The EENS Debates - Debate #1 Is Baptism of Desire Salvific?
Debate COMPLETED
Sunday, July 25,1999:

Positions:

Charles the Hammer: BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS NOT SALVIFIC.
Matt: BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS SALVIFIC.

Introduction, Format and
Rules are Found here


Opening Questions

Moderate2 - Very well. Matt1618, you're two minutes start now. "when" :)

Matt1618 - Council of Trent, Chapter 4 of the 6th session says about justification:
Entering the kingdom of God by desring the laver of regenreration what does that mean? Entering The Church? Entering heaven? Entering the kingdom of justification? What is the persondesiring the laver of regeneration entering? We know the laver justifies, but it also allows us to enter something...what?

Matt1618 - Done
Moderate2 - Hammer, you're two minutes start now.
Hammer - Ok, first of all, a clarification. Please post the exact quote
Matt1618 - it allows you to enter something, ...what? Ok
Hammer - I need to know what the context is
Moderate2 - Very well. Matt, please do so.
Matt1618 - This translation cannot, since the 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 THE KINGDOM OF GOD' - Entering the kingdom of God by desiring the laver of regeneration...what does that mean? Entering the Church? Entering heaven? Entering the kingdom of justification? What is session 6, chapter 4 about justification
Moderate2 - Hammer, you have 1 minute and 30 seconds left.
Hammer - Matt, the quote "Cannot enter the kingdom of God" deals with the sacrament of baptism; the "translation" that the council talks about deals with becoming justified
Hammer - I've read this quote before
Hammer - done
Moderate2 - Matt, your two minutes start now.
Matt1618 - Ok, look at the quote again.
Hammer - Ok
Matt1618 - It specifically quotes John 3:5
Hammer - Yes, it does
Hammer - May I ask a question?
Matt1618 - and it says he cannot enter the kingdom of God EXCEPT THROUGH THE LAVER OF REGENERATION OR ITS DESIRE. It is my time
Hammer - Ok
Moderate2 - Hammer, you may ask your question when Matt's time is over.
Matt1618 - It says one can only enter the kingdom through the laver of regeneration or its desire
Hammer - Ok
Matt1618 - Both are mentioned.
Hammer - No, it doesn't. I disagree.
Matt1618 - You disagree with Trent then. Read it again, chapter 4, session 6
Hammer - No, I disagree with your interpretation
Moderate2 - Matt, you have 20 seconds left.
Hammer - I've already read it four times
Matt1618 - It ain't my interpretation. It is what it says. No interruptions please during my time read it again
Hammer - ok
Matt1618 - ?What do you enter? answer the question
Hammer - Justification
Moderate2 - Matt, I am alloting extra time because of the interrruptions. You have an extra 30 seconds.
Hammer - Enter the state of Justification
Matt1618 - Be quiet. My time Ok, It says Entering the KINGDOM OF GOD BY DESIRING THE LAVER OF GENERATION OR ITS DESIRE oops. Thus, what do you enter? and explain that it says entering the kingdom of God
Moderate2 - Matt, your time is up. Are you finished?
Matt1618 - No interruptions during my time please yes
Moderate2 - Very well, please say done whereupon Hammer's time starts.
Matt1618 - done
Moderate2 - Hammer, you have two minutes.
Hammer - Matt, the quote from Trent does not say "Entering ;the KINGDOM OF GOD BY DESIRING THE LAVER OF GENERATION OR ITS DESIRE". It talks about the translation to justification, hence the phrase "This translation". You neglected to quote the previous part which deals with justification Not "entering the kingdom of God"
Hammer - done
Moderate2 - Matt, you have two minutes.
Matt1618 - This translation cannot, since the 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 THE KINGDOM OF GOD' - Read the quote. Yes, it is about justification. However, what does it do? It says specifically in John 3:5, and quotes it in reference to the laver of regeneration OR ITS DESIRE!!! How in the world do you say it is only justification when it specifically quotes John 3:5 as in support of this quote in regards to justification, but also entering the kingdom of God. So thus, if you try to quote anything else in regards to John 3:5 we must see that desire gets us into the kingdom of God.
Moderate2 - Hammer you have two minutes.
Hammer - Very well, John 3:5 states "Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God". That, by definition, deals with the sacrament, which alone has water as an element. The quote from Trent states that you cannot be justified except through the sacrament of baptism (laver), or the desire for it.
Therefore, if your interpretation is correct, that justification deals with entering the kingdom of God, then we have a contradiction between the Church and the clear words of Scripture. The only thing that I can glean from the quote is that the Council quoted Jn. 3:5, which says nothing about justification, in order to back up it's claims concerning the sacrament of baptism: In other words, you cannot be justified without the sacrament. No. Wait. Allow me to make a retraction
Moderate2 - Very well. Is that ok Matt?
Hammer - I retract the statement :"In other words, you cannot be justified without the sacrament"
Matt1618 - Ok
Hammer - I was heading into another point, but I want to stick with the rules as much as possible
Moderate2 - Very well, the statement is retracted. Are you finished?
Hammer - done
Matt1618 - real quick to moderator
Hammer - Yes
Moderate2 - Matt, you have two minutes.
Matt1618 - Am I responding now to his point? question?. Or is it time for a new question?
Moderate2 - Time for a new question. Now it's hammers' turn to ask a question.
