The Bibilical Relation of a "sign" to Justification

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by The Biblicist, Nov 24, 2011.

  1. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly and explicitly spells out over and over and over again that what they call a "sign" (sacraments) "actually brings about in each newly baptized person what is literally signified:

    1234 The meaning and grace of the sacrament of Baptism are clear seen in the rites of its celebration. By following the gestures and words of this celebration with attentive participation, the faithful are initiated into the riches this sacrament signifies and actually brings about IN each newly baptized person. - CCC

    774 .....The seven sacraments are the signs and instruments by which the Holy Spirit speads grace of Christ.....

    775 "The Church, in Christ, is like a sacrament, a sign and instument -CCC

    1084 ...The sacraments are perceptable signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficasiously the grace that they signify - CCC

    1992 ....Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith." - CCC

    1997 .....by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ..... - CCC


    Hence, apart from the "sign" of baptism there is no saving grace, justification, faith, and eternal life

    168 It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by baptism. In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: 'What do you ask of God's Church?' And the answer is: 'Faith.' 'What does faith offer you?' Eternal life.'- CCC

    1236 The proclamation of the Word of God enlightens the candidates and the assembly with the revealed truth and elicits the response of faith, WHICH IS INSEPARABLE FROM BAPTISM. Indeed Baptism is 'THE SACRAMENT OF FAITH' in a particular way, since it is the sarcramental ENTRY into the life of faith. - CCC
     
    #1 The Biblicist, Nov 24, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 24, 2011
  2. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    However, how does Paul interpret a divine "sign" in relationship to justification by grace or justifying faith or the righteousness of God?

    Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

    Paul repudiates Rome's doctrine that signs "actually brings about in each newly person" what is signified!!!

    Paul says that circumcision was a "sign" and a "seal" of justification by faith. However, Paul says that Abraham already had justification LONG BEFORE he ever submitted to the "sign" of justification by faith - circumcision.

    Moreover, Paul claimed that justification by faith could be had with those who NEVER submit to any sign.


    How does Jesus interpret divine ordinances in relationship to what they signify? Jesus also denied that signs actual obtain in a person what they signify:

    Luke 5:12 ¶ And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
    13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
    14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.


    QUESTION: Did the lepor believe BEFORE or WHEN he was cleansed? "Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean...I will: be thou clean"

    QUESTION: When was the Lepor actually cleansed of his leporsy? Instantly or when he offered a sacrifice "for thy cleansing"???

    QUESTION: Was not the language of redemption used with the ceremony "for they cleansing" "for remission of sins") but did not mean that such cleansing took place in the administration of the ceremony!!!!!

    QUESTION: Does not Jesus provide the real reason for ceremonial SYMBOLIC cleansing? "FOR A TESTIMONY UNTO THEM."

    This is why Baptist teach that baptism and the Lord's Supper are SYMBOLS that do not convey any literal regeneration, cleansing much less faith but are rather visible TESTIMONIES of what God has ALREADY DONE prior to them in the believer.

    The whole soteriology hinges upon Rome's doctrine of baptism, if it falls, so does the whole soteriology of Rome.
     
  3. lakeside

    lakeside
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Biblicist, Christ's Apostolic/Catholic Church will NEVER fall, because Jesus promised that His Apostolic/ Catholic Church would never fall. So far Christ as kept His promised. I don't see Jesus going back on His promise as you clearly write.
     
  4. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    I believe Baptistic congregations have been on earth in every generation since the first chapter of John in perfect keeping with Matthew 16:18 and 28:20. They have been slandered by Rome under various names from the second century to the Reformation.

    However, why not address the subject of this thread? If Rome is the true church Jesus built then why does it teach and preach "another gospel" an accursed gospel? That is precisely what it does when it makes the "sign" instrumental in actually imparting what is signified.

    Both Paul and Jesus condemn Rome's interpretation of the use of a "sign."
     
  5. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    The whole soteriology and ecclesiology of Rome stands or falls on the fact they regard sacraments as signs which are instrumental in conveying justifying grace and eternal life.

    Both Paul and Christ condemns Romes view of divine ordinances as signs that are instrumental in conveying saving grace.

    So far no pro-catholic has attempted to deal with the Biblical evidence concerning signs in connection with justificaiton by faith in Romans 4:11 or divine ordinances in relationship to redemptive language and symbolic versus literal relationship to those connected to them as in Luke 5:12-15.
     
  6. lakeside

    lakeside
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Show me Biblicist from the Bible where that you wrote: "Both Paul and Christ condemns Romes view of divine ordinances as signs that are instrumental in conveying saving grace."
     
  7. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    The Biblical evidence has been posted in posts #2 and post #5
     
  8. lakeside

    lakeside
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't answer you at this time, but if i consult with a Catholic apologist he/she would very easily refute you using Scripture.As I earlier mentioned; i am only a neophyte.
     
