Church of Christ and Baptism

[DHK]

Only one instance, that being the household of Cornelius. It is likely Peter would never have baptized these people had he not seen evidence of the Spirit having been given to them. There had to be an exception made for them as a sign to Peter that they acceptable to God.

The sealing in Ephesians 4:30 is a direct reference to baptism.

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
Nonsense. How can you grieve water?? :laugh::laugh:

The Holy Spirit is a person whom we are told not to grieve. There is no mention of baptism here. It is the Holy Spirit who seals us, not baptism. Baptism has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit whatsoever.

 

[Zenas]

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
Nonsense. How can you grieve water?? :laugh::laugh:

The Holy Spirit is a person whom we are told not to grieve. There is no mention of baptism here. It is the Holy Spirit who seals us, not baptism. Baptism has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit whatsoever.

DHK, you expose your ignorance by seeing humor in my post. I never said you could grieve water. You grieve the Holy Spirit, which is the source of your redemption. But how are you sealed by the Holy Spirit? Through the waters of baptism. Saint Paul understood that and everyone knows that except people whose faith is so weak as to disbelieve in the sacraments.

 

[The Biblicist]

Only one instance, that being the household of Cornelius. It is likely Peter would never have baptized these people had he not seen evidence of the Spirit having been given to them. There had to be an exception made for them as a sign to Peter that they acceptable to God.

The sealing in Ephesians 4:30 is a direct reference to baptism.

Again, circumcision in the Old Testament is referred to as a "seal" of justification of Abraham. However, his justification is explicitly denied to have occurred "in circumcision" (in baptism) but "in uncircumcision" (in unbaptized state). That repudiates the Roman idea of sacramentalism which conveys justification IN baptism.

Rome declares that in its catechism that Old Testament circumcision is parallel to New Testament baptism in regard to sacramentalism.

Baptism is an EXTERNAL POST-justification seal, while the Holy Spirit is the INTERNAL seal in pre-baptismal conversion to the gospel.

 

[DHK]

DHK, you expose your ignorance by seeing humor in my post. I never said you could grieve water. You grieve the Holy Spirit, which is the source of your redemption. But how are you sealed by the Holy Spirit? Through the waters of baptism. Saint Paul understood that and everyone knows that except people whose faith is so weak as to disbelieve in the sacraments.

Baptism is not a sacrament; it is an ordinance--a command.
In the Great Commission (Mat.28:19,20), the command is to go; disciple, baptize, and teach. These are commands. They are not sacraments. There are no sacraments in the Bible.
How? I am sealed by the Holy Spirit at the very moment I trusted him as my Saviour. It has nothing to do with water or baptism. H2O cannot seal my redemption even if it is in baptism.
As Jeremiah said so long ago:

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

You would do well to mind his words.
Baptism does not save you; it simply gets you wet.

 

[Zenas]

Baptism is not a sacrament; it is an ordinance--a command.
In the Great Commission (Mat.28:19,20), the command is to go; disciple, baptize, and teach. These are commands. They are not sacraments. There are no sacraments in the Bible.
How? I am sealed by the Holy Spirit at the very moment I trusted him as my Saviour. It has nothing to do with water or baptism. H2O cannot seal my redemption even if it is in baptism.
As Jeremiah said so long ago:

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

You would do well to mind his words.
Baptism does not save you; it simply gets you wet.

Ezekiel 36:25: "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols."

I agree it is an ordinance inasmuch as we are commanded to do it. It is also a sacrament, although I recognize your blinders will not permit you to accept this truth.

 

[Zenas]

Again, circumcision in the Old Testament is referred to as a "seal" of justification of Abraham. However, his justification is explicitly denied to have occurred "in circumcision" (in baptism) but "in uncircumcision" (in unbaptized state). That repudiates the Roman idea of sacramentalism which conveys justification IN baptism.

Rome declares that in its catechism that Old Testament circumcision is parallel to New Testament baptism in regard to sacramentalism.

Baptism is an EXTERNAL POST-justification seal, while the Holy Spirit is the INTERNAL seal in pre-baptismal conversion to the gospel.

Biblicist, this about the 15th time you have put forth this flawed parellelism and I am going to call you on it. Where in the Catechism does the Catholic Church declare that circumcision is parellel to baptism in regard to sacramentalism? Please give us a citation.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Ezekiel 36:25: "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols."

I agree it is an ordinance inasmuch as we are commanded to do it. It is also a sacrament, although I recognize your blinders will not permit you to accept this truth.

