Featured Sacramentalism is "another gospel"

Here is one part of my answer to your post that you did not respond to yet.

 

Here is the second response to your post but no response as yet from you!

 

The "mystery" in Ephesians 5:26-31 has nothing to do with any external rite but with the fact that marriage between a man and woman is a visual type of Christ and the church. The washing by the Word refers to progressive sanctification by confirmation to the Word of God through the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer - nothing about external ordinances whatsoever.

This explanation is equally repudiated by Paul in Romans 4:9-11. Circumcision both as a "sign" and "seal" had absolutely no CONCURRENT or COMPLETION kind of application as justification did not occur "IN UNCIRCUMCISION" which was when Abraham was justified by faith. Neither as a "sign" or as a "seal" was it concurrent with the act of justification. Nor was justification CONCURRENT or INCOMPLETE during "circumcision"!

Hence, this Catholic two-step application is contextually IMPOSSIBLE and thus it is utterly repudiated by the text. Instead the term "seal" stands in apposition to "sign" to reinforce the concept of a visible symbol as that is also the obvious use of a "seal."

Hence, the "seal" concept is simply a VISUAL and further explanation of the term "sign." The immediate context forbids it is being regarded as something that FINISHES justification or COMPLETES justification because Paul says justificaton was already "HAD" in "uncircumcision.

 

1131 The sacraments are efficasious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, BY WHICH LIFE IS DISPENSED TO US. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify AND MAKE PRESENT the graces proper to each sacraments... - Catholic Catechism, p. 293

527 Jesus' circumcision....This sign prefigures that "circumcision of Christ" which is baptism - Catholic Catechism, p. 133

1150 ...Among these liturgical signs from the Old Covenant are circumcision....The Church sees in these signs a prefiguring of the sacraments of the New Covenant. - Catholic Catechism, - p. 297

There is no question that Rome sees a parallel significance of circumcision under the Old Covenant to baptism under the New Covenant so with Catholic perspective in view if we simply replace "circumcision" and "uncircumcision" with "baptism" and "unbaptized in Romans 4:9-11 we can clearly see how Paul understood baptism if consdered parallel to circumcision:


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 unbaptized? Not in baptism, but unbaptized.
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:

As you can clearly see Paul completely repudiates any kind of sacramental application as he explicitly denies there is any CONCURRENT application of circumcision/baptism to LITERAL justification as that was "HAD" long before he was circumcised/baptized.

Note also that the Catholic Catechism explicitly claims that a sacrament is the means by which life is actually and literally obtained and I quote:

1131 The sacraments are efficasious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, BY WHICH LIFE IS DISPENSED TO US. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify AND MAKE PRESENT the graces proper to each sacraments... - Catholic Catechism, p. 293

However, Paul repudiates the idea that circumcision dispensed life to Abraham or that circumcison made present the graces they signified as he repeatedly denies justification was received "IN" circumicision.

 

I have debated this very same thing with TS before and he always makes empty charges he can never sustain, distorts the context and perverts the real facts. Neither can he honestly and objectively disprove the expositionary points I have provided although he will surely claim he can but the proof is in the pudding and the pudding can be summed up in one sentence:

"Abraham was NOT justified "IN" circumcision/baptism but "IN" uncircumcision/unbaptized and therefore Justification cannot be CONCURRENT with circumcision/baptism but justification precedes circumcision/baptism."

 

The serious error of sacramentalism is not merely that it perverts the scriptures and perverts the ordinances but in all practicality it transforms what the scriptures characterize as a "shadow" into the visible means to receive the embodiment of the substance of salvation and thus the immediate object of faith instead of the invisible Person and finished work of Jesus Christ. Hence, for all practicality it becomes the visible REPLACEMENT of Jesus Christ and His finished work and thus an IDOL and submission IDOLATRY!

Instead, the scriptures treat it as a "shadow" that does not convey the substance but merely resembles the VISIBLE FORM of the substance and thus a symbol of the substance.

For example, look at your own shadow and you will see it is completely empty of substance except VISIBLE FORM! A car can run over your shadow and it has no effect upon you. Divine visible rites are mere "shadows" that by design confer only the VISIBLE FORM but never convey the literal substance that casts the shadow. Sacramentalism is replacing the substance with the shadow.

In keeping with a "shadow" we can say of our "shadow" that is me. Me as in visible form but not me as in substance. When we look at baptism we can say that is salvation and remission of sins. Salvation and remission of sins in VISIBLE FORM but not salvation and remission of sins in substance as a shadow ordinance can "NEVER" takes away sin or saves literally.

So again, we come to the primary point. I do not deny that baptism saves and remits sins. Hence, no need to argue over the langauge. That is not the issue as I admit that. The issue is HOW does baptism save and remit sins. The answer is that it does so only as a VISIBLE FORM - a "shadow" but "NEVER" literally.

Also, the Roman Catholic idea that baptism is both a "sign" (symbol) and a "seal" or a MEANS OF COMPLETION of salvation is false as Romans 4:11 clearly repudiates. It is a "sign" (Symbol) meaning it is a "seal" (VISIBLE FORM) as a "seal" is the visible form on a letter that provides a VISIBLE REPRESENTATION of the owner.

What will be TS response? He probably won't dare come back and make any objective response. HOwever, if he does I guarantee it will most likely be introduced with more hot but empty air followed by unfounded assertions and more erroneous arguments while steering clear of the contextual evidences I have repeatedly pointed out in my exposition of Romans 4:9-11.

 

The Roman Catholic concept of the parallelism between circumcision and baptism as sacraments under different covenants has no basis in Biblical theology. However, it does have its origin in Biblical history. It is the same concept of circumcision held by apostate Judaism during the New Testament era.

This concept of circumcision is clearly stated in Acts 15:1 and repudiated by the Apostles in the very same chapter and throughout the epistles of the New Testament.

Roman Catholicism is the theological and system offspring of a mixture of apostate Judaism and Old Covenant Judaism mixed together. This mixture can seen in that they speak of the Lord's Supper in sacrificial terms and they have a "priest" system comparible to the Levitical system. A high Priest (Pope) and a various levels of Priests. Aarons immediately family preists (Cardinals) and then various distinct classifications priests as the Kohathites, etc. (Bishops, common priests, etc.). However, some of the terminology is borrowed straight out of pagan babylonial history. NONE OF THE ABOVE ARE FOUND IN THE NEW COVENANT ORDER.

This perversion, apostasy within Judaism at the time of Christ and the Apostles was the same Babylonian Harlotry that had infiltrated Israel in the past and for which they were chastened.

 

Notice the words above that I have enlarged and placed in bold.

Take note that TS rightly presents the Catholic claim that it is "IN" baptism there is an "effecting" act that takes place interior to man.

Remember, the Catholic Catechism compares OT circumcision as parallel to NT baptism and Paul denies that justification (imputation of righteousness; non-imputation of sin - vv. 6-8) occurs "IN" circumcision but occurred "IN" uncircumcision:

Rom. 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

Remember also, that TS says that a sacrament like circumcision is both a "sign" and a "seal" which Rome interprets as a TWO different aspects. They claim the "sign" = symbol but "seal" = completion of justification. Of course if that were Paul's meaning then he would have contradicted his previous denial and repeated denial that justification occurred "IN UNcircumcision" as that intepretation would demand it was not finished/completed until "IN circumcision."

Hence, that is not his meaning at all. The term "seal" simply stands in apposition to "sign" being a further affirmation that it is a symbol as a "seal" was the VISIBLE SYMBOL on a letter of the owner. Hence, his meaning is that it is a "sign" meaning a VISIBLE "symbol" as in a seal.

As we have shown previously the whole concept of a "sacrament" is the figment of Roman Catholic imagination and false doctrine. The Greek term "musterion" as found in the New Testament or Latin equivilent in the Latin Vulgate is NEVER ONCE used in the New Testament to describe, define, or characterize baptism or the Lord's Supper. NOT ONCE! Rome has arbritrarily selected this term and arbritrarily applied it to baptism and the Lord's Supper to support their false doctrine without one shred of Biblical support.

 

None of the above were given as divine rites to Israel but were outright miracles of God.

Why don't you simply use the simple and plain language of the Catholic Catechism instead of all your dancing around what they explicitly say it is??

1131 The sacraments are efficasious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, BY WHICH LIFE IS DISPENSED TO US. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify AND MAKE PRESENT the graces proper to each sacraments... - Catholic Catechism, p. 293

1260 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as punishment for sin..."

1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature," member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic Catechism is plain and simple and to the point so thiat no one can misunderstand why they need to be baptized according to Rome.

Paul completely repudiates this whole sacramental theology in Romans 4:9-11 in that he denies that justification before God occurs "in" circumcision/baptism but already "had" occurred "in uncircumcision/unbaptism".

 

1. In Romans 4:10a Paul deals with "WHEN" and "HOW" Abraham was justified

Rom. 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.


2. In Romans 4:10b Paul provides only two possible options to answer the WHEN question:

Rom. 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, OR in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.


3. In Romans 4:10c Paul denies the justification occurred "in" circumcision

Rom. 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

Originally Posted by Thinkingstuff
Thus we see that In Baptism the individual is baptized in water, since water cleans, effecting an interior cleansing and renewal by God's gift of Himself (John 3:5, Acts 2:38).

TS and Rome claim that the term "seal" in Romans 4:11 demands that justification is COMPLETED "in baptism/circumcision" and therefore directly contradicts Paul's repudiation that it occurred "in circumcision." Hence, one is forced to either reject Paul's repudiation that it occurred "in circumcision" or one must reject TS and Romes interpretation of "seal" and their insistance that it was completed "IN circumcision/baptism."

 

In Romans 4:10 Paul denies justification occurred "in circumcision" but demands its is restricted to "in uncirucmision."

TS and Rome claim that justification is a progressive incompleted action that begins "IN" baptism/cirucmision and is completed IN judgement at the end of the world. However, Paul denies both claims. Justification is not completed "in" circumcision but "in" uncircumcision. Justification is not progressive but completed "in" uncircumcision."


Why then the change from the Aorist tense in verse 3 to the present tense in verse 5 and back to the Aorist tense in verse 11?

ANSWER: The present tense is used in verse 5 to grammatically identify every thing that occurs at that point of justification. At that point of justification the person's condition is "ungodly" and it is the ungodly that at that point is beleiving, and being justified and righteousness is being imputed as all simeltaneous and contemporary at the point of justification. It is a punctillar completed action (vv. 3,5; 5:1-2) and at that point of action when Abraham was justified by faith, Abraham's personal condition was "ungodly" - v. 5. All the verbs are found in the present tense that modify "ungodly". The present tense verbs "believeth....justifieth...imputeth" show concurrent action in direct connection with the state of Abraham when he was justified and that state is described as "the ungodly."

Second, Paul not only uses the Aorist tense to describe that action (Rom. 4:3,11, 5:1), AND confines it to "in uncircumcision" (Rom. 4:10-11) while denying it occured "in uncircumcision" but in addition uses the Perfect tense to describe that action in Romans 5:2 demanding that justification by faith was a completed action at a point in the past and that COMPLETED ACTION stands complete right up to the present.