Moderate2 - Hammer, you have two minutes
Hammer - When the Council of Trent stated "This translation...", was it dealing with salvation, or justification?
Matt1618 - No No. He just answered. It is my turn. or asked. Look above. I should be able to answer his follow-up question.
Moderate2 - Each side receives one question, and a followup question.
Hammer - Ok, I have no problem with that
Moderate2 - Very well, continue
Hammer - Let him answer, so long as I recieve the same privilege
Moderate2 - Matt, is that ok with you?
Matt1618 - Ok, again, for everybody to see It says. This translation cannot, since the 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 THE KINGDOM OF GOD' It specifically says that John 3:5, is about entering the kingdom of God and thus, how do you get there ? Well, it specifically says, by the laver of regeneration OR ITS DESIRE. And specifically quotes John 3:5. Not merely about justification. Not merely about justification. Yes, justification, but not merely about justification. It is also about entering the kingdom of God.
Matt1618 - Done
Moderate2 - Very well, Hammer you have two minutes.
Matt1618 -No interruptions to me please, audience
Hammer - I don't mean to interrupt, but may I post the quote from the Council of Trent for reference from both sides?
Matt1618 - Moderator, one thing, before we proceed
Hammer - As a reference point, may I post the entire quote, then may I continue?
Moderate2 - Very well, Just a moment Hammer. Matt, continue.
Matt1618 - I got interrupted by some people. I want no interruptions. Please warn the audience
Matt1618 - that is it
Moderate2 - Very well. Please refrain from messaging the debaters, any messengers will be banned from the channel. It distracts the debaters from the debate. Hammer, you have two minutes.
Hammer - CHAPTER IV. A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace... By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein 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 Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected...without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Hammer - Ok, there's the quote Now may I continue?
Moderate2 - Yes
Hammer - This is just for reference for both sides Now for my question
Moderate2 - Very well. You have two minutes.
Hammer - This statement has nothing to do whatsoever concerning salvation. Salvation is not mentioned at all in this paragraph. It deals ONLY with justification. Matt: Is justification the same as salvation?
Hammer - Done
Matt1618 - Of course not.
Moderate2 - Matt, you have two minutes.
Matt1618 - However, you deny what the chapter so plainly tells you. It all builds up to John 3:5, which is entering the Kingdom of God Entering the kingdom of God definitely has salvific implications. All that build up beforehand leads up to how desire fulfills John 3:5 with the water OR ITS DESIRE. So you must look at this text in regards to justification, also how in reference to entering the kingdom of God, exactly as canon 2 does , when quoting John 3:5. You must look at both texts. Not just one canon and forget the other.
Matt1618 - done
Moderate2 - Very well, Hammer, you have two minutes.
Matt1618 - Wait, when do I get to ask a question? He's getting all the questions
Moderate2 - He has only asked one question so far. He gets one followup. Whereupon it's your turn.
Matt1618 - huuh? Ok
Moderate2 - Are you finished?
Matt1618 - me, yes, done
Moderate2 - Very well, Hammer you have two minutes.
Hammer - Matt, is Justification SUFFICIENT ("Sufficient" is that condition which when present will cause an end result without the need of anything further) to enter the Kingdom of God? IF it is sufficient, then your interpretation MAY apply. Do you agree that Justification ALONE is sufficient to enter the Kingdom of God?
Hammer - Done
Moderate2 - Matt, you have two minutes
Matt1618 - Ok, If one is justified, one can get into the kingdom of God. One must obviously persevere in the state of grace in order to inherit the kingdom of God. By the way there is absolutely no mention in all of the decrees of Trent, where anybody used the word salvation. I meant session 6. sorry On all the mention of session 6. There is absolutely no mention of a baptismal character or even the word salvation used But of course it talks about how one must persevere to the end. But nowhere does it says salvation anywhere so there is no reason to expect it to show up here. I mean in session 6
Matt1618 - done
Moderate2 - Very well, Hammer you have one follow-up response then it's Matt's turn to ask a question. You have two minutes.
Hammer - Point of order: I asked the question: "Do you agree that Justification alone is sufficient to enter the Kingdom of God". The question should have been answered "yes" or "no".
Matt1618 - I answered
Hammer - Matt, your answer was unclear.
Matt1618 - but One must stay justified. Yes. No baptismal character is necessary
Moderate2 - Matt, please answer yes or no to the question.
Matt1618 - Yes
Hammer - Very well, so we understand that Justification is sufficient. We can proceed now
Moderate2 - Thank you. Hammer, you have one follow up response then it's Matt's turn to ask a question. Your two minutes start now.
Hammer - Since justification, according to Matt, is sufficient for salvation, and that the baptismal character isn't necessary, we must presume that subjection to the Pope is not necessary; neither is holding the Catholic Faith; neither is being incorporated into the Church; Neither is belief in and honor of Our Lady necessary.
Hammer - Done
Matt1618 - off topic not on baptism of desire. I did not agree to change of topic. The issue is baptism of desire.