  9. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    Well, go ahead and consult your Catholic apologist and I will wait your answer.
     
  10. lakeside

    lakeside
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Biblicist, I'm not quite sure the question to ask, please make your question easier for me to understand. I'm not that educated and not that bright.
     
  11. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    If you would simply copy the posts I referred you to and then submit them to your Catholic friend, I am sure he will see the problem and give you his response.
     
  12. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    Here is the whole crux of the issue between Rome and Baptists in regard to justification. Rome asserts that the sacraments are divine "signs" that actually impart what they signify to the partaker. Hence, the church and the sacraments STAND BETWEEN Christ and the candidate and it is THROUGH the sacraments that justifying grace, faith, eternal life, regeneration are received rather than through faith.

    However, how does Paul interpret a divine "sign" in relationship to justification by grace or justifying faith or the righteousness of God?

    Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

    Paul repudiates Rome's doctrine that signs "actually brings about in each newly person" what is signified!!!

    Paul says that circumcision was a "sign" and a "seal" of justification by faith. However, Paul says that Abraham already had justification LONG BEFORE he ever submitted to the "sign" of justification by faith - circumcision.

    Moreover, Paul claimed that justification by faith could be had with those who NEVER submit to any sign.


    How does Jesus interpret divine ordinances in relationship to what they signify? Jesus also denied that signs actual obtain in a person what they signify:

    Luke 5:12And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
    13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
    14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.



    QUESTION: Did the lepor believe BEFORE or WHEN he was cleansed? "Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean...I will: be thou clean"

    QUESTION: When was the Lepor actually cleansed of his leporsy? Instantly or when he offered a sacrifice "for thy cleansing"???

    QUESTION: Was not the language of redemption used with the ceremony "for they cleansing" "for remission of sins") but did not mean that such cleansing took place in the administration of the ceremony!!!!!

    QUESTION: Does not Jesus provide the real reason for ceremonial SYMBOLIC cleansing? "FOR A TESTIMONY UNTO THEM."

    This is why Baptist teach that baptism and the Lord's Supper are SYMBOLS that do not convey any literal regeneration, cleansing much less faith but are rather visible TESTIMONIES of what God has ALREADY DONE prior to them in the believer.

    The whole soteriology hinges upon Rome's doctrine of baptism, if it falls, so does the whole soteriology of Rome.
     
  13. lakeside

    lakeside
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some people promote an especially attractive idea: All true Christians, regardless of how they live, have an absolute assurance of salvation, once they accept Jesus into their hearts as "their personal Lord and Savior." The problem is that this belief is contrary to the Bible and constant Christian teaching.

    Keep in mind what Paul told the Christians of his day: "If we have died with him [in baptism; see Rom. 6:3–4] we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him" (2 Tim. 2:11–12).

    If we do not persevere, we shall not reign with him. In other words, Christians can forfeit heaven (CCC 1861).

    The Bible makes it clear that Christians have a moral assurance of salvation (God will be true to his word and will grant salvation to those who have faith in Christ and are obedient to him [1 John 3:19–24]), but the Bible does not teach that Christians have a guarantee of heaven. There can be no absolute assurance of salvation. Writing to Christians, Paul said, "See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness, otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22–23; Matt. 18:21–35, 1 Cor. 15:1–2, 2 Pet. 2:20–21).

    Note that Paul includes an important condition: "provided you remain in his kindness." He is saying that Christians can lose their salvation by throwing it away. He warns, "Whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall" (1 Cor. 10:11–12).

    As a Catholic and if someone asks me if I 've been "saved," I will say, "I am redeemed by the blood of Christ, I trust in him alone for my salvation, and, as the Bible teaches, I am ‘working out my salvation in fear and trembling’ (Phil. 2:12), knowing that it is God’s gift of grace that is working in me."
     
  14. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    Neither do I teach or promote such an idea. Assurance of salvation is based upon good works but salvation is not based upon good works. There is a difference between "assurance" and "salvation."

    This text says no such thing! It says they shall not "reign" with him not that they shall not be saved. In the New heaven and earth there are those who reign over others (Rev. 21:24-25).


    The Bible certainly does teach that TRUE Christians are guaranteed eternal life now and in the future (Jn. 5:24; 6:37-40; 10:28-30; 1 Jn. 5:13; Philip. 1:6; etc.). However, the Bible distinguishes between TRUE and FALSE professors and FALSE professors do fall from their PROFESSION of faith (1 Jn. 2:19).


    Not a single solitary text listed above is contextually applicable to your assertion. Romans 11:22-23 deals with Gentiles as a PEOPLE among whom the professing kingdom of God and sphere of redemption is among. The Gentiles can be cast off as was Israel but neither were saved in the first place. Matthew 18:21-35 is parabolic of God's chastening here and now. 1 Cor. 15:1-2 applies to a MIXED audiance that contain some who reject the gospel as delivered by Paul and proof they were never true believers. 2 Peter refers to those who never experienced transformation of nature but merely external cleansing and still the same in nature - lost but religiously lost.



