John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

MRyan Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:35 pm

John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature%20-%20Salza%20v%20Goddard%20on%20Baptism%20of%20Desire.pdf

Columba (in particular), please take the time to read this debate.

columba Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:33 pm

Mike I had a cursory look through that article. I'll get a more detailed read when I have time to do so.
The first thing that struck me was the fact that this is not the actual debate itself but rather John Salza's explanation of why he believes Warren Goddard was defeated.
If it were an independent review of the debate I think it would be a more credible read. I've seen this happen in Dimond bros debates where afterwards they give their assessment of the exchange as usually does their opponent and when one reads or listens to the post-debate comments from either side, one could almost wonder if they were talking about the same debate.

Despite this being Salza's own assessment I'm sure it gives a pretty accurate account of the contents of the debate and what was discussed but I believe a different assessment would be given by Goddard in his rerview.
I found some of his references (Salza's) pretty weak in support of the de fide nature of baptism of desire and one thing in particular that stood out (even if one accepted baptism of desire) was the very tight limits in which it would apply. This Mike, would actually refute your own belief in implicit desire but agian, that's a side issue but one maybe worth reconsidering in light of this article.

Like I said, I've only given it a quick once-over but in the short rummage through it I was (according to my own understanding of Church teaching) able to punch a few critical holes in his presumptions.
I'll give it a more thorough going over when time permits.

MRyan Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:47 pm

Columba,

Quite right; this is not a one-on-one debate, but Salza’s summary and refutation of Warren Goddard’s arguments. However, he does provide towards the end some of Warren’s direct citations. I know Warren’s arguments because he copied me on everything he sent to Robert Sungenis (I guess he didn't get the memo from Jehanne).

What I would like you to focus on, however, is the following remarks of Salza as they relate to John 3:5 and Trent:

I was recently confronted with a new, contextual argument concerning Trent’s teaching by a Mr. Warren Goddard, a self-proclaimed “traditional Catholic,” who rejects baptism of desire and has accused me and other Catholic apologists of heresy for believing in same. He claims that there is a direct, one-to-one correspondence between Trent's "laver of regeneration" + "desire" with John 3:5's "water" + "Holy Ghost." He argues that Trent's "laver of regeneration" refers exclusively to John 3:5's "water" at the exclusion of the Holy Ghost, and then says that, consequently, Trent's "desire" (voto) must refer exclusively to John 3:5's "Holy Ghost" (because, even though Trent is referring to man's "desire," the Holy Ghost is the one acting upon man's will – which, by the way, means it’s really not a direct correspondence). With this exegesis, Mr. Goddard concludes that the "or" in Trent must be "and" and, as such, "desire" cannot stand alone without "water" baptism. Note that not a single pope, council, saint or doctor of the Church ever advanced this novel argument, and for obvious reasons.

First, one of the problems with Goddard’s exegesis is that "laver of regeneration" includes both the "water" and "Spirit" of John 3:5. There is no "regeneration" without the "Holy Spirit." When the Church uses the term "laver of regeneration," it is referring to being born again through "water and Spirit" in the sacrament of baptism, not by water alone at the exclusion of the Holy Spirit. Hence, the exegesis is erroneous or, at best, lacking sufficient foundation to be proven.

We can even use John 3:5, the very verse used to advance Goddard’s novel contextual exegesis, to demonstrate the same. In John 3:5, the "unless" acts directly upon "born again" and only indirectly upon "water" and "Holy Ghost.” We see this in John 3:3 where Jesus says "unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." We also see Jesus referring to being born again without reference to "water" in the three verses in John 3:6,7,8 (as well as many other Scripture verses that deal with spiritual rebirth without mentioning water).

In the Greek of John 3:5, the conditional ean for “unless”, or more literally “if ever”, refers directly to the aorist passive gennethe for “may be being generated” (absolute necessity), which is separated from hudatos (water) and pneumatos (Spirit) by the preposition ex (out) in reference to the necessity of means. A contextual and grammatical exegesis of John 3:3-8 demonstrates that being "born again" is an absolute necessity, but the same cannot be applied to the means by which being "born again" is brought about, namely, "water," for Jesus does not establish that connection and neither does Trent.