Moderate2 - Very well, we shall clarify this issue before proceeding.
Matt1618 - Not on invincible ignorance
Hammer - Point of order: We were dealing with entering the Kingdom of God; by definition, those things which deal with entering the Kingdom of God can certainly be mentioned within the confines of this debate
Matt1618 - or whatever. But it is in reference to baptism, or baptism of desire
Hammer - I made no change of topic whatsoever.
Matt1618 - This is a change of subject by bod (bod means baptism of desire) or not. It has to do with water or not. This brings up invincible ignorance, blood baptism, etc. which is off topic. Water or not is the debate on.
Hammer - Matt, the topic is "Is Baptism of Desire Salvific?" The topic deals with salvation, which, by definition, encompasses everything which is required to obtain that status.
Moderate2 - The topic of the debate is "Is Baptism of Desire Salvific?"
According to preagreement. According to the topic, this does not refer to water, the debaters may use any argument showing whether or not Baptism of Desire is salvific.
Matt1618 - I asked you specifically before hand in email and you said we would not want to get into invincible ignorance until this is settled. It is not settled
Hammer - Matt, did I mention invincible ignorance? Not at all
Matt1618 - I have lots of questions for you. on this issue of water baptism or not water baptism. Submitting to the Pope, etc. does get into that.
Hammer - We were dealing with Justification, salvation, and sufficiency. YOU stated that it IS sufficient for salvation. I hold that it is NOT. In other words, correct me if I'm wrong, YOU have a right to prove your side, but I haven't the right to prove mine?
Matt1618 - No, I agreed to stay on the topic that you yourself wanted it limited to
Hammer - Matt, please state the topic
Matt1618 - Is Baptism of Desire Salvific. Look at your definition at your web page
Hammer - Very well... and you are here to prove that it is, correct? Correct ? I would like to make an appeal to the Moderator: The topic is "Is Baptism of Desire Salvific?? Therefore,
Matt1618 - : In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition or perfect love, and the simultaneous desire for baptism.(Catholic Encyclopedia, 1976, p. 159).
Hammer - Matt's job is to prove that it is, my job is to prove that it isn't.
Matt1618 - simultaneous desire for baptism. See that, that is the topic. And I specifically emailed you questions on that matter
Hammer - Matt, that's the definition of Baptism of Desire, that's not the topic
Matt1618 - Huh?
Hammer - The topic is "Is baptism of desire salvific"
Matt1618 - You open up a can of worms
Hammer - We already defined what the term "Baptism of Desire means" That is understood. You hold that it is sufficient. I hold that it is not
Matt1618 - yes. the desire for baptism . yep
Moderate2 - As stated above, the topic for the debate is "Is Baptism of Desire Salvific?" The definition which was brought up, was a definition of the term "Baptism of Desire," not the topic in itself. The debate is on whether or not that is salvific.
Matt1618 - Not on whether or how one submits to the Pope. Boy, that is getting into technicalities.
Hammer - Therefore, Matt, if I'm to prove that it is NOT sufficient, I must be able to do so, provided we stay on topic. That's exactly what we did. I simply showed how justification is not sufficient for salvation, but that other things are required. Matt, what precisely are your objections? I want to clarify this problem so we can move on
Matt1618 - This does not specifically deal with baptism, in which I am prepared to discuss for 2 1/2 hours. Not on how or why one must submit to the Pope. That is a whole other night
Hammer - Ok, so this deals with Baptism of Desire and salvation, period. Agreed? The thing about submission to the pope was added to prove that justification is not sufficient, but that other things are required. Again, so our discussion deals with Baptism of Desire and Salvation, agreed?
Matt1618 - Go ahead, but I have objections on record as a change of topic
Hammer - Matt, I'm trying to clarify things; please cooperate
Matt1618 - Ok, go ahead, do your follow-up question
Hammer - So this discussion deals solely with Baptism of Desire and Salvation, agreed?
Matt1618 - again
Hammer - Ok, here goes
Matt1618 - just on record objection.
Hammer - I think it's your turn to ask a question, Matt
Moderate2 - It is Matt1618's turn to ask a question.
Matt1618 - Ok
Moderate2 - Matt, you have two minutes
Matt1618 - Many from your side quote canon 2 on baptism in relation to John 3:5. However, this very verse in John 3:5 is used in chapter 4, which shows that the desire of baptism justifies, makes one a child of God, and according to Trent, enters the kingdom of God. When Trent quotes John 3:5 in canon 2, we must also consider John 3:5 in relation to chapter 4. You say that bod is a twisting into a metaphor. Did the Council err in the infallible decree in chapter 4 on justification where it specifically says he enters the kingdom of God, and twist John 3:5 in to a metaphor, or do you err in your interpretation of canon 2?
Matt1618 - done
Moderate2 - Hammer, you have two minutes.
Hammer - Matt, I totally disagree again. Trent did NOT say "He (the justified) Enters the Kingdom of God." The quote and the statement from Trent are mutually exclusive. I hold and state that there is no error in Trent, but that the error comes solely from your interpretation. Again, Trent does not say "One who is justified enters the Kingdom of God". It simply makes a statement, gives a quote, but does not explain what the quote means in relation to the topic. No sir.
