Bob Sungenis makes an error

If you have a degree in systematic theology, marineboy, you should have no problem seeing Sungenis’ point (which I and TNT pointed out). As it stands, it just looks like you’re trying to twist something that he said to fulfill some kind of hate vendetta you have against him.

you two must be retarded!!! read what he wrote!!! HE SAID OTHER THAN WATER BAPTISM “WE CANT SPECUALTE” well that isnt true —if someone dies with baptism of desire they go to heaven(provided they are in the state of grace) you cant simply say we cant speculate–because even if smeone dies with water baptism we dont know if he went to heaven!!! WE TECHNICALLY WE CANT SPECUALTE ON THAT EITHER --we siimply know two things --water baptism is normatively necesary and baptism of desire puts one in the state of grace and if one dies in that state then that person goes to heaven-PEOPLE TAKE THE BLINDERS OFF–

HE SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT YOU CAN EXCLUDE ALL OTHERS WHO ARE NOT WATER BAPTIZED-- WHEN HE SAY THAT --“I WOULD NOT SAY YOU CAN EXCULDE SOMEONE WHO WOULD NOT BE WATER BAPTIZED…” what does that mean bobby??? you cant argue at all that point bobby–slppy language-u cant since baptism of desire is infallible-cant u see that people

I know you believe him to be in error, but the way you are presenting it is kinda aggressive. I knew a lot of marines in the navy and maybe that is where it stems from. I am just a newbie here but I don’t think I am the only one who thinks you might be a little overly aggressive, especially with a guy who really is trying to do good.
I checked your profile, but don’t see what form of Christianity you identify yourself with. I don’t mean to be nosy, but would you feel comfortable putting that in your profile or posting it?

[quote=marineboy]you two must be retarded!!! read what he wrote!!! HE SAID OTHER THAN WATER BAPTISM “WE CANT SPECUALTE” well that isnt true —if someone dies with baptism of desire they go to heaven(provided they are in the state of grace) you cant simply say we cant speculate–because even if smeone dies with water baptism we dont know if he went to heaven!!! WE TECHNICALLY WE CANT SPECUALTE ON THAT EITHER --we siimply know two things --water baptism is normatively necesary and baptism of desire puts one in the state of grace and if one dies in that state then that person goes to heaven-PEOPLE TAKE THE BLINDERS OFF–
[/quote]

Right- we can’t speculate on EITHER ONE. However, if someone has been baptized with water, we have more cause to “speculate” that they are in Heaven than if they haven’t, because whether someone has a baptism of desire is very much more speculatory. I would be happy to take off your blinders, should you let me.

[quote=marineboy]you two must be retarded!!! read what he wrote!!! HE SAID OTHER THAN WATER BAPTISM “WE CANT SPECUALTE” well that isnt true —if someone dies with baptism of desire they go to heaven(provided they are in the state of grace) you cant simply say we cant speculate–because even if smeone dies with water baptism we dont know if he went to heaven!!! WE TECHNICALLY WE CANT SPECUALTE ON THAT EITHER --we siimply know two things --water baptism is normatively necesary and baptism of desire puts one in the state of grace and if one dies in that state then that person goes to heaven-PEOPLE TAKE THE BLINDERS OFF–
[/quote]

WE CANT SPECUALTE ON THAT EITHER

We don’t have to:
I had a one day old child die after his baptism. I say, without speculation, he is in heaven. Unless, of course, you have another place to “speculate” on.

Of course I’m retarded…I’m on this Forum posting with you…Solid proof!

genius!!! u know i obviusly meant an adult above the age of reason–obviously a bay who dies after being baptized goes to heaven

[quote=challenger]If you have a degree in systematic theology, marineboy, you should have no problem seeing Sungenis’ point (which I and TNT pointed out). As it stands, it just looks like you’re trying to twist something that he said to fulfill some kind of hate vendetta you have against him.
[/quote]

It appears that if 98.6 is “normal”, then marineboy has a degree around 180, and is at the boiling point of water, baptismal or not.

or… Are you sure you are not Dan Blather, and you got your document by email from James White?

Anyway, I have to agree… it appears he has an agenda of vicious attack.

We all know it will roll off Sungenis like (baptismal) water off a duck’s back.

now, enough of the silly, let’s discuss this with reason or not at all.

Nice show of patience, TNT:yup:

[quote=marineboy]genius!!! u know i obviusly meant an adult above the age of reason–obviously a bay who dies after being baptized goes to heaven
[/quote]

Look, If you want to skip the water and live with an implicit or explicit desire, go right ahead. I wish you all the joy of heaven.
**The End.
ps.
Let’s make one more pass through the “Typing Tutor”.
You’re getting awfully close to morse code.
You are doing good with the ! ] key.

