T
tonyrey
Guest
They are baptised by their desire which is fulfilled when they die and meet Jesus…
- Status
S
sandyelder
Guest
With all due respect to TKTsunami and tonyrey, neither response has a biblical foundation. Simply put, it is speculation, perhaps inspired, but speculation nonetheless.
If angels are not matter, and heaven is not matter, then what is it? A state of being? Sounds more mystical or Eastern, than biblical. How are angels then seen and heard by men (at the tomb and Ascension)? Furthermore, what is the point of the resurrection if heaven is not material? If heaven is not material, why did Jesus forbid Mary to touch Him prior to His Ascension, then eat with the Apostles a week later? Why, if angels are not material and men can see and interact with them, would not Jesus, after fulfilling His mission, return in a lesser state? Thomas may have been inspired, but I don’t not believe he was in this. It is illogical to believe something can exist without existing.
If it is true that they are baptized by their desire, why did Jesus command Peter to teach to the gentiles, baptizing the converted? Why did He state “except”? I see no such alternative to physical baptism in scripture. Furthermore, over the centuries, the Church has consistently taught that the unbaptized can not be saved. A belief that they somehow are is a hope and a wish without doctrinal (scriptural) foundation. Simply query ‘necessity of baptism’ and read the many quotes stating such. The Church believes all unbaptized are lost (unforgiven and unsaved), even babies. If not, why then are babies baptized?
Peace.
If angels are not matter, and heaven is not matter, then what is it? A state of being? Sounds more mystical or Eastern, than biblical. How are angels then seen and heard by men (at the tomb and Ascension)? Furthermore, what is the point of the resurrection if heaven is not material? If heaven is not material, why did Jesus forbid Mary to touch Him prior to His Ascension, then eat with the Apostles a week later? Why, if angels are not material and men can see and interact with them, would not Jesus, after fulfilling His mission, return in a lesser state? Thomas may have been inspired, but I don’t not believe he was in this. It is illogical to believe something can exist without existing.
If it is true that they are baptized by their desire, why did Jesus command Peter to teach to the gentiles, baptizing the converted? Why did He state “except”? I see no such alternative to physical baptism in scripture. Furthermore, over the centuries, the Church has consistently taught that the unbaptized can not be saved. A belief that they somehow are is a hope and a wish without doctrinal (scriptural) foundation. Simply query ‘necessity of baptism’ and read the many quotes stating such. The Church believes all unbaptized are lost (unforgiven and unsaved), even babies. If not, why then are babies baptized?
Peace.
T
tonyrey
Guest
CCC 847: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too** may achieve eternal salvation**”.
S
sandyelder
Guest
Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through “baptism of blood,” martyrdom for Christ, or through “baptism of desire”, that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism.
This is a (convenient) semantic argument without scriptural foundation. Either Christ is THE way, or He is not. Either a man “can not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven except he be born of water and of the Spirit” (John 3:5) or baptism is irrelevant. The Church can not consistently argue the necessity of baptism to the point of requiring babies to be baptized, then turn around and preach that baptism is not absolutely necessary. Jesus said it was. It is such a necessity that He was baptized. Which prophet has rescinded that command? Ergo - without baptism, salvation is impossible. Carried to its logical conclusion, such an argument undermines any reason for the existence of the Church in the first place, especially if seeking God according to our our conscience is the qualifying criterium for entry into heaven.
This is a (convenient) semantic argument without scriptural foundation. Either Christ is THE way, or He is not. Either a man “can not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven except he be born of water and of the Spirit” (John 3:5) or baptism is irrelevant. The Church can not consistently argue the necessity of baptism to the point of requiring babies to be baptized, then turn around and preach that baptism is not absolutely necessary. Jesus said it was. It is such a necessity that He was baptized. Which prophet has rescinded that command? Ergo - without baptism, salvation is impossible. Carried to its logical conclusion, such an argument undermines any reason for the existence of the Church in the first place, especially if seeking God according to our our conscience is the qualifying criterium for entry into heaven.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Do you regard boats as responsible beings?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Do you believe Jesus died for only those who are baptised?
So you believe anyone who is not baptised will go to hell? That Jesus did not die for everyone? That his self-sacrifice is wasted as far as they are concerned?
Do you believe only what the prophets say? What about the teaching of the Church - in particular that which I have quoted?
CCC 847: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too** may achieve eternal salvation**”.
Do you reject that statement?
That is a non sequitur. The Church exists primarily to teach the message of Jesus throughout the world so that everyone will have the opportunity to be baptised.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Do you believe Jesus died only for those who are baptised?
So you believe anyone who is not baptised will go to hell? That Jesus did not die for everyone? That his self-sacrifice is wasted as far as they are concerned?
