Baptism by blood

[Guardian333]

I had a discussion with my Evangelical- Fundamentalist Christian (EFC) on the topic of Baptism and if it is necesary.

I read the Catechism and Catholics believe that, Yes, Baptism is necesarry for salvation (John 3:5)

He responded with, “How is that the good thief on the cross was saved and he was not baptised?”

And I wasn’t able to tell him what the Catechism mentions about *Baptism by blood *1258 “The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.” CCC

How can I effectively explain this aspect of Baptism to my Evangelical- Fundamentalist Christian friend?

I already anticipate he will challenge it’s validity because this is not explicitly and literally conveyed in the scriptures. He will say, “Man made this up, not God, since it is not in the Bible”. Thus, the argument of Sola Scriptura once again.

Also, from the Catholic perspective, I know that we can explain this through the eyes of the Magesterium/Tradition. I know that when we have a difficult question of Biblical interpretation, we turn to Tradition as preserved and protected by the Church to see what the people of God believed before us.

"Oral Tradition"is loosely, beliefs held by the Church which didnt make it into the canonical scriptures, but which were handed down from the apostles

• Malcom Mclean.

Can anyone add any important information, facts (e.g. early church info), or comments that I might need in order to give my argument more strength and credibility, with regards to this aspect of Baptism, Baptism by Blood. Thank you guys.

 

[Della]

Actually, you don’t need to get into the issue of baptism by blood to answer your friend’s question. The answer is simpler than all that!

In establishing the sacraments Jesus gave us what he wants we members of his body to do. We are obligated to submit to the sacraments because Jesus commanded us to do so, both through what he taught explicitly and what he gave his Church the authority to teach.

That’s just background for you. All you have to tell your friend is–we sinful human beings cannot deliberately by-pass the sacraments established by Christ. But, God is not bound by the sacraments. He will have mercy on those he will have mercy. So, in the case of the thief on the cross, Jesus himself pardoned him and granted him his mercy. He could do that because he is the Son of God and may do as he sees fit. We cannot do whatever we like, however because we are not God. We are bound to do what we know God wants us to do.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I had a discussion with my Evangelical- Fundamentalist Christian (EFC) on the topic of Baptism and if it is necesary.

I read the Catechism and Catholics believe that, Yes, Baptism is necesarry for salvation (John 3:5)

He responded with, “How is that the good thief on the cross was saved and he was not baptised?”

And I wasn’t able to tell him what the Catechism mentions about *Baptism by blood *1258 “The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.” CCC

How can I effectively explain this aspect of Baptism to my Evangelical- Fundamentalist Christian friend?

I already anticipate he will challenge it’s validity because this is not explicitly and literally conveyed in the scriptures. He will say, “Man made this up, not God, since it is not in the Bible”. Thus, the argument of Sola Scriptura once again.

Also, from the Catholic perspective, I know that we can explain this through the eyes of the Magesterium/Tradition. I know that when we have a difficult question of Biblical interpretation, we turn to Tradition as preserved and protected by the Church to see what the people of God believed before us. - Malcom Mclean.

Can anyone add any important information, facts (e.g. early church info), or comments that I might need in order to give my argument more strength and credibility, with regards to this aspect of Baptism, Baptism by Blood. Thank you guys.

It’s not Baptism of Blood but Baptism of Desire that the Good Thief received.

 

[Alexius]

Actually, you don’t need to get into the issue of baptism by blood to answer your friend’s question. The answer is simpler than all that!

In establishing the sacraments Jesus gave us what he wants we members of his body to do. We are obligated to submit to the sacraments because Jesus commanded us to do so, both through what he taught explicitly and what he gave his Church the authority to teach.

That’s just background for you. All you have to tell your friend is–we sinful human beings cannot deliberately by-pass the sacraments established by Christ. But, God is not bound by the sacraments. He will have mercy on those he will have mercy. So, in the case of the thief on the cross, Jesus himself pardoned him and granted him his mercy. He could do that because he is the Son of God and may do as he sees fit. We cannot do whatever we like, however because we are not God. We are bound to do what we know God wants us to do.

Amen! There is plenty of Scripture to back the necessity of baptism…

Just FYI, in the early Church, the Fathers meditate on martyrdom as another baptism - a baptism of blood. Of course, the thief was not a martyr, but the use of the term “baptism by blood” is an ancient term.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Guardian333]

Bro. Rich SFO replied:

It’s not Baptism of Blood but Baptism of Desire that the Good Thief received.

So the Good thief received the Baptism of Desire - 1260 CCC. Got it. Thank you for clarifying that.

I can cite scriptures to support Baptism in general, but I was not ready to explain the Baptism of Desire - which the Good Thief on the Cross was a good example of. I think it may be necesary to understand this aspect of baptism so that I can be specific in explaining the Church’s interpretation of the Good thief’s salvation.

 

[Alexius]

Bro. Rich SFO replied: So the Good thief received the Baptism of Desire - 1260 CCC. Got it. Thank you for clarifying that.

I can cite scriptures to support Baptism in general, but I was not ready to explain the Baptism of Desire - which the Good Thief on the Cross was a good example of. I think it may be necesary to understand this aspect of baptism so that I can be specific in explaining the Church’s interpretation of the Good thief’s salvation.

Sorry, can’t help you much. I don’t necessarily believe this particular doctrine, but it holds that the thief, because of his faith in Christ, would ultimately have willingly received baptism if he were able to, hence the “baptism of desire.” I guess the danger in such a belief is that we do not know the minds of others, but God does! In this case, the exception is that Jesus told the thief he would be in Paradise.

BTW: It is much easier when you respond to a comment, to click the “quote” button in the lower right-hand corner. By doing this, you won’t have to fill in the name of the person you are replying to! If you want to respond to more than one quote, click the button to the right of the “quote” button. It will change color. When you pick the comments you want to respond to, click “post reply” at the top or bottom of the thread. Don’t worry, it took me awhile to figure out, too (on my own)…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius