The Blessedness - Romans 4:6-8

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by The Biblicist, Jun 28, 2012.

  1. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    Rom. 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
    7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
    8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin
    .


    Abraham is being used to illustrate Paul's doctrine of justification by faith without works.

    1. Abraham lived 430 years before Moses and the Old Covenant Law

    2. Abraham's "works" cannot be construed to be of the Old Covenant

    3. Abraham was the "father of circumcision" and therefore what role does circumcision play in justification by faith.

    The subject is Justification and two requiresments must be met for the "ungodly" to be justified before God:

    1. Imputed righteousness - v. 6
    2. Forgiveness of sins - vv. 7-8

    The man in possession of these two requirements is the "blessed" man and this is the state of "blessedness"!

    The argument on this forum is how does such a man obtain this state of "blessedness" and thus be a "blessed...man."

    The answer is provided in Romans 4:9-12

    9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
    10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
    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:
    12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.


    Again, Catholic Church Catechism makes it very clear that circumcision plays the same sacramental role under the Old Covenant that baptism does under the New Covenant and they argue that point using Colossians 2:12.

    "Jesus' circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth, IS THE SIGN of his incorporation into Abraham's descendants, into THE PEOPLE OF THE COVENANT. It is THE SIGN of his submission to THE LAW and his deputation to Israel's worship, in which he will participate through his life. THIS SIGN PREFIGURES that 'circumcision of Christ' WHICH IS BAPTISM." - #527 Catholic Church Catechism, 2nd Edition, p. 133

    "CIRCUMCISION: The rite prescribed in Judaism and other cultures which involves the cutting off the foreskin of a male. Circumcision was a SIGN OF THE COVENANT between God and his people Israel and PREFIGURED THE RITE OF CHRISTIAN INITIATION IN BAPTISM. " - Glossary, Catholic Church Catechism, 2nd Edition, p. 871

    "SIGNS OF THE COVENANT. The Chosen People received from God distinctive SIGNS and SYMBOLS tht marked its liturgical life. These are no longer solely celebrations of cosmic cycles and social gestures, but SIGNS OF THE COVENANT, SYMBOLS of God's mighty deeds for his people. Among these liturgical SIGNS FROM THE OLD COVENANT are CIRCUMCISION, anointing and consecration of kings and priests, laying on of hands, sacrifices, and above all the Passover. The Church SEES IN THESE SIGNS A PREFIGURING OF THE SACRAMENTS OF THE NEW COVENANT." - #1150, Catholic Church Cathechism, 2nd Edition, p. 297

    Therefore, if we replaced the words "circumcised" and "circumcision" with any of the New Testament SIGNS and SYMBOLS in Romans 4:9-12 we would have the Apostles view of the Roman Catholic application of such signs in regard to justification by faith:


    9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the BAPTIZED only, or upon the UNBAPTIZED also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
    10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in BAPTISM, or in UNBAPTISM? Not in BAPTISM, but in UNBAPTISM.
    11 And he received the sign of BAPTISM, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being UNBAPTIZED: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not BAPTIZED; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
    12 And the father of BAPTISM to them who are not of the BAPTIZED only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he being yet UNBAPTIZED.



    Here is a clear and explicit absolute rejection of the very foundation upon which Roman Catholic Sacramentalism is built and defined by the Apostle Paul.
     
  2. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    This absolute explicit and clear Pauline denial that circumcision can be viewed as sacramental in regard to justification joined with Rome's absolute and clear assertion that circumcison is sacramental equally as baptism is a clear condemnation and absolute proof that Catholism and all her protestant sacramental daughters are among the "many" (Mt. 7:13) with a false gospel profession of faith plus works (Mt. 7:22) and thus the apostate Christendom predicted that would arise and be the persecutors of true New Testament Christianity (Mt. 5:10-12).
     
    #2 The Biblicist, Jun 29, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 29, 2012
  3. 33ad

    33ad
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Biblist why are so scared of the catholic church
     
  4. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    This is the typical reply by those who cannot deal with the evidence. Your catholic church made it very clear that baptism is equal to circumcision as a sacrament and Paul makes it very clear that circumcision had absolutely no sacramental value and this is all you can say in response? No wonder Catholicism is spiritually bankrupt.
     
