Roman Soteriology Exposed and Condemned

The Biblicist said:

527 Jesus’ circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth,209 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 210 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.21

Notice that circumcision and baptism are considered equal with regard to initial inclusion of the persons into covenant relationship with God and with the people of God. So I have one question for you -

Could a person living in Israel between Moses and the birth of Christ be saved if uncircumcised? Is salvation under the Old Covenant dependent upon being brought into covenant relationship with God and with the people of God by circumcision?

Click to expand...

All of what you said none of it equates to circumcision being a sacrament. It says specifically that it is a SIGN of his incorporation into the people of the covenant. Jesus Christ himself was circumcised.

Baptism Is also a sign, but NOT ONLY a sign of incorporation it is "the circumcision of Christ", The difference is Baptism is not only a welcoming into the Body of Christ it is a sacrament that Justifies.

I can say AMEN to both ROMANS 4, where circumcision makes no difference, and ROMANS 6, where you are justified by Baptism.

You have placed yourself in a position where you can accept Romans 4 and would have to deny Romans 6.

Can you see Baptism Justifying a person here?

Romans 6
3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,

Because we are buried with him through baptism and have become united with him in the likeness of his death, CERTAINTLY CERTAINTLY CERTAINTLY we shall also be in the likeness of his Resurrection.

It is impossible to downplay baptism.

1 peter 3

20who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Baptism NOW SAVES YOU.


"Could a person living in Israel between Moses and the birth of Christ be saved if uncircumcised? Is salvation under the Old Covenant dependent upon being brought into covenant relationship with God and with the people of God by circumcision?"

Sure you had all the women for example who are not circumcised. All still dependent on Christ he is their hero. A saint between the time of Moses and Christ still depends on Christ to be a saint.

utilyan said:

All of what you said none of it equates to circumcision being a sacrament. It says specifically that it is a SIGN of his incorporation into the people of the covenant. Jesus Christ himself was circumcised.

Baptism Is also a sign, but NOT ONLY a sign of incorporation it is "the circumcision of Christ", The difference is Baptism is not only a welcoming into the Body of Christ it is a sacrament that Justifies.

I can say AMEN to both ROMANS 4, where circumcision makes no difference, and ROMANS 6, where you are justified by Baptism.

You have placed yourself in a position where you can accept Romans 4 and would have to deny Romans 6.

Can you see Baptism Justifying a person here?

Romans 6
3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,

Because we are buried with him through baptism and have become united with him in the likeness of his death, CERTAINTLY CERTAINTLY CERTAINTLY we shall also be in the likeness of his Resurrection.

It is impossible to downplay baptism.

Click to expand...

First, I do not reject that it is water baptism in Romans 4:3-5 which is being spoken about. However, I do reject that baptism literally unites us with Christ but only does so in "likeness" as a figure or symbol just as Peter says in 1 Pet. 3:21. We are buried with him in baptism figuratively and we are raised with him in baptism figuratively. Paul's point is that baptism identifies us figuratively both with justification and with regeneration and therefore justification does occur without regeneration and the resurrected life of Christ conveyed in regeneration as testified in the figure of baptism provides victory over sin in the Christians life. Moreover, it is only figurative because Paul has already established in chapter four that we are justified after the pattern of Abraham which is accomplished apart from external divine rites. So your interpretation of Romans 6 is contradictory to the pattern for justification established in Romans 4 which pattern is true "of all who are of faith."

utilyan said:

1 peter 3

20who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Baptism NOW SAVES YOU

Click to expand...

Your bible mistranslates the Greek text. The Greek antitupos means a corresponding figure or as the KJV translates "the like figure." This is proved by the context with regard to Noah. Both the ark of Noah and baptism are corresponding types of "the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The ark litetraly saved them FROM THE WATER and they were in the ark before a drop of water fell. The roll that the water played was lifting up the ark as a figure of the resurrection of jesus Christ. So the ark scenario does not correspond to your interpretation of baptism in verse 21. it was the ark not the water that literally saved Noah and it is Christ not baptism that literally saves the believer.

Your translation "the removal of dirt from the flesh" is also an improper translation and in fact makes no sense in this context. Why would removal of literal dirt from the literal body be thought of as a salvation of any kind? Perhaps by a lunatic but not by any sane person. The "filth of the flesh" is a metaphor for sin found in our fleshly nature as described by Paul in Romans 7:14-25.

Your translation of "an appeal to God for a good conscience" is also an improper translation as it means the very opposite, "the answer of a good conscience".

utilyan said:

"Could a person living in Israel between Moses and the birth of Christ be saved if uncircumcised? Is salvation under the Old Covenant dependent upon being brought into covenant relationship with God and with the people of God by circumcision?"

Sure you had all the women for example who are not circumcised. All still dependent on Christ he is their hero. A saint between the time of Moses and Christ still depends on Christ to be a saint.

Click to expand...

You are avoiding my question. The law did not require females to be circumcised and you know it. Women were under the protection of the husband and father. I am speaking about men. Could men who were not circumcised be part of the covenant people of God or be in a covenant relationship with God. If not, is there salvation outside of this covenant relationship with God for uncircumcised men?

The Biblicist said:

First, I do not reject that it is water baptism in Romans 4:3-5 which is being spoken about. However, I do reject that baptism literally unites us with Christ but only does so in "likeness" as a figure or symbol just as Peter says in 1 Pet. 3:21. We are buried with him in baptism figuratively and we are raised with him in baptism figuratively. Paul's point is that baptism identifies us figuratively both with justification and with regeneration and therefore justification does occur without regeneration and the resurrected life of Christ conveyed in regeneration as testified in the figure of baptism provides victory over sin in the Christians life. Moreover, it is only figurative because Paul has already established in chapter four that we are justified after the pattern of Abraham which is accomplished apart from external divine rites. So your interpretation of Romans 6 is contradictory to the pattern for justification established in Romans 4 which pattern is true "of all who are of faith."



Your bible mistranslates the Greek text. The Greek antitupos means a corresponding figure or as the KJV translates "the like figure." This is proved by the context with regard to Noah. Both the ark of Noah and baptism are corresponding types of "the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The ark litetraly saved them FROM THE WATER and they were in the ark before a drop of water fell. The roll that the water played was lifting up the ark as a figure of the resurrection of jesus Christ. So the ark scenario does not correspond to your interpretation of baptism in verse 21. it was the ark not the water that literally saved Noah and it is Christ not baptism that literally saves the believer.

Your translation "the removal of dirt from the flesh" is also an improper translation and in fact makes no sense in this context. Why would removal of literal dirt from the literal body be thought of as a salvation of any kind? Perhaps by a lunatic but not by any sane person. The "filth of the flesh" is a metaphor for sin found in our fleshly nature as described by Paul in Romans 7:14-25.

Your translation of "an appeal to God for a good conscience" is also an improper translation as it means the very opposite, "the answer of a good conscience".




You are avoiding my question. The law did not require females to be circumcised and you know it. Women were under the protection of the husband and father. I am speaking about men. Could men who were not circumcised be part of the covenant people of God or be in a covenant relationship with God. If not, is there salvation outside of this covenant relationship with God for uncircumcised men?

Click to expand...

First your already contradicting yourself if with Romans 4 being a "pattern" since you would claim there is nothing we can do on our part to be justified. Only God justifiesY

You can't just dump Romans 6 like you did.

You have a problem with my interpretation of Romans 6:

Romans 6
3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,

Because we are buried with him through baptism and have become united with him in the likeness of his death, CERTAINTLY CERTAINTLY CERTAINTLY we shall also be in the likeness of his Resurrection.

Please at least provide an actual interpretation then.



You say baptism doesn't do anything. The word says BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU.
It even says its not removing dirt from your body but asking God to remove the dirt from your soul.

Acts 22
16‘Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’


Why do YOU DELAY, BIB?

I don't have to give a "interpretation" Scripture says Exactly what It means.