    Anyone who has read Exodus-Deuteronomy knows there was a MIXED multitude that came up out of Egypt who were never belonged to God in the first place and demonstrated it by their responses to trials and God's commands. In true children of God tribulations reveal their salvation (Rom. 5:3-5) as real salvation perseveres tribulations (2 Cor. 1:6-8). However, tribulation reveals false professors as they have nothing within them to enable them to persevere.

    Why can't you claim you know you have eternal life?

    1 Jn. 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

    Why can't you express the confidence of Job:

    Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
    26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:


    Why can't you express the confidence of Paul?

    Philip. 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

    I will tell you why! Because you don't share the same basis for salvation they shared!
     
  15. lakeside

    lakeside
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Walter, I haven't time to answer the other verses you supplied, maybe later,here is only an answer to one verse.
    Philip. 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:phil. 1:6 – “I am sure that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” Protestants also use this verse to prove “once saved, always saved.” But Protestants wouldn’t argue that the whole Philippi church was saved, so this statement must be qualified. In fact, Paul does qualify it in Phil. 2:13 when he warns them to work out their salvation “in fear and trembling,” and in Phil. 3:11-14 when he writes that “if possible,” he may obtain the resurrection, and that he has not yet received the prize (of salvation). Moreover, the verse tells us what God will do (He will give all the grace to bring us to completion), but says nothing about our cooperation with God’s grace.


    Catholics have more assurance of salvation that those who espouse “once saved, always saved.” This is because the only distinction between a true Christian and a superficial Christian is that the superficial Christian will not persevere to the end – but this is something a Christian cannot know during his life, and this necessarily imposes uncertainty upon him until the end. For Catholics, we know that salvation is ours to lose. For “once saved, always saved” Protestants, they don’t even know whether it is theirs to begin with.
     
  16. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,933
    Likes Received:
    96
    Well then we are going to have to have a full examination of the passages that suggest a "falling away" from grace, aren't we. Since I was a RC for over 30 years, I would be honored to dialog with you....provided there is no rock throwing. Your move.
     
  17. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    My name is not "Walter" but "the Biblicist" or TB. If this comment is for "Walter" than I will let "Walter" answer for himself. Maybe I should start calling you "George" or something besides "Lakeside" huh?




    Paul was the one who constituted this congregation at Philippi! Why should he not believe their profession is real until there is something manifest that their profession was false??? Nevertheless, he has in view saved people not the lost or false professors.


    You probably meant to quote verse 12 instead of verse 13. Nevertheless, it is impossible to work out (v. 12) what God does not first work in and out (v. 13).


    Paul is talking about himself as a Christian that desires his life to be made conformable to Christ's death so that he can experience the power of the resurrection - not some future resurrection but a present resurrection so that his life stands out and apart from the dead. He wants to be conformable to the death of Christ where the body has died and is buried with Christ in regard to sin (Justification) so that he might experience resurrection life (regeneration) apart from that which is dead and buried.

    It is this resurrection life (regenerative power) by which he presses toward the goal of sinless perfection regardless if it is impossible to acheive as no other goal is worthy for a mature thinking Christian.


    Catholics not only have no assurance of salvation but condemn anyone who claims they can know they are "saved" and know have presently eternal life and know they are going to heave, like Job, like Paul, Like John, like Baptists.
     
  18. lakeside

    lakeside
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry The Biblicist but I can not dialogue with you , you twist everything to fit your own eisegesis.I'd rather put my trust in those "teachers with authority" whose Christian lineage can be traced directly back to the Apostles and the real "Teacher with Authority".
    Biblicist, i still haven't asked a Catholic apologist about your numerous questions, I can't get in touch with anybody with such a large page of questions that you have, maybe if you could break them down into simple direct questions i.e. - "What is the Catholic understanding of justification," as an example.
    Just watch Dr. James White take a beating on sola Scriptura by a Catholic apologist . Dr. White had to admit defeat, the Catholic apologist had a vast knowledge of the Holy Bible.
     
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    I seriously doubt you will ask an Catholic Apologist. I have never read a exegetical contextual based response from any Catholic. I have seen them try to pit scripture against scripture. I have seen them change the subject, ignore the text or abritrarily redefine words to suite their purpose in spite of context. However, I have never seen a honest confrontation of the text in its context - never.

    Yet, 80% of Christendom stands or falls on this very issue. All who believe in baptismal regeneration stand or fall on this issue. All who believe in justification by works stand or fall on this issue. All who believe in sacraments fall or stand on this issue.
     
    #19 The Biblicist, Nov 27, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 27, 2011

Share This Page

Loading...