It looks the Latin and the Greek have conspired against you.

Of course, Salza also addresses the critical distinctions with respect to "necessity of means".

I've been waiting (even if somewhat rhetorically because I already know the answer) for you to provide some evidence by way of corroboration for your novel "justification by water baptism alone" theory; you know, like the testimony of even one pope, theologian, doctor or saint who interpreted Trent in any way other than that of the authentic Magisterium and all of her theologians - without a single dissenting voice. Not one. Will you surprise me?

If not, what does that say for the credibility of your private and clearly novel interpretation? I know of about three laymen and three notorious sede's (and probably not a few of their cult-like followers) who agree with you.

Do you consider such testimony credible, compared to the universal understanding and Magisterial teaching of the Church and the unanimous consent of her theologians?

Seriously?

Jehanne Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:01 pm

Mike,

You need to stop with your "cheap shots." I have asked Rasha for control of this board. If and when he gives it to me, I am willing to give you (and everyone else) a "second chance," a fresh start. If Rasha does not respond to me, I am going to complain to the owners of this website ("free forums"), stating that the owner of the forum has abandoned it, and therefore, it should be closed.

Here are my rules when and if I get control of this board:

1) No name-calling, even minor. Applies to me and to you and to everyone else.

2) No cheap-shots (see above.) Your cutesy comment above is no longer welcome.

3) No personal attacks. Don't address people in the second person. If you disagree with their arguments, fine; disagreeing with them will no longer be allowed.

4) All topics will be allowed. Error has no rights, but then again, the Truth can defend itself/herself.

I hope not to ban you, assuming, of course, that Rasha gives me this board. If not, it will be closed per the TOS of the "free forum" website.

Board members who trespass the above rules will have their posts deleted, without comment. If they "can't take hint" (when their posts disappear), they will be banned at least temporarily, permanently if necessary.

As for baptism of desire/baptism of blood, it's a null set; we can know that via syllogistic reasoning from the canons of Trent:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/absolute-necessity-of-sacramental.html

So, there is no conflict between Fathers Aquinas & Feeney.

George Brenner Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:28 pm

Morning Offering for the Salvation of Aborted Infants

Lord, Jesus, through the hands of Your Blessed Mother, I offer You all my thoughts, words, and actions this day for all the intentions of Your Most Sacred Heart. Especially, I offer You all the acts of faith in You and Your Love that I perform, in order to obtain from Your Sacred Heart the grace of Baptism for all the innocent babies who will be murdered by abortion today. Because their own fathers and mothers will violently refuse them life, and thus refuse to stand before You as guarantors of their baby's faith in You, accept me as the spiritual father/mother of those babies. And, within the Divine economy of Your Mystical Body except me as guarantor of those babies' desire to be with You forever, so that having been killed most cruelly, they may be admitted to Your Presence as sinless, martyrs to the truth of Your Love and Your Salvation. I ask this for Your Holy Name Sake. Amen.

tornpage Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:45 am

As for me, Feeneyites with their "no salvation by mere desire" are certainly sympathetic characters, and not because I was one: as Jehanne often notes, nothing can stand between God, His elect and the means of salvation. The Church falling limp like a noodle in some sense on the elect and the means of salvation (in terms of the faith required) is more of a concern than the Feeneyite insistence that the elect will receive the sacrament of baptism (to which one can only acknowledge logically - why not?):

Haydock commentary on Romans 8:30

Ver. 30. And whom he predestinated, them he also called to the true faith and to his service, without any deserts in them, nay, when all mankind were guilty of eternal death, by original sin. --- And whom he called, them he also justified, by faith, by hope, by a love of him, and a true penance. --- And whom he justified, them he also glorified. That is, hath decreed to glorify. Yet not all who have been justified, but only his elect, who are under his special protection, and to whom he grants a perseverance in his grace to the end: so that the call to faith, their sanctification, their final perseverance, and glorification in heaven, are the effects of their free election and predestination. (Witham)

Of course, you can simply say because the Church teaches otherwise, that's why not. But then, the Church really doesn't teach otherwise . . . or, no, it does . . . no, it doesn't . . . yes, it does . . . no, wait, maybe . . .

