Where does it speak of Baptism of Blood/Desire in the Bible?


#1

Thanks! :slight_smile:


#2

It doesn’t.


#3

Luke 23:

40 The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation?
41 And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal."
42 **Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” **
43 He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”


#4

I would include the thief on the Cross.

Do you think Jesus should have said, “Sorry, you should have waited to get baptized… you were THIS close, though”. I think it would have lost something if it would have happened that way.


#5

Pass. I know it doesn’t say specifically.

I do believe in BoB (martyrdom), I just want Bible verses.


#6

Being that there are not many incidences in the NT where someone is un-baptized and facing imminent death (before they can receive Baptism), you certainly won’t find too many.

Again, the thief is the only example I know of and the only OPPORTUNITY for Baptism of Desire that I know of in the NT.


#7

What about Luke 12:50

“There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!”

When Jesus was crucified, he calls it his baptism, so when we suffer for Christ, we also are baptized with the baptism of “blood”.


#8

Excellent point - thanks for that!


#9

Just to drive home this point:

Obviously, the thief was not baptized with water, and yet his clear desire to join Christ was sufficient for his salvation.

This is also arguably an example of baptism of blood, as the thief died on his cross following his confession.


#10

I thought there was “one baptism”…at least that’s what my Catholic friends constantly say. Christ was already baptised, so He was clearly not refering to the sacrament.

Martyrs who already have been water baptised do not qualify for any “baptism of blood.”

That does not exist in the text you cite. If it did, then we would have to take every reference our Lord makes to the word “baptism” and say that it also is a means to sanctifying grace. Of course that would be totally contrary to not only Catholic doctrine, but all know Christian doctrine as well.


#11

No, your Catholic friends tell you that John’s Baptsim is NOT Sacramental.

Martyrs who already have been water baptised do not qualify for any “baptism of blood.”

This is correct.


#12

Yes, there is only one baptism, as St. Paul says in Ephesians 4:5
"one Lord, one faith, one baptism".
An as for every time Jesus makes reference to with word baptism, I think there were only around 4 times, he asks the Pharisees where John’s baptism was from, then the passage I referenced, the great commission, and then right before Pentecost. Of course there is the Theology behind baptism in John 3.

In Hebrews 6, the writer is talking about a person who falls away from the faith, and then comes back to the faith, can’t be re-baptized, because it would be ‘re-crucifying’ Christ again.

Let’s look back to the early persecuted church. The new neophytes entering the church would go through instruction that would last for months, a year, or two years before they were ready to be baptized. There were some who would put off baptism even longer, because they were afraid that if they were to be baptized, and then fall away from the faith, they couldn’t be re baptized again.

Well, what if the neophyte died before he completed his instruction, and was baptized? He had the desire to be baptized.
And what about the neophyte who was killed for his faith, before he was baptized, that would be the baptism of blood.

Once a Christian was baptized, and then martyred, he wasn’t re-baptized, because there is only one baptism, but he was baptized in blood, because it was a term that Jesus used in Luke 12:50

You might argue against the theology of the early church in regards to baptism, but it is evident that they knew the importance of baptism, and it going beyond just a public proclamation of their accepting Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.

We say that there is a baptism of desire, and of blood, because only God knows what is in the heart of the person.

All of this wouldn’t make any sense with the Protestant view of baptism, since they don’t believe that it gives us sanctifying grace. but it makes sense to Catholic, and it did to the early Christians, because we and they don’t think the way Protestants do today.


#13

Fortunately, that is not the witness of the Holy Spirit in Acts.

Later errors are a different story.

There were some who would put off baptism even longer, because they were afraid that if they were to be baptized, and then fall away from the faith, they couldn’t be re baptized again.

Yes.

Later errors did develop.

Protestants recognize this.

Well, what if the neophyte died before he completed his instruction, and was baptized? He had the desire to be baptized.

Did our Lord say “water” or “desire” in John 3:5?

And what about the neophyte who was killed for his faith, before he was baptized, that would be the baptism of blood.

And which baptism did the neophyte receive who died before baptism…but both desired it and died for his faith?

Once a Christian was baptized, and then martyred, he wasn’t re-baptized, because there is only one baptism, but he was baptized in blood, because it was a term that Jesus used in Luke 12:50

I thought he was water baptised already?

Are you saying that his “baptism in blood” was another means to sanctifying grace after his water baptism?

You might argue against the theology of the early church in regards to baptism, but it is evident that they knew the importance of baptism, and it going beyond just a public proclamation of their accepting Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.

Except when you die merely desiring baptism…or theoretically would desire baptism if you knew you should, as is taught erroneously today.

We say that there is a baptism of desire, and of blood, because only God knows what is in the heart of the person.

The latter is not the cause of the former.

All of this wouldn’t make any sense with the Protestant view of baptism, since they don’t believe that it gives us sanctifying grace. but it makes sense to Catholic, and it did to the early Christians, because we and they don’t think the way Protestants do today.

And they didn’t think like modern Catholics do today either.

Ignoring your own differences, while emphasizing another’s, is not the best argument to make, IMV.


#14

This is not written down as a commandment would be…but we do consider the babies slain by Herold as he tried to kill Jesus as the “Holy Innocents”. Again baptism of blood. Also, we believe that if we were in an accident and needed confession…we could say an Acto of Contrition or at least show love for Jesus by kissing the crucifix (as the murderer did in Liseaux after St. Theresa prayed for him…kissed the crucifix before being beheaded).


#15

There many accounts in the Scriptures where Jesus forgives the sins of people that He healed but didnt tell them to go and be Baptized, I think its because He was doing the same thing Baptism would have done for them…my opinion!!:slight_smile:


#16

The Sacrament of Baptism was not initiated until Matthew 28:19. There is a difference between the Baptism of John the Baptist, and the sacrament of Baptism. What is the difference? We find that in Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, Acts 1:5, Acts 11:16. Yes, The Sacrament of Baptism is regenerative, however, not the only means of regeneration, as we see in Acts 10:44. As for the initial question on this thread, I will answer it with another question. Where does the Bible say, “Scripture Alone,” or “Sola-Scriptura?” The doctrines of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood illustrate the point that God is loving, not legalistic.


#17

Agreed.

Our Lord is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

This observation is extremely relevant here. God forgives without ritual, but with repentance and faith. The ritual serves its purpose and place of importance, but does not replace the method of justification our Lord exemplified in Abraham.


#18

Yes, but He reveals Himself gradually to His children, don’t you agree? Knowing that His children need signs to understand, He gave us the Sacrament of Baptism.

This observation is extremely relevant here. God forgives without ritual, but with repentance and faith. The ritual serves its purpose and place of importance, but does not replace the method of justification our Lord exemplified in Abraham…

Except, of course, that there’s a new Covenant, eh?


#19

Yes. Baptism is indeed a sign.

A sign of what is the question, really.

Except, of course, that there’s a new Covenant, eh?

And the same method of justification our Lord exemplified in Abraham is how He still operates today. (Gal 3)


#20

the regeneration of Baptism is a sign of God’s everlasting love for us!!!

Just as Jesus performed signs in John’s Gospel, these signs really did something. The water did turn into wine, as a sign that we might believe. Lazarus really did rise from the dead, as a sign that we might believe.

Baptism really cleanses us of our sins, washes away Original Sin, seals us with the Holy Spirit, as a sign that we might believe!

And the same method of justification our Lord exemplified in Abraham is how He still operates today. (Gal 3)

Except, he promised us that Baptism is how we enter into the Covenant, not Circumcision.

Remember, Baptism saves you now…


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.