This is clearly symbolism. if you take it literally than to be consistent you must say that God literally sprinkles the water. Ive never seen God baptize anybody nor is it recorded where Jesus did this.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Biblicist, this about the 15th time you have put forth this flawed parellelism and I am going to call you on it. Where in the Catechism does the Catholic Church declare that circumcision is parellel to baptism in regard to sacramentalism? Please give us a citation.

His parallelism is perfectly applicable.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Ezekiel 36:25: "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols."

I agree it is an ordinance inasmuch as we are commanded to do it. It is also a sacrament, although I recognize your blinders will not permit you to accept this truth.

From John Gill:

Ezekiel 36:25
Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you,.... Not baptismal water, as Jerom; an ordinance indeed of the Gospel, and to which the Jews will submit when converted; and which is performed by water, but not by sprinkling, nor does it cleanse from sin; and is administered by men, and is not an operation of God, as this is: rather the regenerating grace of the Spirit; though this does not purify from all sin, and besides is intended in the next verse: it seems best to understand it of the blood of Christ, the blood of sprinkling, and of justification from sin, and pardon of it by it; so Kimchi and Jarchi interpret of purification by atonement; and the Targum is,

"I will forgive your sins, as one is cleansed by the water of sprinkling, and the ashes of a heifer, which is for a sin offering:''

From Clarke:

Ezekiel 36:25

Then - At the time of this great restoration - will I sprinkle clean water upon you - the truly cleansing water; the influences of the Holy Spirit typified by water, whose property it is to cleanse, whiten, purify, refresh, render healthy and fruitful.

From Matthew Henry:

Ezekiel 36:25-38

Water is an emblem of the cleansing our polluted souls from sin. But no water can do more than take away the filth of the flesh. Water seems in general the sacramental sign of the sanctifying influences of the Holy Ghost; yet this is always connected with the atoning blood of Christ. When the latter is applied by faith to the conscience, to cleanse it from evil works, the former is always applied to the powers of the soul, to purify it from the pollution of sin. All that have an interest in the new covenant, have a new heart and a new spirit, in order to their walking in newness of life. God would give a heart of flesh, a soft and tender heart, complying with his holy will. Renewing grace works as great a change in the soul, as the turning a dead stone into living flesh. God will put his Spirit within, as a Teacher, Guide, and Sanctifier. The promise of God's grace to fit us for our duty, should quicken our constant care and endeavour to do our duty. These are promises to be pleaded by, and will be fulfilled to, all true believers in every age.

 

[DHK]

I agree it is an ordinance inasmuch as we are commanded to do it. It is also a sacrament, although I recognize your blinders will not permit you to accept this truth.

Someone once told me that: "I was so blind, all I could see was the Bible in front of my face."
I gladly accept that "blindness," or having blinders as you put it.

There are no sacraments in the Bible and therefore I am "blind" to them.
A sacrament is a means of grace. It is nothing more than the Hindu belief of bathing in the polluted waters of the Ganges waters on a special day, thinking that those "holy (polluted) waters will 'wash away their sins."
They have "faith" that it will wash away their sins.
You have "faith" that baptismal waters will wash away your sins.
There is no difference.
You need blind faith to believe either one, for neither one is taught in the Bible. No kind of water can wash away sin.

For the record, a personal experience. As a Catholic I would enter the church every Sunday, dip my hand in so-called "holy water," make the sign of the cross (first touching the forehead) as a blessing.
First, no one is blessed including myself.
Second, considering the hundreds of people that dipped their hands in that "holy" water it probably had as many germs in it as the Ganges River did.
What a way to get sick! And then with said contaminated hand one touches face, etc. ewww.
I wasn't made holy; I was made polluted!

 

[Zenas]

His parallelism is perfectly applicable.

All right, I'll call you on it too. Where in the Catechism does it teach that baptism is a N.T
parallel of circumcision?

 

[DHK]

All right, I'll call you on it too. Where in the Catechism does it teach that baptism is a N.T
parallel of circumcision?

It seems clear enough to me:

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 Law210 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.

 

[The Biblicist]

All right, I'll call you on it too. Where in the Catechism does it teach that baptism is a N.T
parallel of circumcision?

Indeed, the Roman Catholic Catechism regards baptism in the New Testament as equally parallel with circumcision in the Old Testament and I quote:

CIRCUMCISION: The rite prescribed in Judaism....was a sign of the covenant between God and His people Israel and prefigured the rite of Christian Baptism...." - Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, p. 871

527 Jesus' circumcision on the eighth day after his birth....This sign prefigures that "circumcision of Christ" which is Baptism." Ibid. p. 133

Therefore, to understand the relationship of circumcision to the Old Tesament believer is to understand the relationship of Baptism to the New Testament believer according to Catholic dogma.

