Sacramentalism is "another gospel"

[The Biblicist]

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:

In the book of Romans the Apostle covers a wide variety of things relating to "the faith" as a system of "doctrine" they had received (Rom. 15:16) but in Romans 3:24:5:2 one particular "doctrine" is in view separated from all others and that is "justification by faith." He is not dealing with regeneration, progressive sanctification, adoption, glorification, elect, predestion or any other number of individual distinct teachings involved in "the faith" as a body of doctrine.

In this context:

1. Abraham is set forth as the UNIVERSAL case example for ALL who are of faith before and after the cross as he actually existed prior to the cross.

2. In Romans 4:5-8 he defines "justification" to consist of imputed righteousness and non-imputation of sin or remission of sins.

3. In Romans 4:9-11 he deals explicitly with both HOW and WHEN Abraham was justified (imputed righteousness and remission of sins) in relationship with external divine ordinances - circumcision.

4. He utterly rejects that Abraham was justified (imputed righteousness/remitted sins) while "IN CIRCUMCISION" - vv. 9-11

By denying that he was justified "in circumcision" utterly denies that justification is a progressive unfinished work concurrent with his life in circumicision. Instead it was a completed action at the point of faith (Aorist tense) and progressively continues as a completed state throughout his life (perfect tense - Rom. 5:2).


5. He utterly denies that circumcision was instituted to provide the "promise" of any salvation but was instituted to be a an external "sign" of justification by faith received "in uncircumcision."

6. Abraham is not an isolated case or a case contrary to the rule. He is set forth as the RULE for "ALL" who are "of faith" - Rom. 4:11-12; 16; Gal. 3:6-7.

7. Sacramentalism is a complete repudiation of Romans 4:5-12.

8. Roman Catholic definition of justifying "faith" is completely repudiated by Paul in Romans 4:16-25.

These are the Biblical facts and they are not based upon FEELINGS but upon contextual facts that cannot be honestly or objectively overturned.

 

[Yeshua1]

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:

In the book of Romans the Apostle covers a wide variety of things relating to "the faith" as a system of "doctrine" they had received (Rom. 15:16) but in Romans 3:24:5:2 one particular "doctrine" is in view separated from all others and that is "justification by faith." He is not dealing with regeneration, progressive sanctification, adoption, glorification, elect, predestion or any other number of individual distinct teachings involved in "the faith" as a body of doctrine.

In this context:

1. Abraham is set forth as the UNIVERSAL case example for ALL who are of faith before and after the cross as he actually existed prior to the cross.

2. In Romans 4:5-8 he defines "justification" to consist of imputed righteousness and non-imputation of sin or remission of sins.

3. In Romans 4:9-11 he deals explicitly with both HOW and WHEN Abraham was justified (imputed righteousness and remission of sins) in relationship with external divine ordinances - circumcision.

4. He utterly rejects that Abraham was justified (imputed righteousness/remitted sins) while "IN CIRCUMCISION" - vv. 9-11

By denying that he was justified "in circumcision" utterly denies that justification is a progressive unfinished work concurrent with his life in circumicision. Instead it was a completed action at the point of faith (Aorist tense) and progressively continues as a completed state throughout his life (perfect tense - Rom. 5:2).


5. He utterly denies that circumcision was instituted to provide the "promise" of any salvation but was instituted to be a an external "sign" of justification by faith received "in uncircumcision."

6. Abraham is not an isolated case or a case contrary to the rule. He is set forth as the RULE for "ALL" who are "of faith" - Rom. 4:11-12; 16; Gal. 3:6-7.

7. Sacramentalism is a complete repudiation of Romans 4:5-12.

8. Roman Catholic definition of justifying "faith" is completely repudiated by Paul in Romans 4:16-25.

These are the Biblical facts and they are not based upon FEELINGS but upon contextual facts that cannot be honestly or objectively overturned.

God did ALL that was equired to redeem sinners in the Cross of christ...

ANY adding to that makes a mockery of the death of Christ!

 

[mont974x4]

I believe we have ordinances. These are God-ordained practices. They are baptism and Communion. They are not a means of grace, as is implied in calling the sacraments. Doing them has no impact on the salvation of the person. They are to be done out of obedience by people who have already been saved.

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe we have ordinances. These are God-ordained practices. They are baptism and Communion. They are not a means of grace, as is implied in calling the sacraments. Doing them has no impact on the salvation of the person. They are to be done out of obedience by people who have already been saved.

THAT is the proper and correct view!

 

[The Biblicist]

God did ALL that was equired to redeem sinners in the Cross of christ...

