But that is exactly my point! …
It does not read it at face value which is why I was using the early Church Fathers, Papal statements and the attitude of the Church towards Catechumens as a premise, a premise you won’t allow for whatever reason.
My point was that it is very possible that the Church was neither talking about nor worried about the fact that desire is necessary for baptism in adults because when people speak they often speak only about one aspect of a thing rather than all aspects of a thing. How does that contradict the statement you have now put forward that intent is necessary in adults? Of course intent is necessary, but just because it is necessary does not meant that the Church was neccessarily reffering to the fact that it is necessary in the Council of Trent. The onus is not on me because I am not trying to claim that intent is not necessary for adults, I am merely pointing out that it is quite possible that this fact is not something that the council of Trent was at all concerned with. The claim that this is what the council of Trent was concerned with is actually what you are trying to prove, but have yet to do so through a necessary argument.
The onus is on you to prove that it is used as an exclusive regarding desire since I have demonstrated, at least that desire is necessary for a valid baptism, an inclusive. Your mental gymnastics regarding human speech and this subject does not even merit a response since it is entirely based on subjectivity and ignoring the fact that when the Church is teaching regarding a subject, she teaches as any logical teacher does which is mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.
Again, I am not trying to claim that the verse makes an explicit reference to desire alone. However, that does not change anything…
I am just reading it as the Church has read it since the patristic period, not using my own interpretation.
Except that you have not proved so necessarily, and neither are you willing to admit that you do not have a necessary argument for this. Either give an actual argument from necessity or admit that you do not have one so that we can move this discussion onto one of probable arguments.
I have proved that it cannot be necessarily read the way Mr. Akins read it. I’ll have to repeat myself it seems, I am not using this Chapter to prove baptism of desire wrong so stop asking for an argument that this Chapter has to be read the opposite way.
I find it interesting that just as before you were willing to use official catechisms as a point of proof whenever they agreed with you here you are using imprimatur’s whenever they happen to agree with you.
I couldn’t care less that it had an imprimatur or not, but you do which is why I made that clear. And that isn’t an argument by the way, are you going to address the facts that to be born again is to be necessarily understood as baptized in water?
As for the quote from the Coucil of Carthage, whether or not it is problematic depends on what exaclty is meant by baptism in that particular quote as well as in its correct context.
I thought you’d never ask!
The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian:
“That the baptism which heretics and schismatics bestow is not the true one, is everywhere declared in the Holy Scriptures, since their very leading men are false Christs and false prophets, as the Lord says by Solomon: “He who trusteth in that which is false, he feedeth the winds; and the very same, moreover, followeth the flight of birds. For he forsaketh the ways of his own vineyard, he has wandered from the paths of his own little field. But he walketh through pathless places, and dry, and a land destined for thirst; moreover, he gathereth together fruitless things in his hands.” And again: “A
bstain from strange water, and from the fountain of another do not drink, that you may live a long time; also that the years of life may be added to thee.” And in the Gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with His divine voice, saying, “
Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
This is the Spirit which from the beginning was borne over the waters; for neither can the Spirit operate without the water, nor the water without the Spirit. Certain people therefore interpret for themselves ill, when they say that by imposition of the hand they receive the Holy Ghost, and are thus received, when it is manifest that they ought to be born again in the Catholic Church by both sacraments. Then indeed they will be able to be sons of God, as says the apostle: “Taking care to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, as ye have been called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God.” All these things speaks the Catholic Church. And again, in the Gospel the Lord says: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit; because God is a Spirit, and he is born of God.” Therefore, whatsoever things all heretics and schismatics do are carnal, as the apostle says: “For the works of the flesh are manifest, which are, fornications, uncleannesses, incest, idolatries, witchcrafts, hatreds, contentions, jealousy, anger, divisions, heresies, and the like to these; concerning which have told you before, as I also foretell you now, that whoever do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” And thus the apostle condemns, with all the wicked, those also who cause division, that is, schismatics and heretics. Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ.”
Here you are adding things to this text and again taking scriptural exegesis into your own hands. The passage you quoted mentions nothing about water and spirit, you yourself are reading that into the passage, it can just as easily mean that violence and sins of concupisence are wrong and immoral and instead we must look to God for our salvation.