King James fine with me:

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:


It means what it says.....I don't have any explaining at all.




Ill tell you what though your attitude is the best defense for Calvinism, Because I can't think of any way anyone can read that scripture and come away with the EXACT OPPOSITE for the meaning , without divine intervention.

I wonder if God wants me to learn patience. Or if all the people who condemned everyone to be non free will robots actually became the robots they condemned the world to be.

utilyan said:

First your already contradicting yourself if with Romans 4 being a "pattern" since you would claim there is nothing we can do on our part to be justified. Only God justifiesY

Click to expand...

What a messed up mind you have! You can't deal with the objection and so you invent a false accusation to avoid the objection to your interpretation of Romans 6. Just because God has a pattern for how he justifies "all who are of faith" does not mean a "pattern" equals doing our part, when the pattern itself repudiates our assistance in justification.

utilyan said:

You can't just dump Romans 6 like you did.

You have a problem with my interpretation of Romans 6:

Romans 6
3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,

Because we are buried with him through baptism and have become united with him in the likeness of his death, CERTAINTLY CERTAINTLY CERTAINTLY we shall also be in the likeness of his Resurrection.

Please at least provide an actual interpretation then.

Click to expand...

I did provide an interpretation. Getting into water is not getting into Christ as one is material and the other is immaterial. In the act of water baptism there is clearly seen a public identification with the gospel of Christ as immersion in water is figurative of the burial of the dead Christ, and being raised up out of the water is figurative of the resurrected Christl That is why baptism is by immersion because in baptism we are "buried" with Christ figuratively and sprinkling and pouring do not convey any kind of burial or resurrection.

In context, Paul had just made the assertion that where sin abounded grace much more abounds based upon his doctrine of justification where Christ's life and death satisfy all demands of the Law in behalf of the believer. Paul then anticipates an objection that if justification satisfies all the demands of the law against the believer and where sin abounds grace more abounds, then some would say that such a doctrine teaches we should sin more so that grace may more abound - Rom. 6:1

If justification were the only act of God that occurred at conversion that may be true. However, justification does not occur in a vacuum but in connection with regeneration which changes the moral inclination of the believer so that he no longer wants to displease God but to please God. Both of these acts of God are visualized in the symbolism of baptism. The death and burial of Christ pictured in baptism conveys the doctrine of justification and Christ's full satisfaction of the penalty of the law by his death in our behalf. The doctrine of the regenerative life is pictured in baptism by being raised up out of the water showing the power of God over sin and death, which regenerative life occurs with justification. Therefore, baptism by immersion perfectly conveys both doctrines demonstrating that justification by faith is not an isolated act of God but occurs with regeneration.

In Romans 6:5-8:27 Paul continues to drive the point home that justified children are regenerated children who have the resurrected power of the Holy Spirit abiding in them which provides victory over sin in their own lives so that they do not desire to sin more that grace may more abound but desire to sin less because they have a new nature that loves righteousness. Both doctrines are united in the symbol of baptism and thus baptism serves as a perfect picture to show that both occur together at gospel conversion. That is the point of the term "likeness" to convey a picture rather than a reality. So there you go, I provided you with an extended interpretation.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

utilyan said:

You say baptism doesn't do anything.

Click to expand...

you didnt read what I said then. I said it provides a type, and the whole purpose of a type is to convey a specific truth or else the type is of no value. To pervert that type is to pervert the specific truth it is designed to convey pictorially. Spirnkling and pouring pervert the truth that baptism is designed to portray. Baptism is designed to portray the truth of the gospel of how Christ died and was buried and rose again and that can only be portrayed by immersion as we are "buried" with him by baptism. Moreover, it serves as a visible profession that we the gospel as portrayed in immersion is what we base our hope and eternity upon. Furthermore, it serves as a filter for church membership to filter out all whose profession does not harmonize with that picture as the prerequiste for baptism is the right purpose which is to publicly identify with the gospel of Christ rather than to find literal salvation in baptism or any other good works.

utilyan said:

The word says BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU.
It even says its not removing dirt from your body but asking God to remove the dirt from your soul.