MRyan Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:13 am

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

You need to stop with your "cheap shots." I have asked Rasha for control of this board. If and when he gives it to me, I am willing to give you (and everyone else) a "second chance," a fresh start. If Rasha does not respond to me, I am going to complain to the owners of this website ("free forums"), stating that the owner of the forum has abandoned it, and therefore, it should be closed.

Here are my rules when and if I get control of this board:

You have the most vile and vicious gutter mouth and you dare to complain to the web host about non-moderation? You would have been banned from any other forum a long time ago, and here you are telling us what the “new” rules will be when you have been a flagrant violator of the first three.

I made a direct plea to you to moderate your behavior and you ignored it. You don't even have the decency to apologize to the forum for your vile behavior. And now look at you; champion of the league of forum manners as if you are the victim and not the perpetrator of such shameful behavior.

That “cutesy” remark about Warren not getting the memo from you was a direct reference to your broadcast on this forum about your private conversations with Warren and the Diamonds about ME where you did not hesitate to pass on the “dirt” and your assumptions about me.

And you talk to me about "cheap shots"? Such shameful behavior is what we’ve come to expect from you.

Don’t threaten me with expulsion -- the day you take control of this forum is the day I leave it.

Your “null set” theory has been discredited enough already, and don’t presume to tell me that there is no contradiction between St. Aquinas and Fr. Feeney when not only have I demonstrated precisely where it exists, anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that their respective doctrines are opposed.

One of the rules should be that these side-shows and the incessant hi-jacking of these threads to promote personal agendas should be prohibited. If you have nothing to contribute to this thread, then stay off it and stop trying to impose your “authority” over this forum.

The sheer audacity of someone as emotionally unstable as you seeking to take over control of the forum just boggles the mind.

MRyan Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:22 am

tornpage wrote:As for me, Feeneyites with their "no salvation by mere desire" are certainly sympathetic characters, and not because I was one: as Jehanne often notes, nothing can stand between God, His elect and the means of salvation. The Church falling limp like a noodle in some sense on the elect and the means of salvation (in terms of the faith required) is more of a concern than the Feeneyite insistence that the elect will receive the sacrament of baptism (to which one can only acknowledge logically - why not?):

Haydock commentary on Romans 8:30

Ver. 30. And whom he predestinated, them he also called to the true faith and to his service, without any deserts in them, nay, when all mankind were guilty of eternal death, by original sin. --- And whom he called, them he also justified, by faith, by hope, by a love of him, and a true penance. --- And whom he justified, them he also glorified. That is, hath decreed to glorify. Yet not all who have been justified, but only his elect, who are under his special protection, and to whom he grants a perseverance in his grace to the end: so that the call to faith, their sanctification, their final perseverance, and glorification in heaven, are the effects of their free election and predestination. (Witham)

Of course, you can simply say because the Church teaches otherwise, that's why not. But then, the Church really doesn't teach otherwise . . . or, no, it does . . . no, it doesn't . . . yes, it does . . . no, wait, maybe . . .

That's real funny. Is there an actual argument in there somewhere? Was that a little dig and rant against the alleged hypocrisy of the Church in teaching doctrines that perhaps you just don't understand? Does any of this have anything to do with the subject of the thread?

MRyan Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:34 am

George Brenner wrote: Morning Offering for the Salvation of Aborted Infants

Lord, Jesus, through the hands of Your Blessed Mother, I offer You all my thoughts, words, and actions this day for all the intentions of Your Most Sacred Heart. Especially, I offer You all the acts of faith in You and Your Love that I perform, in order to obtain from Your Sacred Heart the grace of Baptism for all the innocent babies who will be murdered by abortion today. Because their own fathers and mothers will violently refuse them life, and thus refuse to stand before You as guarantors of their baby's faith in You, accept me as the spiritual father/mother of those babies. And, within the Divine economy of Your Mystical Body except me as guarantor of those babies' desire to be with You forever, so that having been killed most cruelly, they may be admitted to Your Presence as sinless, martyrs to the truth of Your Love and Your Salvation. I ask this for Your Holy Name Sake. Amen.