  5. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    Again, the evidence is clear and explicit to anyone who can read and understand English. Here is a clear and explicit Biblical condemnation of sacramentalism and with the condemnation of sacramentalism is the complete and utter condemnation of the whole Catholic system of ecclesiology and soteriology.
     
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    Why are you so scared to attempt to EXEGETICALLY attempt to refute my OP??? I dare you or any Catholic advocate on this forum to attempt to EXEGETICALLY refute it IN LIGHT OF the CCC interpretation of circumcision's relationship to baptism!
     
  7. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Biblicist, as much as I have disagreed with you and had run-ins with you in other areas, you have hit the nail on the head with these posts. That is all I can say and all I need to say.
     
  8. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,114
    Likes Received:
    52
    Why do you hold to doctrines taught by Rome that cannot be found in the bible, indeed contridicts it?
     
  9. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207

    You take it out of context and make it the doctrine espoused by Paul when Paul is using that only to show the effect (blessedness) of a person who forgiven their sins - TS

    TS claims that the contextual definition of "this blessedness" (v. 9) is merely "the effect" or simply being "blessed" as though such "blessed" effects can be separated from what the immediate context necessarily "describeth" what obtains that effect.

    If the context did not give the basis for this "blessed" effect than TS could claim it is merely a non-contextually state of happiness that Paul is speaking about. However, Paul "describeth" the grounds for that effect. Indeed, the whole context concerns how that "effect" is obtained for the "ungodly" man.

    5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
    6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness [/U]
    of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
    ......[/B]



    The person to be "blessed" is first described as the "ungodly" man in verse 5 and in verse 5 it is the subject of justification of the "ungodly" man that is specifically in view. Justification before God is what obtains the "blessed" effect of the "ungodly" before God and justification consists of:

    1. Imputeth righteousness to the ungodly - vv. 5-6
    2. Forgiveness or coverning of the sin of the ungodly - v. 7
    3. No future imputation of sin to the ungodly - v. 8

    7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
    8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin
    .


    However, in verse 9 Paul deals specifically with "HOW" do those things which constitute justification, which Paul "describeth" as the contextual cause of "this blessedness" come upon the "ungodly" to make the transition from condemnation to justification.

    9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
    10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
    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:
    12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.


    How did the "ungodly" Abraham become "blessed" in regard to imputed "righteousness" that included not only forgiveness of sins but no future imputation of sin? That is the question Paul considers and answers in verses 9-12.

    Now, TS would like for us to believe that Paul divorces the effect "blessed" from it stated contextual cause because that is precisely what TS does in order to avoid the IMPOSSIBLE dilemma he is faced with between what the CCC says about circumcision and what Paul says about in verses 9-12. He would like you to believe that Paul is not talking about Justification but only the "effect" of justification ("blessed") as though that makes any sense at all?!?

    No, "this blessedness" refers to BOTH the stated basis and effect as there is no effect without the stated basis!
     
    #9 The Biblicist, Jul 6, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 6, 2012
  10. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,114
    Likes Received:
    52
    How can he say that baptism "infuses" a sinner with grace from/by God, when the entire biblical record states that faith does that, in the sense of God imputes/credits/reckons us as being in christ, and thus with his very own rightiousness?

    is THAT what bothers the RCC so much, that to God we have the very rightiousnes of Christ imputed/declared to us, APART from good works/obedience?
     
  11. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    Catholics think everyone outside of Catholicism are ignoramuses because they lack the insight of tradition as interpeted by Rome. Their long history of tradition allows them to fabricate their complicated and contradictory system of doctrine and practice.

    They only recognize IMPARTED righteousness because they confuse justification and imputed righteousness with sanctification and imparted righteousness. The Bible teaches BOTH! The Bible also teaches that justification does not occur apart from regeneration which is the source of progressive sanctification and thus pragmatically there is no such thing as a justified person "without works" in attendance although justification is "without works" in its obtainment.