Click to expand...

Only a cult would think that physical material water can remove immaterial sin from an immaterial conscience. Tell me what removed sin from the souls of those saints between Genesis to the cross? It was not sacrifices as the writer of Hebrews says they were but "shadows" that could "never" remove sin. Peter tells you how - "To him give all the prophets witness that whoseover believeth upon his name SHALL RECEIVE REMISSION OF SIN" -Acts 10:43. This brings us back to the "pattern" by which God justifies (remits sins) "all who are of faith" without the use of divine rites in Romans 4. Your interpretations of Romans 6 and 1 Pet. 3;21 and Acts 22:16 violate that pattern.

The sacrifice removed sin like a "shadow" (Heb. 10:1-4) or FIGURE or in type and so baptism removes sin FIGURATIVELY just as the ark was a FIGURE of the resurrection of Christ. So in baptism we have a picture of sins being washed away (Acts 22:16) but it can no more remove sin literally than the Old Testament sacrifices could remove sin literally even though the language of remission of sin describes those sacrifices just as describes baptism and the Lord's Supper.

The Biblicist said:

you didnt read what I said then. I said it provides a type, and the whole purpose of a type is to convey a specific truth or else the type is of no value. To pervert that type is to pervert the specific truth it is designed to convey pictorially. Spirnkling and pouring pervert the truth that baptism is designed to portray. Baptism is designed to portray the truth of the gospel of how Christ died and was buried and rose again and that can only be portrayed by immersion as we are "buried" with him by baptism. Moreover, it serves as a visible profession that we the gospel as portrayed in immersion is what we base our hope and eternity upon. Furthermore, it serves as a filter for church membership to filter out all whose profession does not harmonize with that picture as the prerequiste for baptism is the right purpose which is to publicly identify with the gospel of Christ rather than to find literal salvation in baptism or any other good works.



Only a cult would think that physical material water can remove immaterial sin from an immaterial conscience. Tell me what removed sin from the souls of those saints between Genesis to the cross? It was not sacrifices as the writer of Hebrews says they were but "shadows" that could "never" remove sin. Peter tells you how - "To him give all the prophets witness that whoseover believeth upon his name SHALL RECEIVE REMISSION OF SIN" -Acts 10:43. This brings us back to the "pattern" by which God justifies (remits sins) "all who are of faith" without the use of divine rites in Romans 4. Your interpretations of Romans 6 and 1 Pet. 3;21 and Acts 22:16 violate that pattern.

The sacrifice removed sin like a "shadow" (Heb. 10:1-4) or FIGURE or in type and so baptism removes sin FIGURATIVELY just as the ark was a FIGURE of the resurrection of Christ. So in baptism we have a picture of sins being washed away (Acts 22:16) but it can no more remove sin literally than the Old Testament sacrifices could remove sin literally even though the language of remission of sin describes those sacrifices just as describes baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Click to expand...

be baptized, and wash away your sins

utilyan said:

be baptized, and wash away your sins

Click to expand...

For your information I have already been baptized it was not to literally remit sins. I am going to ask you this again for the third time and yet have no answer from you.

You are avoiding my question. The law did not require females to be circumcised and you know it. Women were under the protection of the husband and father. I am speaking about men. Could men who were not circumcised be part of the covenant people of God or be in a covenant relationship with God between Abraham and Christ. If not, then is there salvation outside of this covenant relationship with God for uncircumcised men between Abraham and Christ?

The Biblicist said:

For your information I have already been baptized it was not to literally remit sins. I am going to ask you this again for the third time and yet have no answer from you.

You are avoiding my question. The law did not require females to be circumcised and you know it. Women were under the protection of the husband and father. I am speaking about men. Could men who were not circumcised be part of the covenant people of God or be in a covenant relationship with God between Abraham and Christ. If not, then is there salvation outside of this covenant relationship with God for uncircumcised men between Abraham and Christ?

