent6.htm

C'mon now, that is not a de fide statement on baptism of desire. That is a statement on the requisites for baptism. The word "without" applies to both subjects (the requisites) in the sentence as follows: One cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration. One cannot have justification without the desire for it. Hence, one cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it. Both laver and desire are necessary for baptism. This is the clear interpretation of that sentence and it is impossible to view it otherwise, since doing so automatically negates the necessity of baptism , which renders the meaning of the sentence a haphazard view of some kind of faith alone belief for salvation and, contrarily, it negates the need for desire for baptism as if we could go around baptizing the unwilling. All that is condemned. Since the sentence can only be viewed properly the way I've shown, it is not only common sense, but good will that gives up a bad idea, no matter who else holds the notion. You cannot make a doctrine out of a sentence at the expense of doctrine.

Then you are not reading it carefully. It is a clear and explicit teaching that baptism or the desire for it transfers one from the state of sin to the state of grace, and that baptism or the desire for it makes one an adopted son of God.

Elena · « **Reply #83 on:** June 10, 2014, 07:05:53 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Elena
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Elena
Quote from: Ambrose
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy. For those that reject this de fide teaching of the Church, you place your soul in grave peril.

Please provide the de fide statement...

The Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter IV:

Quote
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE

In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.

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.[18]

(Emphasis added)

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent6.htm

C'mon now, that is not a de fide statement on baptism of desire. That is a statement on the requisites for baptism. The word "without" applies to both subjects (the requisites) in the sentence as follows: One cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration. One cannot have justification without the desire for it. Hence, one cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it. Both laver and desire are necessary for baptism. This is the clear interpretation of that sentence and it is impossible to view it otherwise, since doing so automatically negates the necessity of baptism , which renders the meaning of the sentence a haphazard view of some kind of faith alone belief for salvation and, contrarily, it negates the need for desire for baptism as if we could go around baptizing the unwilling. All that is condemned. Since the sentence can only be viewed properly the way I've shown, it is not only common sense, but good will that gives up a bad idea, no matter who else holds the notion. You cannot make a doctrine out of a sentence at the expense of doctrine.

Then you are not reading it carefully. It is a clear and explicit teaching that baptism or the desire for it transfers one from the state of sin to the state of grace, and that baptism or the desire for it makes one an adopted son of God.

Oh, but I have read it. Many, many times. What I described above is what you need to read so you understand what it says. It is impossible to read the sentence the way you read it once you see how it should be read. Because the words are impossible to misinterpret, unless you view them in a way so as to undermine Church teaching. No salvation outside the Church does not mean salvation for some outside the Church. No salvation without water and the Holy Spirit, or Jesus is a liar. Be washed for your sins, or scripture misrepresents itself. That sentence in Trent can only be interpreted in one way. It speaks for itself and it does not contradict Church teaching when seen as it was intended.

Ambrose · « **Reply #84 on:** June 10, 2014, 07:09:46 PM »

Quote from: Elena

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Elena
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Elena
Quote from: Ambrose
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy. For those that reject this de fide teaching of the Church, you place your soul in grave peril.

Please provide the de fide statement...

The Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter IV:

Quote
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE

In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.

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.[18]

(Emphasis added)

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent6.htm

C'mon now, that is not a de fide statement on baptism of desire. That is a statement on the requisites for baptism. The word "without" applies to both subjects (the requisites) in the sentence as follows: One cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration. One cannot have justification without the desire for it. Hence, one cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it. Both laver and desire are necessary for baptism. This is the clear interpretation of that sentence and it is impossible to view it otherwise, since doing so automatically negates the necessity of baptism , which renders the meaning of the sentence a haphazard view of some kind of faith alone belief for salvation and, contrarily, it negates the need for desire for baptism as if we could go around baptizing the unwilling. All that is condemned. Since the sentence can only be viewed properly the way I've shown, it is not only common sense, but good will that gives up a bad idea, no matter who else holds the notion. You cannot make a doctrine out of a sentence at the expense of doctrine.

Then you are not reading it carefully. It is a clear and explicit teaching that baptism or the desire for it transfers one from the state of sin to the state of grace, and that baptism or the desire for it makes one an adopted son of God.

Oh, but I have read it. Many, many times. What I described above is what you need to read so you understand what it says. It is impossible to read the sentence the way you read it once you see how it should be read. Because the words are impossible to misinterpret, unless you view them in a way so as to undermine Church teaching. No salvation outside the Church does not mean salvation for some outside the Church. No salvation without water and the Holy Spirit, or Jesus is a liar. Be washed for your sins, or scripture misrepresents itself. That sentence in Trent can only be interpreted in one way. It speaks for itself and it does not contradict Church teaching when seen as it was intended.

You have read it, but you, but do not understand it. You should trust the Doctors of the Church and theologians who all know that this passage of Trent taught Baptism of Desire.

Distrust yourself and learn to trust your betters.