Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by DaChaser1, Feb 10, 2012.
isn't it that original sin washed away by the Rite, and person is regenerated/saved by the Baptism?
Rome believes that the grace of justification and regeneration is received in the act of what they call "baptism."
Salvation without baptism is the rare exception than the rule and then that rare exception is carefully qualified by several factors.
We teach that baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace. What you said is accurate, but also the person receives the Holy Spirit at baptism, so it is baptism of water and Spirit. Also there are exceptions, and we recognize that people are sometimes regenerated and have the Holy Spirit before they actually receive the sacrament of baptism.
Paul completely repudiates this idea in Romans 4:7-11. Rome in its CCC clearly and unequivocally states that circumcision is an Old Testament example of a sacrament as an outward sign of an inward grace and in particular that the circumcision of Christ at eight days old is the equivilent Old Testament counter part of baptism.
Paul completely shreds this idea in Romans 4:7-11 and condemns it as heresy.
The subject of Romans 4:7-11 was whether gentile converts to Christianity had to be circumcised. It does not mention baptism.
This one talks more about baptism:
Colossians 2:11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by[c] Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. "
No, that is not the subject of Romans 4:7-11. The subject of Romans 4:7-11 is why justification before God is by faith "wiithout works (v. 6). Romans 4:7-11 proves that justification is not through divine ordinances and it proves that circumcision is not a sacrament. Your quote of Colossians 2:11 proves the relationship between circumcision and baptism in regard to the Old Covenant ordinance relationship to the New Covenant ordinance. Both equally were outward symbols of regeneration.
What Paul proves in Romans 4:7-11 is that Justification of Abraham before God PRECEDED the external ordinance and therefore justification can be obtained by both Jews and gentiles WITHOUT divine ordinances.
The issue has never been does baptism wash away sins, does it save you as the scriptures plainly say it does (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; etc.).
The issue has always been HOW does it wash away sins, and how does it save you? Literally or figuratively?
Romans 4:7-11 denies that such divine ordinances literally remove sins (Rom. 4:6-8) or literally saves you but only FIGURATIVELY saves you (1 Pet. 3:21 "the like FIGURE...").
Romans 4:7-11 established once and forever that divine ordinances play absolutely no part in obtaining, providing or establishing regeneration/justification but only establish/obtain/provide an external SYMBOLISM of what has already occurred. Abraham was justified by faith long before (Gen. 15) he was circumcised (Gen. 17). Therefore circumcision nor its equivilent New Testament ordinance baptism plays any INSTRUMENTAL role in obtaining or establishing literal justification or regeneration.
That doesn't dispute water baptism. Note
So it is with Baptism it is the sign and the seal of the new covenant. as Paul says in Col.
Which peter says
the Holy Spirit is received at the time of a person being justifed before God, at regeneration, and One MUST have faith in the finished work /peron of Christ to even be able to haveHim!
How did infants get that faith?
Does that mean that ALL baptised catholics will get to heaven eventually?
Does the RCC still teach that unbaptised babies get eternal stuck in a region called Limbo?
Therefore, just substitute the term baptism for circumcision and you will see it is a complete repudiation of the Roman doctrine of sacraments:
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision/baptized only, or upon the uncircumcision/unbaptzed also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision/baptism, or in uncircumcision/unbaptism? Not in circumcision/baptism, but in uncircumcision/unbaptism.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision/baptism, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised/unbaptized: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised/baptized; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision/baptism to them who are not of the circumcision/baptized only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised/unbaptized.
The CCC specifically using the circumcision of Christ at eight days old compares that as equal to baptism under the New Covenant in regard to what a sacrament is.
If I have to go through the above text to prove it repudiates the Roman Catholic Concept of sacraments then either you are incapable of reading or incapable of understanding what you are reading.
Actually the seal to Christians for today per the Apostle Paul is the seal of the HS within us!
the RCC takes the OT Old Covenant view of baptism as being the equivalent of rite of circuncision...
problem is that the Bible clearly teaches that water baptism is to be administered to believing persons, alread have been saved by faith/grace alone, as the water is a symbol/type to illustrate what God already had done to the person, NOT as part of getting the person saved!
The Old Covenant ceremonial religious laws are TYPES of the New Covenant salvation (Heb. 10:1-4).
Circumcision is a type of regeneration and this is made clear even in the old Testament when God says many times that he wished their hearts were circumcised, meaning the flesh had been cut off and a new heart given (Deut. 30:6: Ezek. 36:26).
Infants were circumcised at eight days old. This is a type of being born again as all Christians regardless of physical age begin as spiritual infants when they are born of God (Jn. 3:1-11). Eight is the numerical symbol of new beginning.
Hence, both circumcision and baptism both convey symbolically the new birth (Col. 2:11) but neither literally regenerate anyone (Rom. 4:7-11; 1 Pet. 3:21).
Circumcison though establish the person as being part/under the Old Covenant between God and nation Isreal, while water baptism symbol of already accomplished work of the HS to save the person getting baptised!
Again it doesn't repudiate it. Or else you are suggesting Paul contradicts himself in colosians and contradicts peter. No one suggest that faith is also required for Baptism to be efficacious. That is what Paul is actually saying.
Yes! Both circumcision and baptism are SYMBOLS of regeneration which bring the child of God into an subjective experiential covenant relationship with God.
That is why baptism precedes being gathered into a congregational body in the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19 before Mt. 28:20 and Acts 2:41a before Acts 2;41b) as both are the outward declaration of a covenant relationship.
It emphatically, clearly and unambigously repudiates it! You cannot possibly interpet it HONESTLY in any other way! Challenge me to prove it!
What you are doing here is the old familiar JUMP and PIVOT and PIT routine. You don't want to get involved in the unambigious and explicit denial of sacramentalism in Romans 4:7-11 so you run to PROOF TEXTS that are not as clear and give you more room to wiggle.
Just as Paul defines circumcision in Romans 4:7-11 to be merely and only an external "sign" of an internal reality WITHOUT BEING INSTRUMENTAL in effecting that internal reality so baptism expresses the very same thing. Both symbolize the regenerate condition of the heart and that is being expressed in Colossians 2:11.
1 Peter 3:21 explicitly states baptism is a "FIGURE" and explicitly denies it has any literal cleansing effect in regard to what pollutes the conscience but is the "answer" or "response" of a conscience already made good by regeneration or internal cleansing by the Holy Spirit.
Now you're substituting words in scripture??? Since when is that a valid method of exegesis?
Rev:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
My oh my!
Your own Catholic catechism states clearly and explicitly that circumcision as a sacrament is a valid comparison with baptism as a sacrament.
Paul is explicitly repudiating that circumcision is a sacrament in Romans 4:7-11 and what is true then for circumcision AS A SACRAMENT would be true for baptism AS A SACRAMENT. The very same language Paul attributes to circumcison in Romans 4:11 is the very same langauge Rome attributes to baptism.
Therefore, to help you see what Rome acknowleges to be a valid comparison I simply added to the text to show how Paul repudiates both as sacraments.
Now, you can play your silly games or deal with the reality that Paul repudiates the Roman Catholic claim that circumcision like baptism is a sacrament!
water baptism in the NT was outward sign/symbol of inward work ALREADY had be done by the HS on behalf of those whom god had saved!
To receive jesus as Lord/saviour HAVE to be placing faith in Him...
Apostle peter tells us water symbolizes that, as the water itself only washes away dirty slin, whuike the HS has already washed/cleansed the inner !
water itelf does not save anyone, it portrays a type of the One that does, jesus!