Click to expand...

Your question is insignificant, "Circumcision" can utterly save only or not do anything at all and it has NO BEARING on what Baptism can do.

I think you answered your own question. Circumcision is the covenant sign between God and his chosen people.



I'm not telling you to get baptized, BIB.


Im trying to get you to focus on

Acts 22
16‘Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’


Can you imagine yourself telling someone Come on lets go get baptized RIGHT NOW, DO NOT DELAY Lets go WASH AWAY YOUR SINS?


You would never use this language would you?


What I hear from Baptist is a "sinner's prayer" Not found in the bible.


What is this "WASH AWAY YOUR SINS", bib? Maybe you can clear that up.

utilyan said:

Your question is insignificant, "Circumcision" can utterly save only or not do anything at all and it has NO BEARING on what Baptism can do.

I think you answered your own question. Circumcision is the covenant sign between God and his chosen people.

Click to expand...

You are still avoiding answer my question forthright while you expect me to answer your questions completely and directly. Please answer the questions I have asked now for the fourth time.

utilyan said:

I'm not telling you to get baptized, BIB.


Im trying to get you to focus on

Acts 22
16‘Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’


Can you imagine yourself telling someone Come on lets go get baptized RIGHT NOW, DO NOT DELAY Lets go WASH AWAY YOUR SINS?


You would never use this language would you?

Click to expand...

When Paul recounts his salvation experience here and in Acts 9 and Acts 26 he makes it clear that his LITERAL spiritual salvation experience already happened on the road to Damascus many days before he was baptized by Ananias. He acknowledged Christ as Lord and was "filled with the Spirit" all before he was baptized. he was acknowledged as "brother" before he was baptized (Acts 9).

He was also commissioned while on the road to Damascus before he was baptized and thus "sent" while on the road to Damascus. When he relates this sending by Christ on the road to Damascus to the Corinthians he said "Christ SENT me NOT to baptize" demonstrating baptism was not essential for literal salvation as he goes on to say the power of God is in the gospel not baptism (1 Cor. 1:17-18).

Acts 26:17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

So, baptism does take away sins figuratively just as sacrifices did (Heb. 10:1-4) but neither can literally remove the filth of the fleshly nature (1 Pet. 3:21).

utilyan said:

What I hear from Baptist is a "sinner's prayer" Not found in the bible.

Click to expand...

Don't judge all who call themselves "Baptist" by one or two. Saved people will call upon the name of the Lord but salvation is a revelation by God in the heart not due to a prayer. We do not call on people to bow there heads and close their eyes and repeat a sinners prayer. Christ revealed himself to Paul (Gal. 1:15-16). God revealed Christ to Peter (Mt. 16:17) salvation is God revealing the truth ofthe gospel in the heart (2 Cor. 4:6). Salvation has NOTHING TO DO with external words or ordinances.

utilyan said:

Colossians 2:11,12
and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism


Even the plain stupid sees he is comparing Circumcision with Baptism.

Click to expand...

Well you would know all about plain stupid. Paul absolutely is not comparing circumcision with baptism.

It would be very hard to think of two operations less similar than circumcision and baptism. They don't sound alike, they don't look alike, they certainly don't feel alike If you were blindfolded and had one of those operations performed on you, I guarantee you'd be able to tell which one it was. One is performed only on men, the other on men and women. The one leaves a permanent physical change, the other doesn't. So how can the one replace the other? But what is the circumcision performed without hands? Is it really possible to circumcise someone only using your feet?

Baptism has not come in the place of circumcision, and Colossians 2:11-12 does not say it has. Just as the one perfect offering of the Lord Jesus Christ has replaced the OT animal sacrifices, and just as the high priesthood of Christ has replaced the Aaronic priesthood, so the spiritual circumcision 'without hands' which believers have in Christ has replaced the physical circumcision of the OT. The 'circumcision made without hands in putting off [judicially, before God] the body of the sins of the flesh' has taken the place of the circumcision made with hands. 'Buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him' is something additional.

