According to Trent, how was Abraham baptized?

[davidv]

Well it would have to be, because Paul sees Abraham’s justification as the paradigm of christian baptism?

Why does it have to be? The new covenant is a perfection of the old. The conditions in each are not the same.

 

[thenobes]

This is not the question, nor is this a valid answer.

The question is, given that Trent has given a singular, inflexible, and strict definition of justification, as presented in the first post, and that this definition included being co-crucified and co-resurrected with Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the regeneration that comes from baptism. Obviously we know that water baptism was not required, but it still maintains that regeneration must take place for justification to happen.

Now, given that participation in the cross and resurrection and the power of the Holy Spirit to join man to it was not given until the time of Christ, what then does it mean for Abraham to be justified?

Just because there is a definition of justification, does not mean one must know the details of justification in order to be accorded it by faith.

Those in the old testament are justified because had they known of the requirement to be baptized into Christ, they would have done it. But they made tge same sort of solemn pledge to God which Peter relates in his epistle, as an appeal to God for a clean conscience, through the resurrection of Christ, who at the right hand of God provides the source of the mercy of God passing over repented sins.

peace
steve

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Alright, I am probably not making myself clear enough. Trent has given only one definition for justification. There is no other way to define it. The question is how does Abraham’s justification line up with Trent?

 

[SonCatcher]

Alright, I am probably not making myself clear enough. Trent has given only one definition for justification. There is no other way to define it. The question is how does Abraham’s justification line up with Trent?

[BIBLEDRB]John 8:56-58[/BIBLEDRB]

The grace of baptism was applied to the holy souls of the dead when Christ freed them from that place. See the catechism.

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.

This “freeing” from the dead is the entry into the Kingdom for those holy souls, just as baptism is the entry into the Kingdom for us.

 

[bobbywilson]

Alright, I am probably not making myself clear enough. Trent has given only one definition for justification. There is no other way to define it. The question is how does Abraham’s justification line up with Trent?

my $ 0.02-- water baptism was not invented/ ritualized until moses brought the Law-

and it was called the Mikevh-

which was a purifying cleansing ritual–where people were submerged, Jesus said to perform this ritual-- and as john the baptist then said after this Jesus would baptism you in the Holy Spirit and with fire…

so how’s that working for you ?

so the counsal of trent even changed seemed to have altered this command to what the modern day ritual is pouring water on my head as a child…

now for me it took some time to realize i had not gotten the baptism of the holy spirit with fire–

but now i function in all the gifts of the spirit

 

[God_Seeker_1]

[BIBLEDRB]John 8:56-58[/BIBLEDRB]

The grace of baptism was applied to the holy souls of the dead when Christ freed them from that place. See the catechism.

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.

This “freeing” from the dead is the entry into the Kingdom for those holy souls, just as baptism is the entry into the Kingdom for us.

The problem with this is that Paul says Abraham was really justified. And so did James, in his own life. There was no forsight to some future justification.

 

[po18guy]

This is not the question, nor is this a valid answer.

The question is, given that Trent has given a singular, inflexible, and strict definition of justification, as presented in the first post, and that this definition included being co-crucified and co-resurrected with Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the regeneration that comes from baptism. Obviously we know that water baptism was not required, but it still maintains that regeneration must take place for justification to happen.

Now, given that participation in the cross and resurrection and the power of the Holy Spirit to join man to it was not given until the time of Christ, what then does it mean for Abraham to be justified?

It would mean that Abraham was justified before God under the Abrahamic covenant, and nothing more. God established the covenant with and for Abraham and his seed. Mary made reference to this in her magnificat (Luke 1:46-55). Christ is the fulfillment of all covenants, so therefore He descended to the dead so that they could hear and be given the opportunity to accept or reject the everlasting covenant in His blood.

Are you reading too much into this?

Why is Trent such a stumbling block to you?

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Trent defined justification in terms of a “translation” from the state of adamic human existence to that of christic human existence. This is how trent defined it.

Now, the Scripture shows that Abraham was justified in Genesis 15 and 22. How can we understand Abraham to have undergone the laver of regeneration?

Abraham was justified by faith and works. Abraham is the paradigm of all Christian justification. Trent says we are justified by being crucified with Christ and raised to new life with Him. But how did Abraham have this regeneration?

