So, here I go again to make a fool of myself:

Recently I have retracted by position that sacramental WATER baptism alone can lead a person to eternal life.

I condemn this notion. This is NOT the ONLY thing that the fathers give unanimous consent to. My mistakes were subtle, but they were still mistakes:

1. Assuming BOD and BOB are separate from from BOW. They are ONE.

2. Assuming that charity ALONE cannot remit sins. This is FALSE and CONDEMNED by the church! In fact, it strikes at the heart of DENYING BOD.

3. Assumig the church has not pronounced on BOD. FALSE! It has affirmed the concept magisterially.

4. I did not know this, but Fr. Feeney's exact conception of justification through desire was CONDEMNED 400 years before him!

5. It is true that the unanimous consent of the fathers gives witness to the obligation all have to receive the sacrament of baptism. But the OTHER unanimous opinion they hold is that of the possibility of salvation apart from WATER baptism.

You cannot trust the Dimond Brothers to do your thinking for you.

It is true, none are saved without water baptism. But water baptism is also united to the sanctifying BLOOD of Christ and the Power of the Holy Spirit. Since Christ shed his blood in CHARITY, Charity and his blood have been divinely fused together and made one. Therefore, one who is saved through CHARITY ALONE, that is, one who is on fire with the love of God and earnestly desires that most necessary sacrament of baptism, should he die without the Waters of baptism, will, nevertheless, by his CHARITY attain to the reality of that very sacrament: Justification.

So we see that there is no salvation without baptism, but there are several ways of being incorporated into the REALITY of the sacrament.

And it is BECAUSE Of this inseparability of each with the other, that BOD is to be conceived at all.

The problem Curious Catholic is your DENIAL of this fact:

Charity can remit sin.

Your conception of Baptism is not quite right. Baptism is ONE and the three constituent elements of baptism, the Water, blood and Spirit are ONE in their unity with each other.

This unity is a TRINITARIAN unity.

For example, The Blood of Christ is Like the Father. The Water of Baptism is like the Son (Grace united to matter/ Christ incarnate), and the Sanctifying action is like the Spirit, proceeding from the blood (Father) and Water (Son).

Yet, The Spirit can be Principally active in an activity, not APART from Christ, but he is implicitly present where the activity of the spirit is present.

Similarly, it is BECAUSE of the Baptismal Unity that when the Spirit operates in the hearts of individual who sincerely desire baptism, who RECOGNIZE THEIR OBLIGATION TO RECEIVE IT and who desire to receive it, they can be justified.

Notice, this is not APART from the Sacrament, but BECAUSE of it.

THe REALITY of the Sacrament is what it effects.

For you to assert that ONLY baptism of WATER can obtain remission of sins and justification, you HAVE to deny that Charity, before baptism can remit sins.

Therefore, let me ask YOU:

Before Baptism, can CHARITY remit sins? P.S. THe Dimond Brothers do not adress this in their book.

They take the other condemnations of Baius out of Context with the other condemnations and do not properly address the issue.

NOW:

Does Charity, before baptism, remit sins?


http://www.romancatholicism.org/bod-thesis.htm

Thank you, Gregory I, for your insightful post about Baptism. It really helps us to combat the errors of the Feeneyites.

Believe what you must. As for me, I'll believe as Our Lord, Jesus Christ taught:

John 3:5

SO you don't believe the teaching of the Church, just scripture?

Quote from: Gregory I

SO you don't believe the teaching of the Church, just scripture?

No, I believe scripture as interpreted by the Church. I agree with you. I disagree with Oremus who's seeming to imply that one is not able to be saved via BOD; and he sounds just like a protestant quoting scripture without reference to Church interpretation.

Wow, I actually did sound like a Protestant. Unintended.  

Ok, how about the Council of Trent?

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

Sorry Oremus, but it did.

I'm not about to start another debate on this; I think the OP's point was very good.

Yeah, I know the same arguments will be hammered out on both sides so I'm not really into starting another debate.

I will say this: I'm not opposed to accepting BOD, I just haven't found a compelling enough argument to convince me. Yes, I've read all of the points, they just don't make sense to me. If it helps, I do read them daily.

Quote from: Oremus

Quote from: s2srea

Sorry Oremus, but it did.

I'm not about to start another debate on this; I think the OP's point was very good.

Yeah, I know the same arguments will be hammered out on both sides so I'm not really into starting another debate.

I will say this: I'm not opposed to accepting BOD, I just haven't found a compelling enough argument to convince me. Yes, I've read all of the points, they just don't make sense to me. If it helps, I do read them daily.

I suppose all we can do is wait for clarification from the Church. Lets pray the Restoration comes soon!

Agreed!