In short, circumcision was an ordinance for the physical descendants of Abraham; baptism is an ordinance for the spiritual descendants of Abraham- believers (Galatians 3:7).

Colossians 2
11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.


Galatians 3
26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.


You don't see connection of a circumcision that removes the old man and those who are baptize are clothed in Christ?

Those who are baptized are Clothed in Christ what exactly does that mean?

Are the people who are "buried with Him in baptism" have "the circumcision made without hands"?

Has a person who has been baptized received "The Circumcision of Christ"?


If you say YES they received the Circumcision of Christ, Gee, there is no connection between Circumcision of Christ and Circumcision?

Your unable to make any connection......is a miracle and act of God.

My mind has been blown.

utilyan said:

Colossians 2
11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.


Galatians 3
26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.


You don't see connection of a circumcision that removes the old man and those who are baptize are clothed in Christ?

Those who are baptized are Clothed in Christ what exactly does that mean?

Are the people who are "buried with Him in baptism" have "the circumcision made without hands"?

Has a person who has been baptized received "The Circumcision of Christ"?


If you say YES they received the Circumcision of Christ, Gee, there is no connection between Circumcision of Christ and Circumcision?

Your unable to make any connection......is a miracle and act of God.

My mind has been blown.

Click to expand...

Ok, you wont answer my questions then I am placing you back on "ignore".

The Biblicist said:

Ok, you wont answer my questions then I am placing you back on "ignore".

Click to expand...

The reason your upset is that you tried to present a LIE as our teaching.
Literally have to force a false teaching we would never agree.

You couldn't even win a unfair debate.


Its already stated as the law you have to be circumcised.

utilyan said:

The reason your upset is that you tried to present a LIE as our teaching.
Literally have to force a false teaching we would never agree.

You couldn't even win a unfair debate.


Its already stated as the law you have to be circumcised.

Click to expand...

Thank you. So when the Catechism says that baptism and circumcision are parallel with regard to entering a covenant relationship, then it really makes no difference whether Rome or you claim circumcision is a figure and not a sacrament because either way Rome interprets both as necessary for actual salvation and entrance into covenant relationship.

Hence, when Paul states that justification, which he defines as inclusion of remission of sins (Rom. 4:6-8) was completed (Aorist tense -v. 11) in the state of "uncircumcision" he is denying that any covenant ordinance does not literally convey justification or remission of sins. Moreover, since it is the pattern of Abraham's justification, which excludes covenant ordinances for justification, and this is the pattern by which "all who are of faith" are justified then this is a complete repudiation of the whole system of Roman Catholic sacramentalism.

Therefore, it is valid that Rome claims circumcision is parallel to baptism as they are equal in this one respect and that is the first step into bringing a person into a public covenant relationship with God's people. Where Rome falls, is its failure to understand that there is no justification obtained by entrance into the Old Covenant relationship by ordinances any more than there is justification obtained by ordinances under the New Covenant, but both ordinances are merely for symbolic identification with the people of God without any salvational value for either circumcision or baptism.

The Biblicist said:

Thank you. So when the Catechism says that baptism and circumcision are parallel with regard to entering a covenant relationship, then it really makes no difference whether Rome or you claim circumcision is a figure and not a sacrament because either way Rome interprets both as necessary for actual salvation and entrance into covenant relationship.

Hence, when Paul states that justification, which he defines as inclusion of remission of sins (Rom. 4:6-8) was completed (Aorist tense -v. 11) in the state of "uncircumcision" he is denying that any covenant ordinance does not literally convey justification or remission of sins. Moreover, since it is the pattern of Abraham's justification, which excludes covenant ordinances for justification, and this is the pattern by which "all who are of faith" are justified then this is a complete repudiation of the whole system of Roman Catholic sacramentalism.