ANY adding to that makes a mockery of the death of Christ!

An important distinction is that the cross of Christ provided the LEGAL BASIS for justification and that is why it is the OBJECT of saving faith, however, it is the work of the Holy Spirit that makes the LEGAL APPLICATION of the atonement.

BTW are you agreeing or disagreeing with my original post? I took your response as merely reaffirmation of my post.

 

[Yeshua1]

An important distinction is that the cross of Christ provided the LEGAL BASIS for justification and that is why it is the OBJECT of saving faith, however, it is the work of the Holy Spirit that makes the LEGAL APPLICATION of the atonement.

BTW are you agreeing or disagreeing with my original post? I took your response as merely reaffirmation of my post.

Totally agreeing!

 

[The Biblicist]

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:

In the book of Romans the Apostle covers a wide variety of things relating to "the faith" as a system of "doctrine" they had received (Rom. 15:16) but in Romans 3:24:5:2 one particular "doctrine" is in view separated from all others and that is "justification by faith." He is not dealing with regeneration, progressive sanctification, adoption, glorification, elect, predestion or any other number of individual distinct teachings involved in "the faith" as a body of doctrine.

In this context:

1. Abraham is set forth as the UNIVERSAL case example for ALL who are of faith before and after the cross as he actually existed prior to the cross.

2. In Romans 4:5-8 he defines "justification" to consist of imputed righteousness and non-imputation of sin or remission of sins.

3. In Romans 4:9-11 he deals explicitly with both HOW and WHEN Abraham was justified (imputed righteousness and remission of sins) in relationship with external divine ordinances - circumcision.

4. He utterly rejects that Abraham was justified (imputed righteousness/remitted sins) while "IN CIRCUMCISION" - vv. 9-11

By denying that he was justified "in circumcision" utterly denies that justification is a progressive unfinished work concurrent with his life in circumicision. Instead it was a completed action at the point of faith (Aorist tense) and progressively continues as a completed state throughout his life (perfect tense - Rom. 5:2).


5. He utterly denies that circumcision was instituted to provide the "promise" of any salvation but was instituted to be a an external "sign" of justification by faith received "in uncircumcision."

6. Abraham is not an isolated case or a case contrary to the rule. He is set forth as the RULE for "ALL" who are "of faith" - Rom. 4:11-12; 16; Gal. 3:6-7.

7. Sacramentalism is a complete repudiation of Romans 4:5-12.

8. Roman Catholic definition of justifying "faith" is completely repudiated by Paul in Romans 4:16-25.

These are the Biblical facts and they are not based upon FEELINGS but upon contextual facts that cannot be honestly or objectively overturned.

Paedobaptists attempt to make a transition between circumcision under the Old Covenant as entrance into the covenant community with baptism under the New Covenant.

However, the problem with that attempt is Paul's explanation of the design behind the institution of circumcision with Abraham (Rom. 4:11) in connection with remission of sins which totally invalidates the whole basis of the paedobaptist argument.

Paul places the remission of sins (vv. 7-8) which provides the basis for being the "blessed man" prior to circumcision of Abraham rather in connection with circucumcision (vv. 9-11).

Even more damaging and even damning of the paedo-baptism argument is that it is the pre-circumcised Abraham rathe than the circumcised Abraham that is set forth as the example of justification by faith FOR ALL who are of faith.

The Paedobaptist advocate attempts to simply ignore the Pauline explanation of the design of circumcision as merely a "sign" and ignore it is the pre- rather than the post-Abrahamic example that is set forth as the model of justification for "ALL" who are of faith and proceeds to justify his theory by advancing the argument to the circumcision of Abraham's children at birth.

However, the Biblical response is quite simple. Paul does not provide the post-circumcision Abraham as the model in connection with justification but the pre-circumcision Abraham. Secondly, the stated design for the institution of circumcision in connection with justification does not change just because infants are circumcised but remains the same as stated in Romans 4:11 - a "sign" disconnected with actual justification as it was with Abraham. In addition, the application to an 8 day old infant is just another type advancing the same truth that is seen clearly under the New Covenant which is circucmision is simply a picture of the new birth totally disconnected with actual literal justification.

Bottom line? It is the PRE-circumcised example of Abraham that is set forth as the model for not some but for "ALL" who are of faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

Paedobaptists attempt to make a transition between circumcision under the Old Covenant as entrance into the covenant community with baptism under the New Covenant.

However, the problem with that attempt is Paul's explanation of the design behind the institution of circumcision with Abraham (Rom. 4:11) in connection with remission of sins which totally invalidates the whole basis of the paedobaptist argument.