Thus, simply replace the words "circumcision" or "circumcise" with the words "baptized" or "baptism" in Paul's treatise in Romans 4:9-13 and you have this clear and explicit view of baptism in the mind of Paul. I have replaced the words for circumcision with the words of baptism in the following quotation to merely illustrate my point:

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

Conclusion:

1. The blessing of justification occurs NOT IN BAPTISM but IN UNBAPTIZED- vv. 9-10.

2. Therefore, both the "sign" and "seal" IN BAPTISM have nothing to do with justification which occurred NOT IN BAPTISM.

3. Baptism is only an external sign and thus only a visible "seal" that does not communicate justification but justification occured before the sign and seal of baptism.

4. Imputed righteousness is not conferred in baptism but through faith and the unbaptized believer is imputed righteousness.

Hence, baptism like circumcision is but a "sign" or "figure" and as a sign and figure it provides an external "seal" or confimation of justification that was received while IN UNBAPTISM.

 

[Zenas]

Nice try, DHK and Biblicist, but neither of you gets a cigar. Predictably, you both cited Section 527 of the Catechism, which says:

Jesus' circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth, is the sign of his incorporation into Abraham's descendants, into the people of the covenant. It is the sign of his submission to the Law and his deputation to Israel's worship, in which he will participate throughout his life. This sign prefigures that "circumcision of Christ" which is Baptism.

Note that 527 describes circumcision as a sign of Abraham's descendants--the Jews. Likewise, baptism is a sign of Christ's children--the Christians.

Section 527 DOES NOT say they are the same thing, or even parallel. Rather it says that the sign of circumcision PREFIGURES baptism. Prefigure means to foreshadow, or to be a harbinger of something. It does not mean a parallel occurrence.

Example: Jonah in the belly of the fish prefigures the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. However, Jonah's mishap carried no spiritual significance to anyone, although the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is the very essence of our faith.

So no, you didn't get anything out of the Catechism that links circumcision with baptism, other than how one prefigures the other. You get nothing that would allow Biblicist to apply Romans 4 as proof that baptism is not sacramental.

Care to dive back into the Catechism, guys? You might learn some things while you are in there.

 

[The Biblicist]

Nice try, DHK and Biblicist, but neither of you gets a cigar. Predictably, you both cited Section 527 of the Catechism, which says: Note that 527 describes circumcision as a sign of Abraham's descendants--the Jews. Likewise, baptism is a sign of Christ's children--the Christians.

Section 527 DOES NOT say they are the same thing, or even parallel. Rather it says that the sign of circumcision PREFIGURES baptism. Prefigure means to foreshadow, or to be a harbinger of something. It does not mean a parallel occurrence.

Example: Jonah in the belly of the fish prefigures the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. However, Jonah's mishap carried no spiritual significance to anyone, although the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is the very essence of our faith.

So no, you didn't get anything out of the Catechism that links circumcision with baptism, other than how one prefigures the other. You get nothing that would allow Biblicist to apply Romans 4 as proof that baptism is not sacramental.

Care to dive back into the Catechism, guys? You might learn some things while you are in there.

You are misrepresenting your own catechism! For example, in 1150 under Chapter Two "The Scramental Celebration of the Paschal Mystery" and section II "How is the Liturgy Celebrated" your catechism says "A sacramental celebration is woven from signs and symbols."(1145) and then under 1150 which is entitled "Signs of the covenant" it says:

1150 Signs of the Covenant. The Chosen People received from God distinctive signs and symbols that marked its litgurgical life. These are no longer solely celebrations of cosmic cycles and social getures, but SIGNS OF THE COVENANT, symbols of God's mighty deeds for his people. Amonth these LITURGICAL SIGNS from the OLD COVENANT are circumcision, anointing and consecration of kingss and priests, laying on of hands, sacrifices and above all the Passover. The Church sees these signs a prefiguring of THE SACRAMENTS OF THE NEW COVENANT.

So circumcision is not viewed by Rome as a sign like Jonah in the belly but Rome specifically states that the sign of circumcision is viewed as a LITURGICAL SACRAMENTAL SIGN under the OLD COVENANT that prefgures THE SACRAMENTS of the New Covenant. In other words it is the MIRROR IMAGE of baptism under the New Covenant accomplishing the very same LITURIGAL SACRMENTAL design.

Therefore, they view circumcison under the Old Covenant just as they view baptim under the New Covenant as LITURGICAL SIGNS or SACRAMENTS.

In section 527 the Cathechism explicitly states concerning the circumcision of Christ, that circumcision is "the sign of his incporation into Abraham's descendants, INTO THE PEOPLE OF THE COVENANT. It is the sign of 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."