Therefore, it is valid that Rome claims circumcision is parallel to baptism as they are equal in this one respect and that is the first step into bringing a person into a public covenant relationship with God's people. Where Rome falls, is its failure to understand that there is no justification obtained by entrance into the Old Covenant relationship by ordinances any more than there is justification obtained by ordinances under the New Covenant, but both ordinances are merely for symbolic identification with the people of God without any salvational value for either circumcision or baptism.

Click to expand...

" Where Rome falls, is its failure to understand that there is no justification obtained by entrance into the Old Covenant relationship by ordinances"

I got a problem with this. We have not made this claim ANYWHERE. Where have we made this claim?

You keep pushing a belief we would never agree to.

You want to pass off Baptism as an addition to what circumcision is, that's not the case. Its like trying to force a Jet to be a subset of propeller airplane.

Baptism accomplishes a improved symbolic significance to circumcision and MORE.

It is the circumcision of Christ.

If the OLD circumcision never existed it would not depreciate Baptism, why?

Romans 6

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Being baptized plants you together in the likeness of his death and puts you in line to the likeness of his resurrection.

Galatians 3
27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Clothed with Christ! I think you would argue even beyond my limit that ONLY the "elect" are clothed with Christ. I don't think your rule book allows for a unsaved man to be "Clothed with Christ".

I don't see how you disqualify baptism.

I think the laws did grant justification but only through Jesus Christ being able to actually fulfill. Justification-wise only Jesus "made it". The old law wasn't trash THANKS to Jesus.


So I can get a better understanding of your view.

Explain how someone who is CLOTHED with Christ and buried with him in death not justified.

utilyan said:

" Where Rome falls, is its failure to understand that there is no justification obtained by entrance into the Old Covenant relationship by ordinances"

I got a problem with this. We have not made this claim ANYWHERE. Where have we made this claim?

Click to expand...

You admitted that outside the covenant relationship with God under the Old Covenant there is no salvation and without circumcision of MALES there is no inclusion in the covenant. One plus one equals two.

utilyan said:

You want to pass off Baptism as an addition to what circumcision is,

Click to expand...

No I don't and I have never said that anytime anywhere. All I have done is to demonstrate that circumcision holds the same position as your view of baptism with regard of entrance into each of their respective covenants, as you view them both equally salvational and as initial entrance into each covenant. However, t the pattern of Justification set forth by Paul in Abraham repudiates that conclusion under both covenants.

The Biblicist said:

You admitted that outside the covenant relationship with God under the Old Covenant there is no salvation and without circumcision of MALES there is no inclusion in the covenant. One plus one equals two.





No I don't and I have never said that anytime anywhere. All I have done is to demonstrate that circumcision holds the same position as your view of baptism with regard of entrance into each of their respective covenants, as you view them both equally salvational and as initial entrance into each covenant. However, t the pattern of Justification set forth by Paul in Abraham repudiates that conclusion under both covenants.

Click to expand...

"You admitted that outside the covenant relationship with God under the Old Covenant there is no salvation and without circumcision of MALES there is no inclusion in the covenant. One plus one equals two."

I did not say that. I said it was Jewish Law for males to be circumcised.

You can't get what I say right, nor the catechism right, its no wonder you have the bible all messed up too.


====
The question is this:
"Could men who were not circumcised be part of the covenant people of God or be in a covenant relationship with God between Abraham and Christ." (?)


The answer is this:
I don't know.
====


The bearing of this question is insignificant to baptism. It doesn't make or break baptism. Baptism can stand on its own two feet ROMANS 6. And it has a relationship with Circumcision even called the Circumcision of Christ. Colossians 2.


"repudiate" Romans 6. Clothed in Christ. Being Planted/joined in his death. having your OLD SELF CRUICIFIED WITH HIM--->Baptism

Romans 6
3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7for he who has died is freed from sin.


If a person think Romans 4 is against Roman 6 they need to go back to school, learn to read.

utilyan said:

"You admitted that outside the covenant relationship with God under the Old Covenant there is no salvation and without circumcision of MALES there is no inclusion in the covenant. One plus one equals two."

I did not say that. I said it was Jewish Law for males to be circumcised.

Click to expand...