Paul places the remission of sins (vv. 7-8) which provides the basis for being the "blessed man" prior to circumcision of Abraham rather in connection with circucumcision (vv. 9-11).

Even more damaging and even damning of the paedo-baptism argument is that it is the pre-circumcised Abraham rathe than the circumcised Abraham that is set forth as the example of justification by faith FOR ALL who are of faith.

The Paedobaptist advocate attempts to simply ignore the Pauline explanation of the design of circumcision as merely a "sign" and ignore it is the pre- rather than the post-Abrahamic example that is set forth as the model of justification for "ALL" who are of faith and proceeds to justify his theory by advancing the argument to the circumcision of Abraham's children at birth.

However, the Biblical response is quite simple. Paul does not provide the post-circumcision Abraham as the model in connection with justification but the pre-circumcision Abraham. Secondly, the stated design for the institution of circumcision in connection with justification does not change just because infants are circumcised but remains the same as stated in Romans 4:11 - a "sign" disconnected with actual justification as it was with Abraham. In addition, the application to an 8 day old infant is just another type advancing the same truth that is seen clearly under the New Covenant which is circucmision is simply a picture of the new birth totally disconnected with actual literal justification.

Bottom line? It is the PRE-circumcised example of Abraham that is set forth as the model for not some but for "ALL" who are of faith.

Another glaring error of sacramentalism/paedobaptism is their failure to consider the overall Bibical design behind external divine rites. The pre-Abrahamic example clearly presents that design but it is also noted in other places.

Hebrews 10:1 characterizes divine rites as a "shadow" which simply provides a visual form but does not contain the actual substance that casts the shadow. Colossians 2:17 in the context of circumcision, baptism and all external cermonial rites (Col. 2:12-16) explicitly characterize them all as a "shadow" whereas in contrast Christ is the actual substance that casts the shadow. Hence, these things are mere VISUAL FORMS that the writer of Hebrews says can "NEVER" take away sins.

Finally, the argument over the Greek "eis" or English word "for" in regard to such shadow rites is mute because shadows do visually convey remission of sins, regeneration, salvation or whatever substance they are designed to give visual expression. So the real question is not if baptism or circumcision saves, regenerates or remits sins but HOW it does. Romans 4:11 with Hebrews 11:1 and Colossians 2:17 all answer the how to be in VISUAL FORM only but "never" literally (Heb. 11:4). So Peter expresses it correctly when he says "the like FIGURE whereunto baptism doth also now save us. The FIGURE is the visual form of the resurrection "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21) while Peter carefully denies it literally saves which would involve the literal removal of the moral fith of the fleshly nature. Instead, like circumcision in Romans 4:11 it is the answer/response of a conscience already been cleasned and serves merely as an outward testimony of that previous cleansing due to justification by faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

Another glaring error of sacramentalism/paedobaptism is their failure to consider the overall Bibical design behind external divine rites. The pre-Abrahamic example clearly presents that design but it is also noted in other places.

Hebrews 10:1 characterizes divine rites as a "shadow" which simply provides a visual form but does not contain the actual substance that casts the shadow. Colossians 2:17 in the context of circumcision, baptism and all external cermonial rites (Col. 2:12-16) explicitly characterize them all as a "shadow" whereas in contrast Christ is the actual substance that casts the shadow. Hence, these things are mere VISUAL FORMS that the writer of Hebrews says can "NEVER" take away sins.

Finally, the argument over the Greek "eis" or English word "for" in regard to such shadow rites is mute because shadows do visually convey remission of sins, regeneration, salvation or whatever substance they are designed to give visual expression. So the real question is not if baptism or circumcision saves, regenerates or remits sins but HOW it does. Romans 4:11 with Hebrews 11:1 and Colossians 2:17 all answer the how to be in VISUAL FORM only but "never" literally (Heb. 11:4). So Peter expresses it correctly when he says "the like FIGURE whereunto baptism doth also now save us. The FIGURE is the visual form of the resurrection "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21) while Peter carefully denies it literally saves which would involve the literal removal of the moral fith of the fleshly nature. Instead, like circumcision in Romans 4:11 it is the answer/response of a conscience already been cleasned and serves merely as an outward testimony of that previous cleansing due to justification by faith.

Another fallacous explanation given for sacramentalism is that the external ordinances entered into by faith conveys the actual substance the ordinances provides a visual form. This is clearly repudiated by Paul in Romans 4:9-10 as justification by faith occurred "in uncircumcision" rather than "in circumcision" as this theory demands.

