Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread
The analogy is faulty, because Our Lord said, I say to "YOU" not, I say to all men. The YOU is the crowd following him, who already expressed faith in him, AND his disciples.

The analogy breaks down after that.

Now, explain to me, how do we understand John 3:5 in regards to BOD? Our Lord was not ignorant, what did he MEAN with these words if some are saved apart from water baptism? How are we to take them?
Reply
(02-01-2012, 08:29 PM)Gregory I Wrote: The analogy is faulty, because Our Lord said, I say to "YOU" not, I say to all men. The YOU is the crowd following him, who already expressed faith in him, AND his disciples.

The analogy breaks down after that.

Now, explain to me, how do we understand John 3:5 in regards to BOD? Our Lord was not ignorant, what did he MEAN with these words if some are saved apart from water baptism? How are we to take them?

From Aquinas:

Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.

Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.

Your problem isn't really that problematic.
Reply
But, once again, Where does Aquinas get this?

Where is it taught in Tradition?

What about the unanimous consent of the fathers?

St. Thomas was smart, but he made mistakes.

I see no reason to take Philosophical reasoning BEFORE revelation.

Philosophy is the Handmaid of Revelation/Theology.

Not the other way around.
Reply
(02-01-2012, 09:36 PM)Gregory I Wrote: But, once again, Where does Aquinas get this?

Where is it taught in Tradition?

What about the unanimous consent of the fathers?

St. Thomas was smart, but he made mistakes.

I see no reason to take Philosophical reasoning BEFORE revelation.

Philosophy is the Handmaid of Revelation/Theology.

Not the other way around.

One does not disregard the Angelic Doctor lightly. If one does so, one better have solid grounds for doing so--as in, a statement that condemns his teaching as false. And please don't appeal to Trent, or else you are arguing in a circle.
Reply
Ok, He contradicts the unanimous consent of the Fathers. That is weighty to ME.

Reply
(02-01-2012, 10:10 PM)Gregory I Wrote: Ok, He contradicts the unanimous consent of the Fathers. That is weighty to ME.

The fathers never denied baptism of desire. They just didn't explicate it to your satisfaction.
Reply
Greg may I ask who is your avatar?
Reply
(02-01-2012, 10:14 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 10:10 PM)Gregory I Wrote: Ok, He contradicts the unanimous consent of the Fathers. That is weighty to ME.

The fathers never denied baptism of desire. They just didn't explicate it to your satisfaction.

No, some of the Fathers have outright denied Baptism of desire, like St. Gregory the Theologian, and others have absolutely taught that there is no salvation apart from water baptism.
Reply
(02-01-2012, 10:23 PM)Gregory I Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 10:14 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 10:10 PM)Gregory I Wrote: Ok, He contradicts the unanimous consent of the Fathers. That is weighty to ME.

The fathers never denied baptism of desire. They just didn't explicate it to your satisfaction.

No, some of the Fathers have outright denied Baptism of desire, like St. Gregory the Theologian, and others have absolutely taught that there is no salvation apart from water baptism.

I think you need to provide more than one theologian to confirm that they explicitly contradicted baptism of desire. I would think that if baptism of desire was a contradiction of the dogma, it would have been condemned by the Church by now.
Reply
I would certainly like this issue to be clarified.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)