Do you believe** only what the prophets say? What about the teaching of the Church - in particular that which I have quoted?
CCC 847: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation**".
Do you reject that statement?
A non sequitur. The Church exists primarily to teach the message of Jesus throughout the world so that everyone will have the opportunity to be baptised.
T
TKTsunami
Guest
Sandyelder,
If you wish an authority, I am merely re-presenting (with respect to time, space and matter, the understanding of Aquinas on the matter. Even as he says in ST 1-1 Q10A1:
"Now in a thing bereft of movement, which is always the same, there is no before or after. As therefore the idea of time consists in the numbering of before and after in movement; so likewise in the apprehension of the uniformity of what is outside of movement, consists the idea of eternity.
Further, those things are said to be measured by time which have a beginning and an end in time, because in everything which is moved there is a beginning, and there is an end. But as whatever is wholly immutable can have no succession, so it has no beginning, and no end.
Thus eternity is known from two sources: first, because what is eternal is interminable–that is, has no beginning nor end (that is, no term either way); secondly, because eternity has no succession, being simultaneously whole."
So there’s the Thomistic grounding for my conception of eternity. As for the legitimacy of applying math to God, we have Q30A3:
“But we say that numeral terms predicated of God are not derived from number, a species of quantity, for in that sense they could bear only a metaphorical sense in God, like other corporeal properties, such as length, breadth, and the like; but that they are taken from multitude in a transcendent sense. Now multitude so understood has relation to the many of which it is predicated, as “one” convertible with “being” is related to being; which kind of oneness does not add anything to being, except a negation of division, as we saw when treating of the divine unity (11, 1 ); for “one” signifies undivided being. So, of whatever we say “one,” we imply its undivided reality: thus, for instance, “one” applied to man signifies the undivided nature or substance of a man. In the same way, when we speak of many things, multitude in this latter sense points to those things as being each undivided in itself.”
But since you don’t seem to accept Thomas as an authority, perhaps you will accept the authority upon which he bases his: Ps 103:4 refers to God “who makest thy angels spirits.” Or, for a further question, where in Scripture does it EVER say angels are material? It does say they are able to “appear” to people, to manipulate the material world, but this is a power bestowed upon them by God, and is not limited in some way by their being super-material forms. And to say they cannot “exist without existing” is impious, because God is immaterial, and yet he exists! And moreover, He does appear (to Job, for example.)
I believe the ones quoting the Catechism have answered your postscript satisfactorily.
S
sandyelder
Guest
In short. Yes. and No.
Amos 3:7 “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, be he revealeth his secret to his servants the prophets”. Only prophets have the authority to declare doctrine. To my knowledge, none in the Church does now nor has ever claimed such a title. The Lord has consistently used prophets to advance His purposes. Except since about 100 AD. Peter, the first Apostle, was clearly a prophet. The Church (imo) has relegated him to a lesser status (Pope) and denied the need for or existence and potential of revelation. I believe this is a result of a mis-interpretation of Matt 16:18. The rock Jesus referred to was not Peter the man, but the revelation given unto him by the Father that Jesus was (is) the Christ. The rock is revelation given to those with keys who have been designated as prophets. Without a prophet to declare doctrine, anything and all beyond what prophets have written and taught is of man, not God. When the Church identifies a prophet, and that prophet validates the Catechism, then I will accept it as truth. I am unaware of any Pope since Peter who has declared himself a prophet with authority to speak for God as did Abraham or Moses or Isaiah or Christ or Peter, et al. Nicea had no prophet.
Beyond that, if the return of Jesus is to occur as prophecied, it stands to reason He would have a people prepared to receive Him. How is that to occur with no prophet to declare the preparations? Prior to His 1st Coming, prophets through the ages taught and tried to prepare Israel. John was called, ordained and sent out to prepare the way by teaching and baptizing. If God does not change, where are His prophets now?
This is circular reasoning. We don’t need a physical baptism if we are ignorant of the Church, so we go out and preach to the world thereby placing them in the position of needing baptism or facing a loss of salvation. That is the real non sequitur. All of which still has not answered the question of why babies are in need of baptism. If they, who are pure and can nave no comprehension of the Gospel, are in need of a physical baptism, why not everyone?
I do believe Jesus died for everyone. His Atonement is infinite. However, I also take Him at His word (which I have seen no evidence has been rescinded) when He says “EXCEPT”. That is a bright line of absoluteness which no amount of quoting from committees of learned men can refute. Except a person be baptized, they can not enter heaven. It is that plain and simple. To teach something else is to teach man’s attempt to reconcile the apparent unfairness of consigning billions who have not heard the Word nor been baptised to a fate less than salvation, hell if you prefer. All of which leads us to Paul and 1 Cor 15:29, and a doctrine which the Church long ago rejected as pagan. Paul here, in testifying of the resurrection of Christ and of our own future resurrection, confirms that baptism is necessary (absolutely) for all as reflected in the Church’s practice of baptizing for the dead.