Furthermore, such examples as the woman touching the hem of the garment of Christ (and other like examples) are not proper examples of that sacramental concept as there are no established divine rites involved in any of these examples. Additionally, the response of Christ is not that the touching of his garment is what healed her but her faith as it is "by faith" we receive the healing of our souls from God. This is the distinction that Paul makes between justification by faith in the case of Abraham "in uncircumcision" in contrast to "in circumcision" or external rites.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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:

In the book of Romans the Apostle covers a wide variety of things relating to "the faith" as a system of "doctrine" they had received (Rom. 15:16) but in Romans 3:24:5:2 one particular "doctrine" is in view separated from all others and that is "justification by faith." He is not dealing with regeneration, progressive sanctification, adoption, glorification, elect, predestion or any other number of individual distinct teachings involved in "the faith" as a body of doctrine.

In this context:

1. Abraham is set forth as the UNIVERSAL case example for ALL who are of faith before and after the cross as he actually existed prior to the cross.

2. In Romans 4:5-8 he defines "justification" to consist of imputed righteousness and non-imputation of sin or remission of sins.

3. In Romans 4:9-11 he deals explicitly with both HOW and WHEN Abraham was justified (imputed righteousness and remission of sins) in relationship with external divine ordinances - circumcision.

4. He utterly rejects that Abraham was justified (imputed righteousness/remitted sins) while "IN CIRCUMCISION" - vv. 9-11

By denying that he was justified "in circumcision" utterly denies that justification is a progressive unfinished work concurrent with his life in circumicision. Instead it was a completed action at the point of faith (Aorist tense) and progressively continues as a completed state throughout his life (perfect tense - Rom. 5:2).


5. He utterly denies that circumcision was instituted to provide the "promise" of any salvation but was instituted to be a an external "sign" of justification by faith received "in uncircumcision."

6. Abraham is not an isolated case or a case contrary to the rule. He is set forth as the RULE for "ALL" who are "of faith" - Rom. 4:11-12; 16; Gal. 3:6-7.

7. Sacramentalism is a complete repudiation of Romans 4:5-12.

8. Roman Catholic definition of justifying "faith" is completely repudiated by Paul in Romans 4:16-25.

These are the Biblical facts and they are not based upon FEELINGS but upon contextual facts that cannot be honestly or objectively overturned.

This is one of the most ridiculous post I have yet seen by you. Your own scripture referrence shows you the truth about the sacramental view. It also clearly shows you don't understand what sacraments are about because you make a lot on non related speculation regarding the topic. So to first explain what Catholics are talking about with sacraments lets first understand what sacraments are rather than what you think they are.

The word Sacrament originates from Latin sacramentum which simply means Mystery. Its the Latin equivilant of the Greek Mysterion. Tertullian uses this phrase Christian Mystery around 200 AD. It is said of God's working in human history revealing his plan of salvation was a mystery which doesn't in that context have the conotation of something not understood but that something can only be known when God reveals it. Thus a mystery can only be known to God and those to whom he reveals it. And human understanding only comes by faith. Thus the sacraments are an outward sign of the mystery taking place, a sign in matter/deed and in word (Eph. 5:26), and that the sign bears a relationship to the spiritual grace or reality conferred by the Holy Spirit's action. Thus there is a two fold aspect to Sacrament one is that it is a symbol or a sign and the other is that it is a completion or a seal as it says in Romans

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith

. God does this all the time. Jesus made mud and put it in the mans eyes and had the man wash it away and the man could see. Did the mud heal him or did Jesus? Jesus. Anyone can be immersed (baptized) but if there is no faith there is nothing about it. Its just a person who gets wet. Grace is already working in the life of the Christian by their faith. 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). It also symbolizes dying and rising with Christ (Rom. 6:3-4), especially when performed by immersion. While the action of baptism is performed the word which Christ commanded is spoken (Mt. 28:19), completing the sign (the seal of faith). Also in the book of Acts it is clear that those who received Christian baptism also received the Holy Spirit, had their sins forgiven and became members of Christ.
Think about it. Joshua Marched around Jericho and when the trumpets blew the walls came down. The Leper was told to wash in the river and he came out cleared of the disease. God constantly works in this fashion throughout human history.
You have the cart before the horse you think we believe an action forces God into action when in reality all it is; is an outward sign of the inward Grace that God had already initiated. Grace brings the faith that causes the action and makes that action work. But without faith there is no grace.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is one of the most ridiculous post I have yet seen by you.

Big empty words but go ahead and puff - be my guest!

The word Sacrament originates from Latin sacramentum which simply means Mystery.