Amen. Beautiful prayer.

MRyan Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:47 am

Jehanne wrote:
As for baptism of desire/baptism of blood, it's a null set; we can know that via syllogistic reasoning from the canons of Trent:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/absolute-necessity-of-sacramental.html

This shameful and incessant promotion of our "blog" needs to end. This forum is not your personal playground and marketing opportunity for the promotion of your "blog".

I don't read your blog, so if you have something relevant to say, say it or stay off the thread.

Jehanne Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:20 am

That's your opinion. Sure, I called you "some names"; that does not make me "mentally unstable," and that's a bigger insult to my personal intengrity (and, may I add, a violation of "Free Forums" TOS). No court would recognize someone as being "mentally/emotional unstable" for putting an (Internet) "bully in his place."

You've "discredited" my "null set" baptism of desire/baptism of blood theological conclusion only in your imagination; neither you nor anyone else has ever addressed it, let alone "refuted" it.

As for my blog, it's a "free country"; posting links to it is not spam (which is defined, legally, as unrelated content posted to a web page), so as long as the web page that I am posting is related to the forum and/or thread, it is not spam, and therefore, not a violation of "free forums" TOS.

I have not heard from Rasha; I have sent an email to "free forums" support requesting that this board be taken down, since it is no longer moderated.

Any insults from you, however minor, will result in a ticket to the "free forums" support staff.

MRyan Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:27 am

Jehanne wrote:That's your opinion. Sure, I called you "some names"; that does not make me "mentally unstable," and that's a bigger insult to my personal intengrity (and, may I add, a violation of "Free Forums" TOS). No court would recognize someone as being "mentally/emotional unstable" for putting an (Internet) "bully in his place."

I said you are “emotionally unstable” and anyone who can utter such foul language and make such vicious attacks and then has the audacity to lecture us on proper behavior, even going so far as to complain to the web host about others when his own vile behavior is not moderated, is definitely “emotionally unstable”.

You remind me of the man who points a gun at his head and says, “Stop, or I’ll shoot!”

Jehanne wrote:You've "discredited" my "null set" baptism of desire/baptism of blood theological conclusion only in your imagination; neither you nor anyone else has ever addressed it, let alone "refuted" it.

The proof is in the posts … your arguments have been sufficiently discredited as theologically irrelevant and seriously flawed. And don’t get me going on the litany of your other errors.

Jehanne wrote:As for my blog, it's a "free country"; posting links to it is not spam (which is defined, legally, as unrelated content posted to a web page), so as long as the web page that I am posting is related to the forum and/or thread, it is not spam, and therefore, not a violation of "free forums" TOS.

It is nothing but incessant and shameless self-promotion. Most forums ban such practices.

Jehanne wrote:I have not heard from Rasha; I have sent an email to "free forums" support requesting that this board be taken down, since it is no longer moderated.

Any insults from you, however minor, will result in a ticket to the "free forums" support staff.

Sure, threaten to shut down the entire forum because you can't seem to control your our own rude foul behavior; behavior you can't seem to control and have no need to apologized for. And, if your self-promoting take-over attempt fails you will appeal to have the forum shut down.

Such a self-aggrandizing selfish act speaks for itself.

Go pound sand. Report that.

MRyan Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:41 am

Perhaps now we can get back to the subject of this thread.

What a novel concept.

Jehanne Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:02 pm

I do regret calling you names, Mike, and I apologize to the forum for that. As I said, your beliefs/views do not concern me in the slightest (which I consider self-contradictory and absurd, hence, false, even if such views are "taught" by the present Magisterium) nor does the belligerent attitude that you display towards me. What really "pisses me off" is the attitude that you display towards others.

