baptism

[Cynic]

Mark,

I think I understand your words quite well. My previous post states what strongly seems to be what you have communicated as being RC doctrine, at least as it has surfaced in the varying cases of baptized infants and "properly disposed," but unbaptized persons.

Edited November 26, 2005 by Cynic

[Cynic]

Oh, and I'll be happy to take another brewski!

NO CALVINUS FOR YOU!!!

(Well, at least till you’ve gone through a six-pack or two of canned purgatory.)

Edited November 26, 2005 by Cynic

[markomalley]

Mark,

I think I understand your words quite well. My previous post states what strongly seems to be what you have communicated as being RC doctrine, at least as it has surfaced in the varying cases of baptized infants and "properly disposed," but unbaptized persons.

Cynic, you summarized my statements as follows:

but that regeneration is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation.

In the post you were summarizing, I said the following:

Having said this, the Church has always held that God

can

save an individual who is not baptized, but who is properly disposed but who hasn't yet received the sacrament (The classic example is that of a catechumen). So the direct answer is no, but...regeneration is not the same as salvation.

I bolded the word "can" to emphasize it, because it was apparently missed when you read it before. You must of mis-read the word "can" as "will." There is a difference between the two. "Can" implies that the object is possible. "Will" implies a condition of certainty.

I made this much greater detail in an earlier post on this thread:

---

Raf, you are missing the point I am getting at. I truly believe that baptism is an essential sacrament. That much hasn't changed. However, I also believe that God is truly merciful and that his mercy passes what I am capable of understanding. As a Catholic, we are often confronted with the question, what about somebody who lives a good life, intuitively understands that there is a creator, and endeavors to live his life in true reverence to that creator and in love to his fellow man. But this person has never heard the name of Jesus Christ. So is this person condemned to eternal damnation? The pat answer is that we believe that God is a God of mercy and that the judgement on this person will be less severe than that of a person who, knowing God, decides to reject Him. And, in fact, God's mercy may be such that this theoretical person who has never heard the name of Christ but who lived a "Christian"-like life may end up in heaven.

Note the words: may and could. Not will and shall. There is a difference.

That's why I worded my response as follows:

...Having said that, a person could be improperly taught...and that fact would change everything.

That fact

would

, in fact, change everything. Then the person may be dealt with as one who is ignorant, like the person who hasn't ever heard the name of Christ but who lived a good and proper life.

But what situation is that person in? A big maybe. If. Could. Hopefully.

Is that the same as saying it's not necessary? Not hardly.

The difference is that I am not willing to provide the condemnation to anybody. You won't find ME making a judgement that a person is going to hell. God is merciful. And its not my place to decline that mercy to anybody.

But knowing and trusting in God's mercy is different than remaining in

intentional

ignorance in order to FORCE God's mercy. There

is

a difference.

---

Hopefully that clarifies matters a bit for you.

[Mark Clarke]

Mark Clarke,

What the heck. This thread is pretty much baptised in beer anyway.

If we used the hard stuff, would it be a baptism of "spirits"?

[Raf]

Which, I think we can all agree, is often absolutely necessary!

[dmiller]

Never mind.

(edited cause this post made no sense.) :)

Edited November 29, 2005 by dmiller

[GarthP2000]

(edited cause this post made no sense.)

*Somebody's* been into a few too many Calvinus's.