Well, then what is Rome's view of salvation under the Old Covenant? Is it there view that a person could violate Jewish law and be saved? By the way what do mean "Jewish Law"? Isn't that the law of scripture or do you repudiate the first five books of Moses as scripture and thus God's Word rather than merely "Jewish law"????



====
The question is this:
"Could men who were not circumcised be part of the covenant people of God or be in a covenant relationship with God between Abraham and Christ." (?)

utilyan said:

The answer is this:
I don't know.

Click to expand...

You don't know what Rome believes about how people were saved under the Old Covenant? Does Rome believe a man could break God's Word as it is God that prescribed cirucumcision?
====

The Biblicist said:

Well, then what is Rome's view of salvation under the Old Covenant? Is it there view that a person could violate Jewish law and be saved? By the way what do mean "Jewish Law"? Isn't that the law of scripture or do you repudiate the first five books of Moses as scripture and thus God's Word rather than merely "Jewish law"????



====
The question is this:
"Could men who were not circumcised be part of the covenant people of God or be in a covenant relationship with God between Abraham and Christ." (?)




You don't know what Rome believes about how people were saved under the Old Covenant? Does Rome believe a man could break God's Word as it is God that prescribed cirucumcision?
====

Click to expand...

I have to research this one a bit more. Cause I don't know. But I'm going to find out.

Here's my thoughts.

Romans 2

28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Covenant-wise I suppose you could be in a covenant relationship.


My understanding is Covenant relationship, salvation, justification are different things.

Like when you say "how people were saved under the Old Covenant?"

It has to be Jesus Christ. Like there is no salvation for Jews apart from Christ.


Keep in mind what is the bearing of all this in baptism?

Lets say circumcision doesn't save at all. The Circumcision of CHRIST, Baptism still does.



It sounds like you want to say Baptism does not save. Lets start off by saying that then.

And then explain how being clothed in Christ, united with him in death and united with him in resurrection, is not salvation.

If salvation was a location like the State of California. Its like arguing that arriving at the LAX air port won't get you to California.

The Biblicist said:

I said your post confirmed what I said the Catechism taught and I applied to Romans 4. When your position is consistently applied to Romans 4:9-11 it is clearly repudiated by Paul. And your response below to Romans 4 avoids the issue completely as my argument was not that God condemn's circumcision but justification did not occur "in circumision" but before he was circumcised or when in "uncircumcision" and that fact repudiates the whole sacramental doctrine of Rome.



No one denies circumcision is comparable to baptism but that is not the issue. The issue is whether circumcision and baptism were sacraments wherein the grace of justifjcation or regeneration occurred. The argument is whether baptism like circumcision is merely an outward "sign" or "seal" of something already accomplished by faith before even entering into circumcision or baptism. Paul answers this in Romans 4:9-11. Justification was a completed action (aorist tense verb) while he was ye "in uncircumcision" while Paul explicitly denies it occurred "in circumcision" as Rome teaches.

With regard to Colossians 2:11-12 it can be equally argued that baptism in water is an external sign or symbol of an internal action that occurred long before the act of baptism just as in the case of Abraham's circumcision. Remember, it is the justification by faith with regard to Abraham that is the pattern or likenes for "all who are of faith" rather than the circumcision of infants in the Old Testament.



Either you did not carefully read my application to romans 4:9-11 or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said. Which is it? I never said that God condemned circumcision. I said Paul condemned the Roman Catholic notion that justification was conferred in circumcision, thus making it a saving sacrament. You did not even address the basis and application of my argument. If you want to do that, then I suggest you go back and first read it and respond to what I said, not what you imagined I said.

Click to expand...

The Biblicist is correct. My Mom converted from RC when she was 15. My grandmother ( her Mom, ) was also RD. After her death, I was curious, so I studied what they teach. I was heartbroken to find out about the false doctrines. If only I had known, I would have witnessed to her. The Pope's historic anathemas on all those saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone still stands. I want to learn to witness to them better". This is a very sad situation.