Lets cut to the chase. Neither in the Latin vulgate or the Greek New Testament is the term "mysterion" ever once used to describe/characterize or contextually apply to baptism or the Lord's Supper - Never once!

So the selection, use and application to baptism and the Supper are purely Roman Catholic without any Biblical basis whatsoever. It is an unbiblical approach to baptism and the Supper and any attempt to take post-biblical writings or writers and to justify it is simply blowing hot air.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Big empty words but go ahead and puff - be my guest!
-

Not empty words at all. Any observer can see my post in its entirety and will see that I have explained sacramentalism using your own scripture quote to reveal it. The fact that you have a faulty understanding of Sacrament and how it works and thus misapplied the scripture to it as a "refutation". Just shows how little thought you actually put into your post. And to prove it I wil put the link here to that post I made.

 

[billwald]

"My hope is built on nothing less than Scofield's Notes and Moody Press."

 

[The Biblicist]

Thus the sacraments are an outward sign of the mystery taking place, a sign in matter/deed and in word (Eph. 5:26),

First, Romans 4:9-10 completely repudiate the Roman Catholic concept of "sacrament" to justification by faith. He was justified "in UNcircumcision" whereas the Catholic Concept make justification by faith CONCURRENT with the administration of ordinance.

Second, Romans 4:11 repudiates this concept completely as the external rite was a "sign" not of something that was in process or even occuring at the time of circucmision but rather of something already "had" some years prior to cirucmision.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not empty words at all. Any observer can see my post in its entirety and will see that I have explained sacramentalism using your own scripture quote to reveal it. The fact that you have a faulty understanding of Sacrament and how it works and thus misapplied the scripture to it as a "refutation". Just shows how little thought you actually put into your post. And to prove it I wil put the link here to that post I made.

You are playing politics! It is your desire for readers to see your position and so you simply assert they do when in fact you have no idea whether they do or do not. Try a little honesty!

 

[The Biblicist]

Just shows how little thought you actually put into your post. And to prove it I wil put the link here to that post I made.

Please bring it on. I eagerly await!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Please bring it on. I eagerly await!

See this is typical of you. What are you waiting for? I already made the post. You just refused to read it. And you do that because you are so stuck on what you think that you think you know everything and anyone who tells you different you refuse to listen to. Just click on here and you can see it or hit back to go to the end of page one and read it.

 

[The Biblicist]

See this is typical of you. What are you waiting for? I already made the post. You just refused to read it. And you do that because you are so stuck on what you think that you think you know everything and anyone who tells you different you refuse to listen to. Just click on here and you can see it or hit back to go to the end of page one and read it.

Already answered its essential points. Do I have to place a link to my answer for you to read it????

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are playing politics! It is your desire for readers to see your position and so you simply assert they do when in fact you have no idea whether they do or do not. Try a little honesty!

I'm not playing politics. I just pointing out facts. You have a faulty view of the consept of Sacrament. You want to believe it means something else and so you redefine the consept to match what you wanted it to mean. Thus when you argue against it. You aren't really arguing against the Catholic View of Sacrament, but rather a fictional consept you imposed of the view. You thus set up a "red herring" to knock it down but you don't really deal with it in actuallity. I've got to go for now. I'll debate with you latter. Cheers!

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not playing politics. I just pointing out facts.

You made the claim that all the readers could see that my exposition and application of Romans 4:5-11 was completely faulty. You have absolutely no way to confirm that is a fact as you cannot read the minds of all the readers! So in regard to that comment you were simply playing politics (and that is how I applied it) as the politician attempts claim his view is universally recognized.

You have a faulty view of the consept of Sacrament. You want to believe it means something else and so you redefine the consept to match what you wanted it to mean. Thus when you argue against it. You aren't really arguing against the Catholic View of Sacrament, but rather a fictional consept you imposed of the view. You thus set up a "red herring" to knock it down but you don't really deal with it in actuallity. I've got to go for now. I'll debate with you latter. Cheers!

False! I know exactly what the Catholic view of a sacrament is and we have gone over it numerous times.

However, I made no attempt to define the term "sacrament" or the history behind it but I did destroy it as a Biblical concept of circumcision, baptism or the Lord's Supper. The Catholic Catechism explicitly states that "circumcision" is parallel to baptism in regard to its "sacramental" character under the Old Covenant as opposed to the New Covenant.

Romans 4:9-10 denies that justification occurs "IN circumcision" but "in uncircumcision" which denies justification is CONCURRENT with circucumcision or still an incompleted action. That denies that circumcision is sacramental or used by God in the act of justification or essential for any aspect of justification and that my dear sir destroys the Sacramental doctrine completely.