Baptism is for the remission of sins. Only one capable of sin needs baptism. Babies can not commit sin. Therefore, they need no baptism and are saved in their purity.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Do you believe that anyone who is not baptised will go to hell? That the self-sacrifice of Jesus is wasted as far as they are concerned?
S
sandyelder
Guest
The short answer is - Yes. But, then so does the Church. The difference is in what constitutes ‘baptism’. The Church’s position, as you pointed out, is that a physical baptism is not necessary for salvation. My position is that it is. In either case, those who are not baptised do not qualify for salvation. As for hell, I believe it is a separation from God, which the unbaptised will be. Jesus’ sacrifice is for the willing. He can not, will not save them against their will. Either they are physically baptised or they are deemed baptised by virtue of their desire to follow God (according to the Church), or they are unbaptised, in which case Jesus’ sacrifice is of no effect.
The Church recognizes the absolute necessity of A baptism. But it has abandoned in practice the concept of ONE baptism, choosing to instead recognize many forms of baptism, even from those in apostasy from the Church. It also has substituted the idea that desiring to follow God is sufficient to meet the baptism requirement while rejecting the biblical practice of baptising for the dead which was done in recognition of the absolute necessity of a physical baptism, even if by proxy. “EXCEPT” There is no other way.
T
tonyrey
Guest
That is all we need to know! Thank you.
T
TKTsunami
Guest
There is a distinction to be made, here, in the meanings of the word “one”.
The Church has always confessed, yes, ONE Baptism. Once one is baptized, one is always baptized, and because of this, there is no need for another baptism. But this is referring to what is one in number (as for example, this reception of the Eucharist is different from that reception, this Host is different from that Host, this vial of holy water is different from that vial, etc.) There is also a meaning of one that pertains to kind (dog is different from cat and is one species, but you do not say dog and cat taken together are two dogs, just two species. They are the same in genus but different in species. Likewise, Baptism and Confirmation are two Sacraments of Initiation, but not two Baptisms.) In this case, it is more of the latter (Baptism under the ordinary rite, through holy water and the invocation of the Blessed Trinity, as distinct from Baptism under the extraordinary form of the direct infusion of God’s grace) but still one in respect of being Baptism.
Hence, if one is baptized in the ordinary rite, one does not receive Baptism of desire, since there is no need; likewise, if, for example, someone receives that grace (of Baptism of desire) before dying (not that this is anything but theoretical, I don’t claim to understand the particular mechanics) and then subsequently is subjected to Baptism in water by a passerby, I don’t know that the second one would be effective unto salvation, because the first Baptism is, ipso facto, their one Baptism. It would be like a baptized Catholic getting re-baptized after converting to some Protestant denomination, pointless (although not sinful on the part of the baptizer as such because of lack of knowledge of the prior Baptism.)
So it’s still one. Just saying.
The Church has always confessed, yes, ONE Baptism. Once one is baptized, one is always baptized, and because of this, there is no need for another baptism. But this is referring to what is one in number (as for example, this reception of the Eucharist is different from that reception, this Host is different from that Host, this vial of holy water is different from that vial, etc.) There is also a meaning of one that pertains to kind (dog is different from cat and is one species, but you do not say dog and cat taken together are two dogs, just two species. They are the same in genus but different in species. Likewise, Baptism and Confirmation are two Sacraments of Initiation, but not two Baptisms.) In this case, it is more of the latter (Baptism under the ordinary rite, through holy water and the invocation of the Blessed Trinity, as distinct from Baptism under the extraordinary form of the direct infusion of God’s grace) but still one in respect of being Baptism.
Hence, if one is baptized in the ordinary rite, one does not receive Baptism of desire, since there is no need; likewise, if, for example, someone receives that grace (of Baptism of desire) before dying (not that this is anything but theoretical, I don’t claim to understand the particular mechanics) and then subsequently is subjected to Baptism in water by a passerby, I don’t know that the second one would be effective unto salvation, because the first Baptism is, ipso facto, their one Baptism. It would be like a baptized Catholic getting re-baptized after converting to some Protestant denomination, pointless (although not sinful on the part of the baptizer as such because of lack of knowledge of the prior Baptism.)
So it’s still one. Just saying.
T
TKTsunami
Guest
Apostasy, eh? That’s a fine word to be idly throwing around, given the advocates of, for example, baptism of desire. Thomas Aquinas, for example, in III Q69A4:
“As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment.”