Hammer - Done
Moderate2 - Very well, Matt you have two minutes.
Matt1618 - Ok, let us see one more time:
After the introduction, chapter 4 specifically says, what all this is about. Quotation: This translation cannot, since the 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 theHoly Ghost, he CANNOT ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD' See what the desire does? It is specifically tied into getting into the kingdom of God. How can you run away from what it specifically says? It is the same quotation, John 3:5. And says the laver of regeneration OR ITS DESIRE in reference to the kingdom of God
Matt1618 - done
Moderate2 - Very well, hammer you have two minutes.
Hammer - I'm not certain what the question was, but I will deal with the issue: IF this quote deals with the salvation of the Justified, without the need for water baptism, then I answer Matt's interpretation with the following quote from the Canons of the Sacred Council, Canon 5, Session 7 on the Sacrament of Baptism: If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." IF Justification is sufficient, THEN we must conclude that the water is NOT necessary. However, Trent says that it is. The conclusion that I reach is that Matt is in error regarding his interpretation, and that the actual text
Hammer - 20 more seconds, please
Moderate2 - Matt, is that ok?
Matt1618 - Not really, but you tried :) Very well Continue. Go on ask your question
Hammer - Moderator, is it my turn to ask a question?
Moderate2 - Yes, it is. You have two minutes. Very well
Hammer - Matt, You said that Justification is sufficient for salvation; Trent says that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. In other words, you are saying that Justification is sufficient, and that the sacrament is NOT necessary for salvation. The question is, do you hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is NOT necessary for salvation?
Hammer - Done
Moderate2 - Matt, you have two minutes.
Matt1618 - No. I don't hold it as unnecessary for salvation However, the baptism of desire ,as St. Pius X says can suffice to take its place. The grace is absolutely necessary but what it does is justifies. And only perseverance will one be saved. I am baptized, but that does not necessarily suffice for salvation. perseverance is necessary. I answer as the Pope St. Pius X did Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord said "(John 3:5) "The absence of baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called baptism of blood, or of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." That is what the Sainted Pope answered in reference to your question.
Matt1618 - done
Hammer - Point of order. I see a clear contradiction in Matt's theology. I ask the Moderator to allow us to clarify this contradiction in view of preagreement # 4. The contradiction that I see is that Matt says 1) Justification (and nothing else) is SUFFICIENT for salvation. 2) "I do not hold it (the sacrament) as unnecessary for salvation. IF Justification is sufficient for salvation, then the sacrament is not needed. I see a contradiction here, and
Moderate2 - Just a moment Hammer. Matt do you require more time?
Matt1618 - oops, I can't see anything
Hammer - Ok, you said "The grace is absolutely necessary"
Matt1618 - hello, I can't see any text
Hammer - That's not what I asked I think you're lagged, Matt
Matt1618 - Please repost your response to me. or did you respond to my answer?
Hammer - Point of order. I see a clear contradiction in Matt's theology. I ask the Moderator to allow us to clarify this contradiction in view of preagreement # 4. The contradiction that I see is that Matt says 1) Justification (and nothing else) is SUFFICIENT for salvation. 2) "I do not hold it (the sacrament) as unnecessary for salvation. IF Justification is sufficient for salvation, then the sacrament is not needed. I see a contradiction here, and ask that it be clarified
Matt1618 - The desire for the grace is sufficient.
Moderate2 - Very well, we shall continue on and clarify this issue before proceeding.
Hammer - Matt, that's not what you said
Matt1618 - The desire for the sacrament was sufficient.
Hammer - I asked you if Justification was sufficient for salvation, you said "yes" Allow me to continue, please I asked you if Justification was sufficient for salvation, you said "yes"
Matt1618 - Ok
Hammer - I define sufficient as: "Sufficient" is that condition which when present will cause an end result without the need of anything further. Do you agree with this definition?
Matt1618 - No
Matt1618 - I said specifically that. Perseverance in the state of justification was necessary
Hammer - Ok, I posted this definition earlier, and you didn't object, so I assumed that you accepted it. Please define the word "Sufficient" as you mean it
Matt1618 - I am not a Calvinist. One must stay in the state of grace, and stay justified in order to inherit salvation.
Hammer - I never said you were, please define the word "Sufficient"
Matt1618 - Nothing more than a state of grace is sufficient. Baptismal character is not necessary is my point
Moderate2 - Matt, define the word sufficient according to rule number 7.
"Both sides must promise to define any terms used, when asked to do so by either the opposition, or the moderator."
Hammer - Matt, I asked you if Justification is sufficient. Justification is the same as the State of Grace. I asked you to define the word "Sufficient" for me
Matt1618 - Persistence in a state of grace, according to the question which is justification that is sufficient