 

[SonCatcher]

The problem with this is that Paul says Abraham was really justified. And so did James, in his own life. There was no forsight to some future justification.

I think I addressed that in post #12

Perhaps if we parse the original statements a little more precisely we will arrive at the solution

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

Firstly, as Genesis315 pointed out, Trent explicitly excludes any time prior to the promulgation of the Gospel. Therefore, everyone who lived prior to about 30 AD is excluded from the statement.

Could Abram have implicitly desired baptism even though he did not know it would eventually be instituted? I think Genesis, Paul and James agree that is in the affirmative.

The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” and through Baptism:34

But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves as dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.35

1988 Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ’s Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself:36

(God) gave himself to us through his Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature… For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.37

Could the Holy Spirit, Eternal with the Father and the Son have imparted Grace to a person outside the Sacrament of Baptism?

Is the action of the Eternal Holy Spirit restricted to the time after Pentecost only?

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 1:35[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[po18guy]

Trent defined justification in terms of a “translation” from the state of adamic human existence to that of christic human existence. This is how trent defined it.

Now, the Scripture shows that Abraham was justified in Genesis 15 and 22. How can we understand Abraham to have undergone the laver of regeneration?

Abraham was justified by faith and works. Abraham is the paradigm of all Christian justification. Trent says we are justified by being crucified with Christ and raised to new life with Him. But how did Abraham have this regeneration?

Through accepting the Gospel message directly from Christ while residing in the abode of the dead.

 

[devoutchristian]

There would be little reason to preach the Gospel to the dead if it:

1. It had no effect in eternity
2. All would reject it
3. All would accept it

God always respects our free will, and so I would imagine that those in the spirit prison had the ability to reject the Christ. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man provides an unprecedented glimpse into the eternal. Yet, it was only a glimpse, and much rightly remains unknown. What we do know is that God is true to His principles of mercy and justice.

One’s eternal fate is settled at death, our free will is disposed properly at that point.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

I still must not be stating it clear enough. Abraham was somehow justified in his own lifetime, right? If so, then what did that mean for him? Lets start there. In other words what does it mean for Abraham to be justified? And how does it equate with ours?

 

[devoutchristian]

I still must not be stating it clear enough. Abraham was somehow justified in his own lifetime, right? If so, then what did that mean for him? Lets start there. In other words what does it mean for Abraham to be justified? And how does it equate with ours?

Abraham’s actions in his lifetime caused his justification. His justification didn’t occur per se until the Resurrection.

 

[SonCatcher]

I still must not be stating it clear enough. Abraham was somehow justified in his own lifetime, right? If so, then what did that mean for him? Lets start there. In other words what does it mean for Abraham to be justified? And how does it equate with ours?

Do you mean “what does it mean to Abraham for him to be justified” or “how is it that Abraham was justified”?

 

[God_Seeker_1]

So Abraham was justified by works alone?

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Do you mean “what does it mean to Abraham for him to be justified” or “how is it that Abraham was justified”?

Trent defined justification as a translation from the state of man in Adam to the state of grace in the 2nd Adam. Did this happen to Abraham?

 

[SonCatcher]

So Abraham was justified by works alone?

That was unfortunate phrasing. As St. Paul wrote in Romans 4, Abraham was justified by his faith. St. James explains further that his faith was made manifest (thus his justification proved) by his works.

 

[SonCatcher]

Trent defined justification as a translation from the state of man in Adam to the state of grace in the 2nd Adam. Did this happen to Abraham?

It did. However, Abraham’s justification predated this translation for him because the Gospel had not yet been brought to him.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Trent defined justification as a translation from the state of man in Adam to the state of grace in the 2nd Adam. Did this happen to Abraham?

This translation is caused by the holy spirit who joins us to the cross and resurrection. Did this happen to Abraham in his life? If it didn’t then how can Trent keep its strict definition of justification

 

[SonCatcher]

This translation is caused by the holy spirit who joins us to the cross and resurrection. Did this happen to Abraham in his life? If it didn’t then how can Trent keep its strict definition of justification

Trent did qualify the statement. For those whom are subject to the qualification, it is binding. The rest are outside the qualification so the definition does not apply.