Subject: Was it complete? |
Bible Note: Hank, I apologize for being so slow in responding to your post. I have been delayed by more pressing domestic concerns and pleasures. I must admit that I am loathe to enter into the current debate, since it seems to be going nowhere just fine without my excess energy input. I believe I saw a post by you asking if anyone's position on the question had been changed. There was not a single answer in the positive, which was no surprise since your question must have at some level been rhetorical. That being said, I will offer my thoughts on the points and questions you raised. "But the real issue about water baptism, Emmaus is, or so it seems to me, is it salvific? Is it an act, a ritual, a sacrament -- call it what you will -- without which salvation is impossible? ..The Bible clearly exalts Christ and his redemption through His shed blood on the cross as being our one and only means for justification. ...., how does all this hue and cry about the salvific properites of water baptism set with you from your perspective as a Catholic? "--Hank If one acknowledges Christ and his redemption through His shed blood on the cross as being our one and only means for justification, does that of necessity rule out water baptism as an effective and ordinary means of transmitting the grace of justification won by Christ's sacrifice on the cross? I think not. I think a case can be made for baptism as the ordinary means of the transmission of that grace in light of Jesus' own command and other verses supporting that position which have already been cited ad infinitum. But I sense something more at work here. I sense a particular priciple at work in this debate, which I have followed in only a cursory manner. That principle is the principle of exclusion or separation; the principle of "either or." It is the priciple of "faith or works", "Scripture or Tradition", "spiritual or physical." It is the principle of "alone", "faith alone", "scripture alone", "grace alone". This jumps out at me because I come from place where the inclusive principle, the "both and" is allowed to exist. "Faith and works" (properly understood), "Scripture and Tradition", "spiritual and physical" are not seen as always incompatible and always mutually exclusive, but rather integrated and inseparable, like two sides of the same coin. This is seen especially in the sacraments which we see as encounters with Christ, where God's grace is transmitted through man and matter even as it was in the Incarnation, in a certain sense the ultimate sacrament, Jesus, from whom all sacraments derive. Even the Church is a sacrament in this sense. But these are mysteries of faith that must be seen through the eyes of faith, like we see the greatest mystery, Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Not to mention the Trinity. If God would choose flesh as the means of our redemption, should we flinch to think He might choose to use matter like water as a means of tramitting the grace He secured on the cross by his physical flesh and blood? I sense a fear of the physical or created matter in the debate. As if the water would dilute or corrupt the grace flowing through it. If the Incarnation was not taken for granted in the debate, I suspect some might fear the corruption of Jesus' spirit by his flesh. I suspect some might have feared Jesus' spit and the earth he mixed it with would have corrupted his healing grace when he placed it on the eyes of the blind man. But I think this fear is all at an intuitive level that is not being articulated. I think that both sides sense that there is more at stake in this debate than just water, but just can not get past the water issue. I have already expressed my thought that baptism is not a work of man, but a work of Christ applying his saving grace to us as we encounter him in his Church. Having expressed my personal thoughts on the matter (no pun intended), I will now provide an example of the inclusive, "both and" princple in the form of offical magisterial teaching from the Catechism. The last sentence of the paragraph is as essential as the beginning and sums the paragraph. "1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.[John 3:5] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.[Matt 28:19-20] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.[Mark 16:16] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments." Emmaus |