Hammer - Matt, I think you're misunderstanding me. The word Sufficient".... please define that word for me
Moderate2 - Matt, define the word sufficient according to rule number 7.
"Both sides must promise to define any terms used, when asked to do so by either the opposition, or the moderator."
Matt1618 - That which one can enter the kingdom. Perseverance in a state of grace. That is my definition I don't have a dictionary with me
Hammer - Matt, go to the dictionary, look up the word "Sufficient", and post it , please
Hammer - Very well, then I will go to the dictionary, look it up, and post the definition, and we'll see if we can agree on the definition, ok? Ok, I'll wait
Matt1618 - Enough to meet the needs of the situation. I define specifically as Perseverance in a state of grace. That is sufficient. Justification. It can't get any clearer than that
Hammer - Ok, "Enough to meet the needs of the situation", I agree with that definition of the word "Sufficient"
Matt1618 - When one is in a state of justification, he is in the state of grace Ok, whose turn is it?
Moderate2 - Very well, the word has been defined. Continue.
Hammer - I asked you earlier, and we can consult the log if you wish, "Is justification sufficient for salvation"; you said "yes", and you stated that one must persevere in that state. I agree NOW....To the question "Do you hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation," you answered:
Hammer -You said: 'No. I don't hold it as unnecessary for salvation.' In other words, correct me if I'm wrong, you hold that it IS necessary for salvation, agreed?'
Matt1618 - do I get 2 minutes now?
Hammer - Matt, I'm trying to clarify a contradiction, please cooperate
Moderate2 - Just a moment Matt, Hammer issued a point of order, we must clarify this issue before continuing.
Matt1618 - Yes. In the context that I stated earlier
Moderate2 - According to the rules, Hammer has the right to ask for clarification of a contradiction. According to rule number 4. "Any contradictions must be resolved before continuing."
Matt1618 - I already answered
Hammer - Matt, I asked you if the sacrament (an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace) of Baptism was necessary ("Necessary" is that quality of something without which the end result cannot occur) for salvation (entry into the Beatific Vision; i.e., Heaven) You said that it was not "unnecessary"; I must conclude that you hold it to be a necessary condition for salvation, is this correct?
Matt1618 - However, as stated earlier, by quoting chapter 4 of the canon on justification
Hammer - Matt, please answer "yes" or "no"
Matt1618 - Yes, as answered earlier. Ok, my turn to ask?
Hammer - Ok, so you hold the sacrament as a necessary condition for salvation. However, you also stated that one can be saved without the sacrament, i.e., via justification
Moderate2 - Just a moment, Hammer are you finished?
Hammer - There is a contradiction here. Please clarify it
Matt1618 - I clarify it by stating that the sacramental effects are necessary. This can be done through the desire for it
Hammer - Ok, so the effects of baptism are necessary, but the sacrament itself is not, correct? Is this an accurate assumption?
Matt1618 - The desire for it is necessary. we are all required to follow Christ's ordinances unless prevented by circumstance.
Hammer - Ok... .hold on a second. First you said the sacrament was necessary, then you said the sacramental effects are necessary, now you say the desire for it is necessary.> Please choose one position and stick to it The three choices are mutually exclusive I can't debate you unless I understand your position... please state it concretely Hello?
Matt1618 - I say that the effects of the sacrament are necessary. Thus, it is still tied into the sacrament being necessary for salvation. It is not either/or
Hammer - Matt, can one have the effects without the sacrament?
Matt1618 - In relation to salvation, yes.
Hammer - Then the sacrament isn't necessary, is it? All one needs is the effects; he does not need to receive the sacrament, correct?
Matt1618 - I should get 2 minutes now. I've answered concretely.
Hammer - Matt, we are still trying to clarify a contradiction. Preagreement 4 says we cannot continue until it is clarified. We must resolve this Matt, can one have the effects without the sacrament?
Matt1618 - 'It is not either/or. One can not separate the effects from the sacrament itself.
Matt1618 - In relation to salvation, yes
Hammer - Then the sacrament isn't necessary, is it? All one needs is the
Moderate2 - As long as there is an apparent contradiction, both sides must abide by rule number 4. "Any contradictions must be resolved before continuing." Once the issue is resolved, we can continue.
Hammer - effects; he does not need to receive the sacrament, correct?
Matt1618 - One can not separate the effects from the sacrament itself.
Hammer - very good. Is this your position?
Matt1618 - yes
Hammer - Very well
Matt1618 - Now, whose turn to ask question?
Hammer - Now I will ask my second question, and turn it back to you
Matt1618 - ok
Moderate2 - Hammer still has one follow-up question, whereupon you may ask your question. The above was a point of order, not a question.
Moderate2 - Hammer, you have two minutes.
Hammer - You hold that "One can not separate the effects from the sacrament itself". Now, If one cannot separate the effects from the sacrament, how does one receive the effects via Desire without receiving the sacrament itself?
Hammer - Done
Moderate2 - Matt, you have two minutes.
