Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: St Ambrose On baptism in book "Abraham"  (Read 649 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AnthonyPadua

  • Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 1342
  • Reputation: +497/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: St Ambrose On baptism in book "Abraham"
« Reply #15 on: April 01, 2024, 10:57:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Another interesting quote by St. Ambrose. The final end statement.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41935
    • Reputation: +23963/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: St Ambrose On baptism in book "Abraham"
    « Reply #16 on: April 01, 2024, 11:42:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Another interesting quote by St. Ambrose. The final end statement.

    Thanks.  Yes, this one has been "out there" in the BoD debate, but the De Abraham quote is new to me, and I've read tons of material regarding the BoD question, and the one from De Abraham is even more clear and explicit than this here.  That was a great find in the OP.

    Combined with St. Ambrose's statement in the Oration about Valentinian about his hope that Valentinian might be like the martyrs, whom he then states are "washed but not crowned", it makes the Valentinian quote an ANTI-BoD statement, i.e. an anti-salvation-by-BoD-statement, limiting the fruits of BoD to the remission of PUNISHMENTS due to sin.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41935
    • Reputation: +23963/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: St Ambrose On baptism in book "Abraham"
    « Reply #17 on: April 01, 2024, 11:54:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • St. Ambrose De Abraham:
    Quote
    nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum dei.  utique nullum excepit, non infantem, non aliqua praeventum necessitate: habeant tamen illam opertam poenarum inmunitatem, nescio an habeant regni honorem.

    I still intend to study this quotation a bit more.  There's a lot of interplay here between the various verb moods, with a strange use of the "subjunctive" outside of a subordinate clause, which may be implied.

    My general sense of it is, "While I think they might have some undisclosed immunity from punishments, I really don't think they could have the honor of the Kindom."  Is he distinguishing between "entering the Kingom" and having the "honor of the Kingdom"?  I'm not sure.  But the original quotation from Our Lord he admits allows for no exceptions, and so he doesn't see how they might have the "honor of the Kingdom."

    Even in the weakest possible sense, this completely undermines the norion of the "authority" of Ambrose somehow allegedly teaching Baptism of Desire.  AT BEST, you could say he didn't completely rule it out, but leaned strongly against it.

    As you know, the "authority" of Augustine and Ambrose are what all BoD theory is based on, and between this from St. Ambrose and St. Augustine's admitted speculation (that he later retracted), that is the sum total of all evidence among the Church Fathers in favor of BoD.  Ridiculous that some try to elevate BoD speculation to some kind of dogma.  If it were revealed dogma, you'd surely have more Patristic support than this.  You'd have multiple Fathers repeating it as a teaching that was handed down to them by those who taught them the faith, and not admitting that they're speculating.