For instance, you had no right to refer to Pascendi as a "meltdown-man"; who "the hell" do you think you are for doing that?! I believe that such ongoing behavior constitutes a violation of the TOS of this website. I should have reported you long ago; instead, I allowed you to "get the better of me," and I "blew-up" at you. I should not have done that, and for that, I was wrong, and I do apologize to both you and the forum for doing that.

My board will be run differently, that, I promise.

tornpage Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:34 pm

. . . the Church in teaching doctrines that perhaps you just don't understand

I understand them well enough . . . that's the problem.

As for the rest, I said what I said.

tornpage Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:37 pm

I have sent an email to "free forums" support requesting that this board be taken down, since it is no longer moderated.

Why on earth would you do that? Why don't you just leave, and let us who wish to remain stay and contribute?

Jehanne Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:47 pm

tornpage wrote:
I have sent an email to "free forums" support requesting that this board be taken down, since it is no longer moderated.

Why on earth would you do that? Why don't you just leave, and let us who wish to remain stay and contribute?

It's a violation of their TOS.

tornpage Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:48 pm

It's a violation of their TOS.

Good grief . . . so what?

Jehanne Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:56 pm

tornpage wrote:
It's a violation of their TOS.

Good grief . . . so what?

Please address this issue in the other thread.

MRyan Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:58 pm

Jehanne wrote:I do regret calling you names, Mike, and I apologize to the forum for that. As I said, your beliefs/views do not concern me in the slightest (which I consider self-contradictory and absurd, hence, false, even if such views are "taught" by the present Magisterium) nor does the belligerent attitude that you display towards me. What really "pisses me off" is the attitude that you display towards others.

For instance, you had no right to refer to Pascendi as a "meltdown-man"; who "the hell" do you think you are for doing that?!

Pascendi has to take as he gives, and if neither of you like it, then stop thinking that you can insult me or talk about me and get away with it.

I don’t appreciate someone who does not post on this forum except to occasionally find some "amusement" coming on and taking a shot at me. You are simply exhibiting the same behavior as if your so-called justifications for having me banned have merit. They do not and you are such a hypocrite.

You have no idea of the history between Pascendi and me; and if you had been on the previous forum, you would understand my remark. His meltdowns are a matter of public (now deleted) record – with his histrionic deletion of every single forum post being one such example. I’m simply letting him know that I haven’t gone anywhere and that my version of events is different from his.

In other words, it’s none of your business; his remark was directed at me and Pascendi knows exactly what I’m talking about.

Jehanne wrote:
I believe that such ongoing behavior constitutes a violation of the TOS of this website. I should have reported you long ago; instead, I allowed you to "get the better of me," and I "blew-up" at you. I should not have done that, and for that, I was wrong, and I do apologize to both you and the forum for doing that.

My board will be run differently, that, I promise.

Apology accepted. But your threats of “reporting” me ring hallow and childish. You need to grow up and stop blaming others for your own rude behavior and stop thinking that you have some right to have this forum shut-down. Go run your own forum and leave us alone.

Those who cannot effectively respond to my arguments are the ones who call me a “bully”. Who cares? And if I have driven-off certain sede’s who descended into the same vile trash-talking against the Holy Father, and against those in communion with him, that you exhibited, so what? If sede’s wish to defend their position, let them, but we do not have to tolerate trash-talk and insults against the person of the Pope from you or from anyone else.

And I also think we can handle it without threatening to go "tattle" to the web host ("Nanny, nanny boo-boo, I'm going to tell, I'm going to tell").

Man-up already. Better yet, go play on your own forum.

Jehanne Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:04 pm

My ticket has already been submitted; the owners of this website have far more experience managing it than do either us. They have a right to know that the forum owner and moderator have both abandoned it.

MRyan Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:05 pm

tornpage wrote:
. . . the Church in teaching doctrines that perhaps you just don't understand

I understand them well enough . . . that's the problem.

So you say. I say otherwise.

tornpage wrote:As for the rest, I said what I said.

So you said, whatever it is that you actually "said".

Sponsored content

John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

John Salza v Warren Goddard on Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire

Re: John Salza v. Warren Goddard On Baptism of Desire