Matt1618 - Well, for example we know that one can be justified through the laver of regeneration or its desire. Now, we agree that baptism of desire justifies. Yet we see what justification is. Here is what Trent says about justification. "JUSTIFICATION is NOT ONLY A REMISSION OF SINS BUT ALSO THE SANCTIFICATION AND RENEWAL OF THE INWARD MAN through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an UNJUST MAN BECOMES JUST and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be AN HEIR ACCORDING TO HOPE OF LIFE EVERLASTING." Through desire for baptism one is in a state of grace and heir to eternal life. This is the effects of the sacrament, without the sacrament itself
Moderate2 - Hold. Matt, did you just cut-and-paste the above statement?
Matt1618 - I am sorry, I did so. I broke the rule. I apologize. I needed to get it into two minutesI couldn't find it. Will the moderator accept my apology
Moderate2 - Very well. This is your first warning. And only a warning. If you required more time, you could have requested it. :)
Matt1618 - I broke my own rule :(
Moderate2 - Apology accepted.
Matt1618 - Ok,, that was my answer . done. Now do I get to ask a question?
Moderate2 - Very well, Hammer you have one follow up statement whereupon it is Matt's turn to ask a question.
Matt1618 - It is my turn
Moderate2 - In the second question you asked in the beginning of the debate, you received a follow-up response. And it was permitted, under condition that the Hammer receive the same privilege.
Matt1618 - Wait a minute, how come the guy who asks the question gets to make the last statement? Did I get the last statement when I asked a question?
Moderate2 - The second question you asked in the beginning of the debate, your received permission to post a follow-up response. Under the condition that the same privilege be given to Hammer.
Matt1618 - Ok, go ahead
Moderate2 - Hammer, do you wish to give a follow-up response? Or will you permit Matt1618 to continue and ask his question?
Hammer - You hold that one cannot separate the effects from the Sacrament itself. The effects of the Sacrament are 1) Sanctifying Grace (i.e., the state of Justification) 2) remission of Sins 3) The Sacramental Character which incorporates one into the Church. Yet, you hold that one can receive some of the effects of the Sacrament via Baptism of Desire, without receiving the Sacrament. The only conclusion that can be reached is that 1) the effects CAN be separated from the sacrament itself, and 2) that the sacrament is NOT necessary for salvation. We have one contradiction, and one denial of the clear words of Canon 5 of the Council of Trent.
Hammer - Done
Moderate2 - Matt, you have two minutes. :)
Matt1618 - Trent 7th session, canon 4 - If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the DESIRE OF THEM men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.
Trent infallibly declares that the desire for the sacrament, puts one in a state of justification, thus meriting salvation. Why does it mention the desire for the sacrament on the same terms as thesacrament itself in reference to salvation, and absolutely no mention of a baptismal character as necessary for it?
Matt1618 - done
Moderate2 - Very well, Hammer you have two minutes.
Hammer - hahahaha! This canon states 1) If anyone says that the Sacraments of the New Law are NOT necessary for SALVATION ---- OR-----2)that without them or without the DESIRE THEREOF men obtain of God through Faith alone the GRACE OF JUSTIFICATION... let him be anathema. In other words, the SACRAMENTS are necessary for SALVATION, but the desire of them can give the GRACE OF JUSTIFICATION. I agree totally. The sacraments are necessary for SALVATION, but Justification can be had with only the Desire. I totally agree.This canon says NOTHING about the desire for the sacrament meriting Salvation. It says JUSTIFICATION. The Sacraments of the New law are Necessary for SALVATION.IN answer to the question, Trent says the Sacraments are necessary for SALVATION, but that one can have JUSTIFICATION with only the desire of them. It says nothing about desire/Justification =Salvation
Hammer - Done
Moderate2 - Matt, you have two minutes.
Matt1618 - He didn't answer the question moderator.
Moderate2 - Hold.
Matt1618 - why no mention of baptismal character as necessary for salvation
Moderate2 - Matt, Please reask the question yet again, concisely and clearly.
Matt1618 - And why is the desire for the sacraments are put on the same term as the sacrament itself. No difference in the statements. Why no baptismal character mentioned? Ok, answer
Moderate2 - Very well, Hammer you have two minutes.
Hammer - The reason there was no mention of Baptism Character as necessary for salvation is that this was covered, and implied, in the phrase: "The sacraments of the New Law are NECESSARY FOR SALVATION". One of the Sacraments of the New Law is BAPTISM. The second Question you asked: "Why is the desire for the sacraments put on the same term as the Sacrament itself." Answer: It is not. The canon says the sacraments are necessary for salvation (entry into heaven) and that the desire of them can obtain Justification (State of Grace). Salvation and Justification are not on the same level, nor is it the same "term".
Hammer - Done
Moderate2 - Matt, you have two minutes
Matt1618 - No. He doesn't see that the desire for the sacraments are put on the same terms as the sacrament itself. Thus, the desire achieves the same purpose according to this specific canon.
Moderate2 - Matt, you have two minutes.
Matt1618 - Ok. See the sacraments is put on the same plain as the desire thereof.
Hammer - Point of order.... Matt, you don't find my answer sufficient.
repost the canon, and we'll go over it together and reach an answer. Is this ok with you?