    The Catholics have the very same problem as does Moriah and SBM when it comes to the "ungodly" man in Romans 4:5. All of them deny that at the point of faith it is the "ungodly" man that righteousness is imputed unto and whose sins are forgiven with no future imputation of sin - thus justified at the point of faith. He is still an "ungodly" man in regard to his own works as none of his own works measure up to GODLINESS or sinless perfection. However, he is no longer "ungodly" in regard to his LEGAL POSITION "in Christ." Even after regeneration none of his own works are "godly" (Rom. 7:18). Even after regeneration it is God that worketh in him both to "will and to do" that produces anything godly in regard to progressive sanctification.
     
  12. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    Again, Romanists have no answer for Paul here. Their whole system of salvation is corrupt bottom up and crumbles under Biblical scrutiny and that is precisely why they will not respond to this thread in any RATIONAL OBJECTIVE manner.
     
  13. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0

    The Bible does not say that righteousness is imputed, but rather that faith is accounted as righteousness -- some might say only a subtle difference, but I say a major difference.
     
  14. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Romans 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:
     
  15. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    The literal word is "reckoned", not imputed.
     
  16. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    You said: "The Bible does not say that righteousness is imputed, but rather that faith is accounted as righteousness"


    I showed you that the Bible does say righteousness is imputed. That was the point, You can call it whatever you want but the Bible does say impute and it means the same thing. Impute, credited, reckoned, all mean you received something that was not yours.
     
  17. Moriah

    Moriah
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,540
    Likes Received:
    0
    Biblicist,

    You have argued against me many times in other threads to where you said Abraham was considered righteous before the works of the law. However, circumcision is a work, even though it came before the Law of Moses, it still is a work.

    It is not evil in itself not to be uncircumcised; however, it is a sin not to obey God in everything, and that includes to be circumcised when God says to be circumcised. Do you think that if Abraham had a heart bent on disobeying, and would not be circumcised, even though he believed in God, would still be in right standing with God? Of course, Abraham would not be in right standing with God.

    A man was not considered a child of God if he were not circumcised. Do you understand that? Even though Abraham’s faith was credited as righteousness, he still had to be circumcised. Even though Moses was a man of God, God was going to kill him for not circumcising his son. Circumcision was a seal of faith, and we do not have to do that work anymore to be considered a man of God. For circumcision is an outward sign with the Jews. However, we still have to obey God in everything.

    Circumcision was a seal of Abraham’s faith, the faith Abraham had before he was circumcised.

    Does that mean God never considered Abraham’s heart, and that faith has nothing to do with a willing heart to obedience, of course not! For Apostle James tells us Abraham’s faith and actions worked together, even before circumcision. Apostle James says faith without action is dead. Dead faith is never the saving kind of faith. You misunderstand Paul. People misunderstand Paul when Paul explains why no one has to do the outward sign of circumcision anymore.
    Before Abraham’s circumcision, before his seal of faith, Abraham’s actions worked together with his faith, when, as Paul says, Abraham went where God said to go, even though he did not know where he was going.

    Even BEFORE Abraham was circumcised, Abraham BY FAITH offered Isaac as a sacrifice.

    Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.

    Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son,

    James 2:21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

    James 2:22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

    Catholics believe baptism is like circumcision, but it is not. Baptism is a pledge to God that you will die to the sins of the world and live like Jesus.
     
  18. Moriah

    Moriah
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,540
    Likes Received:
    0
    As Abraham had a heart to obey God, so he had to live that way the rest of his life. Do you not know that Saul had the Spirit of God, and God took it from him when he stopped obeying?
    What are you calling Abraham’s “own works”? Please answer that question! Seriously, you need to answer that question.
    It is never “ungodly” to obey God.
    It is funny how when you want to argue your false doctrines, you keep insisting that Abraham lived before the law of Moses, but then you use Romans 7:18 that speaks of those under the law to try to explain something about Abraham!
    You are all ensnared in total depravity.
     
  19. Moriah

    Moriah
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,540
    Likes Received:
    0
    How in the world do you get that righteousness is imputed and it was not “yours”? If a person does not have faith, do you think they get it imputed to them? How does that work?
     
  20. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0

    If you don't understand the difference between the doctrine of imputed righteousness and its connection to the false doctrine of forensic justification, and the Biblical teaching of our faith accounted as righteousness, I won't explain further.

    And, as I showed, the literal word is "reckoned", not "imputed".
     

Share This Page

Loading...