Does the RCC Teach regenerated/saved by water baptism?

Why when I already disproved it?

What does the passage actually say?

Circumcision is a sign and seal of faith already had. Circumcision is the sign and the seal of the old covenant. Next Paul says

Since the old covenant shows that the sign and seal were the outward evidence of the inward faith that Abraham is father of all who have faith but haven't the old covenant sign or seal. Next Paul says

Next that Paul then expands to say that Abraham is the father of both groups. then Paul discourses about the law and that the law is of no use because it wasn't by that that made Abraham righteous but his faith. He doesn't say the sign and seal of the covenant is wrong but insist

Thus the promise of circumsision is only validated by faith and grace guarantees the promice of the sign and seal. Which makes sense with Pauls discourse in Colosians

 

No "Old covenant" existed in Abraham's time. The old Covenant was not given or ratified until 430 years later under Moses. Hence, so much for your "old Covenant" application in the case of Abraham.

Abraham is being set forth as the MODEL for justification by faith WITHOUT works (Rom. 4:1-6) , WITHOUT sacraments (Rom. 4:7-12), WITHOUT law keeping (Rom. 4:13-16) , and WITHOUT active participation in obtaining the promise (Rom. 4:17-22)

 

Do you disregard that we are in a new covenant?
The sign and seal by faith is water baptism. Law doesn't even come into the discourse. Baptism isn't by law but the sign and seal of the new covenant which is why Paul doesn't contradict himself in Col. Nor does he contradict Peter.

 

You are disregarding it by assigning the Old Covenant to Paul's example of circumcision in connection with Abraham and the doctrine of justification by faith!

You are just too proud to admit you are wrong, so you, change the subject and run as fast as you can to a Proof texting.

Romans 4:7-11 repudiates that divine ordinances are sacraments or have any bearing to justification before God except as LATER external symbols of a PREVIOUS completed work of justification and most importantly that justification by faith does not need such outward symbols at all "though they be uncircumcised"

 

Love to continue our discussion but got to run and do errands.

 

I'm showing you the exegete of that passage and what Paul is atually saying. Paul supports what I've said.

It does not all it repudiates is action upon Law alone.

 

"Circumcision is a sign and seal of faith already had. Circumcision is the sign and the seal of the old covenant. Next Paul says

Since the old covenant shows that the sign and seal were the outward evidence of the inward faith that Abraham is father of all who have faith but haven't the old covenant sign or seal." - TS

You are attempting to place Pauls discussion on circumcision within the context of LAW when it is not being discussed by Paul in the context of LAW but in the context of 430 years BEFORE law in direct connection with Abraham and his justification by faith BEFORE the law.


Hence, you are not exegeting the passage correctly but practicing eisgesis completely and wholly.

Paul's placement of the discussion of Circumcision 430 years before the Law proves that justification by faith is accomplished SEPARATE and APART as well as WITHOUT divine ordinances and that the rite of circumcision is not a SACRAMENT and therefore neither is baptism as Rome equates them as equally SACRAMENTS and uses the same langauge directed toward circumcision in Romans 4:11 to equally apply and explain baptism as a sacrament ("sign and seal"). Paul repudiates that line of interpretation and thus repudiates the whole Roman Catholic doctrine of sacramental salvation.

 

Absolutely correct:thumbs::thumbs: