Salvation in Catholic and Baptist Theology

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition says:


1150 Signs of the covenant. The Chosen People received from God distinctive signs and symbols that 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.

527 Jesus circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth, is the sign of his incorporation into Abraham's descendents, 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 throughout his life. This sign prefigures that "circumcision of Christ" which is Baptism.

 

Romans 4:11 denies that divine external rites are sacramental. They are a "sign and seal" of things already accomplished rather than things accomplished during the application of the external rite.

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:

Now simply place baptism in the place of circumcision in this context:

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 baptized, or unbaptized? 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 had being yet unbaptized.

Abraham is THE EXAMPLE or PATTERN that Paul chooses to set forth for justification by faith in order to remove all boasting (Rom. 3:27; 4:1-2).

the Justification is defined in Romans 4:6-8 to include the "blessedness" of both remission of sins and imputed righteousness.

Abraham received this "blessedness" while still in uncircumcision not in circumcision. Hence, circumcision was not sacramental in character or nature as justification was not imparted, imputed, received during circumcision and the same is true with baptism.

 

OK, Ive honestly not studied RC Doctrine in 15 years but am not surprised by anything they do. Didn't they delve into a semi charismatic stage in an effort at church expansion?

 

The very term "charismatic" was coined by Roman Catholics to distinguish a large movement within Roman Catholicism from Protestant "Pentecostalism" in regard to ecstatic utterances and other supernatural phenomena they shared in common with each other.

 

I just ask that the people who are contemplating the RCC as a viable alternative to their own faith, really take another look at the RCC & what they have now & maybe some revisions as to what they have now......God is merciful & patient so when it is searched out & measured, I'm certain the correct faith will reveal itself.

In my own case it was the pressure to conform to Roman Catholicism (not for its faith value) but because my mothers family have deep roots in the movement & it was a requirement for the cohesiveness of the family that I conform. Yes they played that card, they used guilt, shame, they even tried to convince me of the richness of history & the freedoms in society that I would have in remaining a Catholic. In the end, I was able to break free to the richness & freedoms assigned that Christ alone brings. Two years ago I finally was regenerated into this "new man" unrecognizable to the man (sinner) of the past. I wish all could experience this precious gift.

 

I'm sure it will be pointed out that the text in question involves circumcision and not baptism, and that by substituting Baptism for circumcision here (something Paul doesn't do) you are demonstrating a classical example of reading something INTO the text which isn't there.

(Just giving you a heads up)

 

Thanks for the heads up but your missing my point. Rome specifically compares circumcision (see quotations from CCC) with baptism as a "sign" and "seal" of the New Covenant.

Granting their comparison, I simply demonstrate that circumcison never actually conveyed what it was a "sign" and "seal" of - regeneration/justification and that is the point Paul makes in Romans 4:5-12.

However, since Rome makes that comparison then all one has to do is substitute the term baptism with circumcision in this text to demonstrate that divine rites are not sacramental - conveyors of grace or what they signify but are only declaratives of what a person already has received.

 

Your missing Paul's point! Circumcision did not convey any grace at all and therefore if baptism is comparable to circumcision then baptism does not convey any grace at all.

Jesus makes the same point in Luke 5:12-15. Divine rites do not convey any literal grace. They do not convey justification at all. They are only DECLARATIVE of what has already been conveyed.

You can't have you cake and eat it to, but that is exactly what you have attempted to do by your fence straddling explanation. Either baptism conveys justification/regeneration etc. or it does not. There are not two ways of salvation in scripture but only "ONE" way. There are not TWO gospels but only ONE gospel (Gal. 1:8-9).

Romans 3:24-5:2 is a doctrinal exposition of justification before God and Paul clearly and explicity condemns the Roman Catholic view of justificaiton before God as heresy.

 

You really are in a mess all the way, faith in the Catholic Church and false tongue speaking.

 

No I havent... I prefer to keep some experiences to myself..... however if you wish to speak privately & confidentially, I can possibly accommodate you.

 

I would disagree. From everything I have read up to this point, I would say JoJo's faith is in Jesus.

 

One must make a choice: Put your faith in Christ, or put your faith in the RCC. You can't do both. If you put your faith in Christ, you will be obedient to the commands of Christ and leave the RCC. You will be baptized as an adult, after salvation, and become a member of a Bible-believing church that does actively preach the gospel. There is no turning back.

The RCC is not a Christian church and never has been.

 

This brings up the question that, so far, everyone in this forum has dodged. I keep hearing how any real Christian would be truly miserable as a member of the Catholic Church and would 'come out of her'. I have read many of 'Thinkingstuffs' past posts, including many while he was still a Baptist. I have no doubt he has a better understanding of Catholic theology than anyone posting on this board. He says he returned to the Catholic Church after extensive study and now not only is happy to be back but that he has seen much fruit as a result.

Are you saying that IF he does not leave the Catholic Church he must not ever have been truly born again to begin with?

Not trying to be contentious or pick a fight. The answer to this question is important to me.