**

[quote=TNT]Look, If you want to skip the water and live with an implicit or explicit desire, go right ahead. I wish you all the joy of heaven.
The End.
ps.
Let’s make one more pass through the “Typing Tutor”.
You’re getting awfully close to morse code.
You are doing Ok with the ! key.

[/quote]

be nice

someone may have sprinkled his keyboard with water (or maybe just desired it)

[quote=MrS]now, enough of the silly, let’s discuss this with reason or not at all.

Nice show of patience, TNT:yup:
[/quote]

With 12 kids, it’s part of the survival kit.

[quote=TNT]With 12 kids, it’s part of the survival kit.
[/quote]

God bless you.

I had 7 boys, and now I am at least four inches shorter, and still shrinking under the weight of 18 g’kids.

Is posting here your chance to “get away”?

[quote=MrS]God bless you.

I had 7 boys, and now I am at least four inches shorter, and still shrinking under the weight of 18 g’kids.

Is posting here your chance to “get away”?
[/quote]

Nah. I taught them to believe erverything I say. Now I can’t find anyone to argue or “speculate” with.

[quote=TNT]Nah. I taught them to believe erverything I say. Now I can’t find anyone to argue or “speculate” with.
[/quote]

What… total submission…you will never make pope.

…can’t find anyone… but marineboy found you :whistle:

[quote=MrS]What… total submission…you will never make pope.

…can’t find anyone… but marineboy found you :whistle:
[/quote]

My Blonde wife will testify…I’m a magnet for bimbos.

[quote=marineboy]you two must be retarded!!! read what he wrote!!! HE SAID OTHER THAN WATER BAPTISM “WE CANT SPECUALTE” well that isnt true —if someone dies with baptism of desire they go to heaven(provided they are in the state of grace) you cant simply say we cant speculate–because even if smeone dies with water baptism we dont know if he went to heaven!!! WE TECHNICALLY WE CANT SPECUALTE ON THAT EITHER --we siimply know two things --water baptism is normatively necesary and baptism of desire puts one in the state of grace and if one dies in that state then that person goes to heaven-PEOPLE TAKE THE BLINDERS OFF–
[/quote]

The question was specifically referring to unbaptised babies who were aborted in the womb. You can not speculate on it because you can not say who the “Baptism of Desire” extends to. You do not know who recieves it. God has not revealed that to us.

But, he could have said it better to avoid confusion.

Or, if you really were a marine you would be professional about it. Instead of coming on the forum to try and ruin his reputation, you would email him and tell him of the problem you see and ask for clarification.

Robert Sungenis is a man who cares about our faith and is doing more than many of us are to protect it, Just like people that fight for our country because others do not have the resourses or ability to do it. It doesn’t make them less American. When a fellow Catholic may be in question, help him out, all we have is each other, and a country divided against itself will not stand.

the question was NOT REFERING TO BABIES UNBAPTIZED --I T WAS ASKING IF(WATER) BAPTISM IS NECESSARY ALL THE TIME–AND SUNGENIS WAS WRONG IN HIS ANSWER GO READ MY LAST THREE POSTS–U ALL STILL HAVENT RESPONDED TO THEM–

marineboy:

Let’s analyze this a little. The questioner, as part of the question asked:

“I have a few questions in regards to baptism and salvation?..”

“…is it wrong to pray and hope for unbaptized infants who have been aborted? …”

“…Many are praying for the tsunami victims in Asia, many who were not baptized or preparing for baptism, does that mean hoping for that God might have mercy on them is entirely futile?..”

The title was:

“Is Baptism Necessary for Everyone to be Saved?”

We do not know if the title came from Robert or the questioner, but by saying “baptism”, this could imply water and / or BOD.

Now this is important, marineboy, so pay attention. The questioner says:

" …I have seen you defend the possibiliity of baptism of desire if a candidate is preparing for baptism as a catechuman. So baptism of desire does exist (I respect that you are cautious about the meaning of that)…" This statement sits right above Robert’s answer,.

Here is Robert’s answer:

“Our guiding rule is that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Anything over and above that, we must leave in the hands of God, and not speculate. We know that God is just, and He will do the perfect thing. I would not say that it is an impossibility for someone to attain heaven who did not receive water baptism, since all things are possible with God, but again, that is God’s realm. He is the one doing the saving and damning, not us. Therefore we should strive to Baptize as many people as we can in obedience to Him, but then leave the destiny of the others to God’s inscrutable will.”

I interpret this as him saying, since we do not know who is granted alternate means of baptism (i.e., BOD) we should emphasize the need for water baptism.

I would interpret his response:

“… I would not say that it is an impossibility for someone to attain heaven who did not receive water baptism, …” as implicitly and reasonably refering back to the questioner’s state regarding BOD. In a short e-mail and response format it should not be necassary to repeat the statement.

Now for the intellectually challenged and with the possibility of attack dogs about, maybe he should have.

MJW

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.