Moderate2 - Hold. Matt, is this ok with you?
Matt1618 - I will have a follow-up
Moderate2 - Yes, after this clarification.
Hammer - I want to answer your questions as concisely as I can; you don't find my answer sufficient, so rather than have you lose your question, we'll go over it. Agreed
Hammer - Repost the canon, please
Matt1618 - The desire and the sacrament produce the same effect. One can only look at the decrees of baptism when looked through not. only chapter 4, where we saw that one enters the kingdom of God, but this infallible canon as well. Can you name one magisterial document whenanalyzing this specific decree says that the desire for the sacraments do not suffice for salvation while only the sacrament does? If not, why should not say that the desire for the sacrament has the same effect in regards to salvation as baptism, as this canon specifically says
Hammer - Matt, please repost the canon (#4), and we can go over it together.... remember, we are still on your original question
Matt1618 - I got to find it one sec
Moderate2 - Ok.
Hammer - ok
Matt1618 - I am cutting and pasting here, Ok?
Hammer - That's fine
Matt1618 - If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the DESIRE OF THEM men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.
Moderate2 - Very well, both sides have agreed. That's fine
Hammer - May I comment on the quote, Matt?
Matt1618 - sure, take 2 minutes done
Moderate2 - Hammer, you have two minutes.
Hammer - The first clause states: "If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous," This states that the SACRAMENTS are necessary for SALVATION. The second clause says: "and that without them or without the DESIRE OF THEM men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA." This states that with the desire of the sacraments, men can obtain the GRACE OF JUSTIFICATION (It doesn't say salvation).
Hammer - In other words, ONE says the sacraments are required for salvation, the second one says that one may be JUSTIFIED (not saved) via the desire of the sacraments.
Moderate2 - Your time is up, do you require more?
Hammer - Do you understand what I'm saying, Matt? Yes, I'm done. Done
Moderate2 - Very well, Matt you have two minutes.
Matt1618 - Ok, but it still doesn't explain how in this very clause how the desire for them, and the sacrament itself achieves the same thing
Hammer - Matt, it doesn't say they achieve the same thing.
Matt1618 - interruption
Hammer - Sawry
Matt1618 - moderator? How much time I get back?
Moderate2 - Hammer, will you please refrain from interrupting the other debater? First warning. You've still got one minute, we're giving you ten seconds more, due to the interruption.
Matt1618 - It specifically says that the sacraments and the desire for them WITHOUT mentioning any difference as to the effects. Just like earlier, in chapter 4, we see the laver or regeneration OR ITS DESIRE producing the same effects And no differentiation between the two at all. No mention of character at all. Right in the midst of it talking about salvation. It is significant.
Moderate2 - Matt, your time is up, do you require more?
Matt1618 - Nope, my statement finished
Matt1618 - done
Moderate2 - Very well, Hammer you have two minutes.
Hammer - Am I responding or am I asking a question?
Moderate2 - You are asking a question.
Matt1618 - One point of order before we proceed?
Moderate2 - Hold. Matt, go ahead.
Matt1618 - I am ready to go to 11:30 if Hammer wants to. Otherwise we would have to go to closing statements already.
Moderate2 - Very well, Hammer is that ok with you?
Hammer - Sure.... 11:30. Can I ask my question now?
Moderate2 - Very well. Proceed Hammer. You have two minutes. You have 20 seconds left.
Hammer - That's ridiculous! It certainly DOES mention the difference as to the effects. The effects of the Sacraments is SALVATION, the effects of the Desire is JUSTIFICATION. Salvation = Entry into heaven; Justification = State of Grace. The difference is certainly there.Let's look at it again: "If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are notnecessary for (NOTE: THE EFFECTS OF THE SACRAMENTS IS SALVATION) salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the DESIRE OF THEM men obtain from God through faith alone the (NOTE: THE EFFECTS OF THE DESIRE IS THE GRACE OF JUSTIFICATION) grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA."
Hammer - Question: Is Justification (the State of Grace) and Salvation (entry into heaven) the same thing? Are they synonyms? No sir
Hammer - Done
Moderate2 - Very well, Matt you have two minutes.
Matt1618 - Ok, look at the statement. Notice that it specifically says WITHOUT THEM OR THE DESIRE FOR THEM they produce the effects of justification. But it specifically is tied into the question of salvation. With nothing saying anything specifically in this canon about a difference between the two. Again, no mention of one being greater than the other specifically in regards to the very same issue. One can not separate them, according to this very decree or canon..
Done.
Moderate2 - Hammer, you have two minutes.
Hammer - You didn't answer my question, Matt: The question was: "Is Justification (The State of Grace) and Salvation (Entry into Heaven) the same thing? Are they synonyms? Please answer the question. Answer the question clearly and precisely, and I'll ask my next question
Moderate2 - Hold
Matt1618 - No, not the same thing
Moderate2 - Matt, please answer the question.
Hammer - Thank you. Now my next question:
Matt1618 - However, the effects of them are the same thing. sorry
Moderate2 - Hammer, you have two minutes.
Hammer - When the canon says "Without them or the desire of them" all it is saying is that one can be justified via the sacraments or the desire of them. That is, placed in the state of grace. It does not say that both of them grant salvation.
Hammer - The question is this:
Since Justification and Salvation are NOT the same thing, and since the desire of the sacraments do NOT grant salvation (as this effect was excluded in the canon), are you saying that one can be saved via the DESIRE of the sacraments, WITHOUT receiving the Sacraments themselves (i.e., that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation?)
Hammer - Done
Moderate2 - Matt, you have two minutes.
Hammer - No sir
Matt1618 - wait a sec. I must read (what he wrote), I may need more time
Moderate2 - Very well.
Hammer - Ok. Of course, all he has to do is answer "yes" or "no"
Matt1618 - Yes. However, we went through this before, Now can I answer?
Hammer - Yes
Moderate2 - Yes.
Matt1618 - Ok, Now look at it again. It begins to be about salvation and then it specifically puts the sacrament, and the desire for the sacraments on the very same terms. Absolutely no difference between the two in reference to the very opening thing that has to do with salvation.
Matt1618 - done
Moderate2 - Very well, Hammer you have two minutes to reply, then it's Matt's turn.
Hammer - My follow-up Response: Again, the effects of the sacaments are salvation AND justification, the effects of the desire for them is simply JUSTIFICATION. The canon does NOT say they grant salvation. IF one can be saved with just the desire for the sacraments,without receiving the sacraments themselves, then Matt is saying that the sacraments are NOT necessary for salvation, and thus falls under the Anathema of the Canon. UNLESS he says that the reception of the sacraments is indeed essential for salvation, in which case his argument is lost.
Hammer - Done
Moderate2 - Very well, Matt you have two minutes to ask your question
Matt1618 - Ok, do I have a question now, or do I answer?
Matt1618 - Now, Hammer, in the 400 years since the canons and decrees of the council of Trent. Do you have one person , saint or Pope, who ever said that the distinctions between justification and salvation is made on baptism. That one can be justified by the desire, but one will go to hell, unless he gets water baptized. This is the Foundation of Father Feeney's theology. Can you give me one person who makes the distinction that desire will only produce hell?
Matt1618 - Done. Understand the question?