Note that he still says that they will do some hard time in Purgatory, as one may see from Dante’s Purgatorio (specifically, Ante-Purgatory, reserved for the late repenters.) But the “forgiveness of sins” is nonetheless sufficient unto salvation; not being the ordinary rite, however, it is quite poetically a bed of roses for those who receive it, including the thorny bits.
Now, I DO agree with you that people are far too casual in throwing about extraordinary forms of Baptism as though they were ordinary. We may be hopeful that our loved ones are saved, but we must recognize the true gravity of their situation, not cushion it by grasping at straws, as a cancer patient tries every possible snake oil before actually submitting to the real, painful treatment, or as we sinners go to so many empty wells before finally, having deformed ourselves to infirmity, submit, broken, to the loving Doctor.
S
sandyelder
Guest
You prove my point on apostasy.
Unless you deny the primacy of the Catholic faith, that it is in fact the inheritor of Jesus’ original Church, holding the keys of power and authority given to Peter, such a statement can not be true. John was called and ordained to baptize - he had the keys. That is why Jesus went to him. John was at Jordan because immersion is the proper form.
Protestant faiths are technically apostate faiths, having distanced themselves from the Church’s teachings. Did they take the proper power and authority with them when they left? Does God recognize all faith’s as equally valid? If so, why does not the Church recognize the baptism of “non-Christian” religions such as mormons? Clearly, the Church makes certain distinctions about what constitutes a valid baptsim. Given the prior discussion, I would think that mormons at least would qualify under a baptism of desire. Yet, even that is denied them. One can not reasonably have such a squishy position on necessity and form of baptism, then start drawing lines around what is or is not included in the concept of baptism.
I further disagree with the contorted explanation about ‘one baptism’. Jesus is the example. He established the protocol. Our charge is to follow Him. Baptism is an action symbolic of His death and resurrection. As such, it is properly performed by immersion and immersion only. By proper authority in the proper manner. We are laid down sinful into the water as if in death, then brought forth clean from sin by the blood of the Lamb (given in death) in simmilitude of a perfect resurrection. All else is rationaliztion to justify deviation (yes, apostasy) from the command that all should be, must be, physically baptised, laying down our sinful nature, rising up in obedience, which is the gate through which we enter the narrow Way and follow Him to our Father.
emphasis mine
Unless you deny the primacy of the Catholic faith, that it is in fact the inheritor of Jesus’ original Church, holding the keys of power and authority given to Peter, such a statement can not be true. John was called and ordained to baptize - he had the keys. That is why Jesus went to him. John was at Jordan because immersion is the proper form.
Protestant faiths are technically apostate faiths, having distanced themselves from the Church’s teachings. Did they take the proper power and authority with them when they left? Does God recognize all faith’s as equally valid? If so, why does not the Church recognize the baptism of “non-Christian” religions such as mormons? Clearly, the Church makes certain distinctions about what constitutes a valid baptsim. Given the prior discussion, I would think that mormons at least would qualify under a baptism of desire. Yet, even that is denied them. One can not reasonably have such a squishy position on necessity and form of baptism, then start drawing lines around what is or is not included in the concept of baptism.
I further disagree with the contorted explanation about ‘one baptism’. Jesus is the example. He established the protocol. Our charge is to follow Him. Baptism is an action symbolic of His death and resurrection. As such, it is properly performed by immersion and immersion only. By proper authority in the proper manner. We are laid down sinful into the water as if in death, then brought forth clean from sin by the blood of the Lamb (given in death) in simmilitude of a perfect resurrection. All else is rationaliztion to justify deviation (yes, apostasy) from the command that all should be, must be, physically baptised, laying down our sinful nature, rising up in obedience, which is the gate through which we enter the narrow Way and follow Him to our Father.
A
almostatheist
Guest
So, if salvation through Baptism can be granted through the desire for Baptism why create Baptism in the first place? What is the point of having a set of rules that don’t really need to be followed? Does physical Baptism matter or not?
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
Why create any set of rules? Does a set of rules have to cater for every contingency?
A set of rules obviously doesn’t need to be followed if one is not aware of its existence! In such circumstances it would be absurd and unjust to insist otherwise…
It matters to those who are aware of its significance and choose to believe that it demonstrates God’s love for us…
A
almostatheist
Guest
So, it’s not really a rule… just a suggestion?
Now you’re thinking like an agnostic.
Now you’re thinking like an agnostic.
T
tonyrey
Guest
It’s a rule for those who are aware of, and wish to follow, the teaching of Jesus.
Do you think Christians claim to understand everything?
- Status