Moderate2 - Hammer, you have two minutes.
Hammer - Yes, I do. Matt: Since the council, there has been no debate over the issue. However, if you look up in any theology book, even Dr. Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma", which supports Baptism of Desire as being salvific, and look up the differences between Salvation and Justification, the distinction is very clear.
Hammer - It's a question of word definition; Trent used the words Justification and Salvation for a reason; there is a distinction, they are not synonyms. Look them up in a Catholic Dictionary if you don't believe me
Hammer - Done

Moderate2 -
Matt, you have two minutes.
Matt1618 - He doesn't answer the point, or misunderstands me
Moderate2 - Hold.
Hammer - Please clarify
Moderate2 - Matt, please clarify. You have two minutes.
Matt1618 - I said specifically in regards to whether a Saint says, that one is justified, but if he dies without being baptized, he automatically is condemned to hell. St. Liquori calls it de fide, on baptism of desire for example. Ok, see where I am going?
Hammer - Clarification: In other words, you're asking me "where does the justified person go, who hasn't received baptism, after he dies?" Is this what you're asking?
Moderate2 - Are you finished Matt?
Matt1618 - go ahead
Hammer - Is that what you're asking?
Moderate2 - Very well, Hammer you have two minutes.
Hammer - Hold on a minute. I'm trying to understand the question
Matt1618 - Where does anybody in the last 400 years say that the desire is only for justification. Yet, one needs the baptismal character in order to get to heaven. And otherwise he goes to hell
Moderate2 - Hammer, you have two minutes.
Hammer - The council of Trent says that, Matt. Canon 4, which you referred to, states that the "Desire thereof can obtain of God the grace of justification". IF They both obtained salvation AND justification, then why not just say: "If anyone says the sacraments or the desirethereof are not necessary for salvation... etc.,"? There IS a distinction here....
Moderate2 - Hammer, your time is up, do you require more?
Hammer - The reason one needs the baptism character to obtain salvation is because 1) Trent defined infallibly that the Sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation, and that the only effect of this sacrament that isn't received by desire is the Character (which joins one to the Church). Therefore, since the sacrament is necessary for salvation, and since the only difference between the sacrament and the desire is this character, we MUST conclude that the character is essential, for by it we become Catholics
Hammer - Done. Does that answer your Q sufficiently?
Moderate2 - Very well, Matt, you have two minutes.
Matt1618 -. Maybe you must you can not produce one person, pope or saint, that says that if one is justified, but if he dies without baptism, he goes to hell. I guess the answer is no. What you say must be done just can not be represented by any pope, saint or council. You give us a good rendition of Father Feeney's theology. However, no one says what you say?
Matt1618 - done
Moderate2 - Hammer, you have two minutes.
Hammer - Oh, ok! I understand what you're saying... there is no one who says that, because one can not die in the state of grace without receiving the sacrament of baptism. It's impossible. If you wish me to explain why, it may take several minutes
Hammer - Done
Matt1618 - Ok, who's next?
Moderate2 - Very well, we have two minutes to the end of the debate. Do you wish to prolong it?
Matt1618 - and where are we at. We each have statements? Ok, let us close.
Moderate2 - Yes, your closing statement comes first. Then the Hammer.
Hammer - Hmmmmmmmmm
Matt1618 - Ok, what's up hammer?
Hammer - How long is the closing statement?
Matt1618 - Wait, who gets it when? Hammer, you want the first closing statement?
Moderate2 - Matt received first question, therefore Hammer receives the final closing statement.
Matt1618 - Oops I lost the text
Hammer - No, we agreed that I get the final one, since you asked the first question
Moderate2 - As was preagreed.
Matt1618 - Time is on us now
Moderate2 - Do you wish to prolong the closing statement time to four minutes?
Hammer - That's fine
Matt1618 - No, two minutes is fine
Hammer - Matt?
Matt1618 - Ok, just who starts, me? Say when, mod
Moderate2 - Very well, Matt you have two minutes.
Matt1618 - Ok, in this debate we saw that Hammer did not deal with the issue of chapter 4 on Trent. It specifically says through the regeneration or its desire, one can enter the kingdom of God. His pointing to other canons ignored that very fact. The same thing in regards to the other canon (canon 4 of the canon on the sacraments) as well. And we saw that the effects of them were the same. Pointing to other issues avoided the concrete facts that we saw. And I specifically showed that the effects of the sacrament can not be separated from the sacrament itself
Moderate2 - Hammer, you have two minutes.
Hammer - On the contrary, chapter four states that one can only reach the state of justification via the sacraments or the desire thereof. It gives Jn. 3:5, but does not explain why it was there. However, since the Council infallibly defined that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation, we must hold that no one can attain the kingdom of God without this sacrament, for it alone, and not the desire of it, procurse re-birth by WATER and the HOLY GHOST. ONLY the sacrament has these two items. Regarding the other canon that Matt referred to, I sufficiently explained how the text referred to salvation as the effects of the sacraments, and justification as the effects of the desire of it. "God provides Baptism to ALL His elect" (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
Hammer - Done

Moderate2 - Very well. The debate is over, good work gentleman.

Page created: Matt

RETURN

Return to Debate Page


RETURN

Return to Matt's Catholic Apologetics Page


RETURN

Go to Matt’s Ultratraditionalist Page