In other words, it provides the VERY EXACT SAME Sacrmental application of a sign and symbol under the Old Covenant, as baptism does in regard to the "people of God" and worship throughout life under the New Covenant.

So you are wrong when you attempt to define it as a "sign" or "symbol" in a GENERAL SENSE when the Roman Catholic Catechism defines it as "the" sign and symbol in a LITURGICAL SACRAMENTAL sense JUST AS they do baptism.

QUESTIONS:

1. Why then is circumcison placed under the topic of SACRAMENTS if it is nothing more than a GENERAL symbol and sign??

2. Why then is circumcison described as a sign and symbol that obtains the very exact same thing under the Old Covenant as baptism does under the New Covenant if it is no more than a GENERAL symbol and sign?

3. Why then is circumcision called "THE" sign that prefigures baptism in regard to SACRAMENTAL application if it is no more than a GENERAL sign and symbol?

 

[The Biblicist]

Indeed, the Roman Catholic Catechism regards baptism in the New Testament as equally parallel with circumcision in the Old Testament and I quote:

CIRCUMCISION: The rite prescribed in Judaism....was a sign of the covenant between God and His people Israel and prefigured the rite of Christian Baptism...." - Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, p. 871

527 Jesus' circumcision on the eighth day after his birth....This sign prefigures that "circumcision of Christ" which is Baptism." Ibid. p. 133

Therefore, to understand the relationship of circumcision to the Old Tesament believer is to understand the relationship of Baptism to the New Testament believer according to Catholic dogma.

Thus, simply replace the words "circumcision" or "circumcise" with the words "baptized" or "baptism" in Paul's treatise in Romans 4:9-13 and you have this clear and explicit view of baptism in the mind of Paul. I have replaced the words for circumcision with the words of baptism in the following quotation to merely illustrate my point:

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

Conclusion:

1. The blessing of justification occurs NOT IN BAPTISM but IN UNBAPTIZED- vv. 9-10.

2. Therefore, both the "sign" and "seal" IN BAPTISM have nothing to do with justification which occurred NOT IN BAPTISM.

3. Baptism is only an external sign and thus only a visible "seal" that does not communicate justification but justification occured before the sign and seal of baptism.

4. Imputed righteousness is not conferred in baptism but through faith and the unbaptized believer is imputed righteousness.

Hence, baptism like circumcision is but a "sign" or "figure" and as a sign and figure it provides an external "seal" or confimation of justification that was received while IN UNBAPTISM.

So again, Rome does in fact view circumcision as "THE" sacramental sign and symbol under the Old Covenant that incorporates a person into the people of God just as they do baptism under the New Covenant. Hence, Paul exposes and repudiates and completely anihilates the whol sacramental idea in Romans 4:9-12 as demonstrated above by simply replacing "circumcision" with "baptism." The Roman Catholic system of sacramentalism demands that justification is received "IN BAPTISM" but Paul denies that such a "sign and symbol" obtains justification IN CIRCUMCISION but rather justification was already obtained IN UNCIRCUMCISION/IN UNBAPTIZED state.

Most importantly, Paul here proves that circumcision/baptism is to be viewed only as a POST-conversion SIGN and EXTERNAL seal just as Peter asserts it simply saves figuratively and not literally as in the sacramental false teaching - 1 Pet. 3:21.

 

[DHK]

Nice try, DHK and Biblicist, but neither of you gets a cigar. Predictably, you both cited Section 527 of the Catechism, which says: Note that 527 describes circumcision as a sign of Abraham's descendants--the Jews. Likewise, baptism is a sign of Christ's children--the Christians.

First tell me why your profile says "Baptist" and why you were recently posting in the Baptist forums, while at the same time defending doctrine.
You cannot be a Catholic and a Baptist at the same time, so which are you?

Secondly, in the portion quoted, it was under "signs and covenants."
It made the specific statement that circumcision is a sign of the OT covenant.
Elsewhere it makes the statement that baptism is a sign of the NT covenant.
You draw the conclusion.

 

[Yeshua1]

First tell me why your profile says "Baptist" and why you were recently posting in the Baptist forums, while at the same time defending doctrine.
You cannot be a Catholic and a Baptist at the same time, so which are you?

Secondly, in the portion quoted, it was under "signs and covenants."
It made the specific statement that circumcision is a sign of the OT covenant.
Elsewhere it makes the statement that baptism is a sign of the NT covenant.
You draw the conclusion.

regardless of how He answered his profile question, IF zenas holds to baptismal regneration as Rome does, THAT alone means that he is NOT a Baptist!

 

[Walter]

Therefore, they view circumcison under the Old Covenant just as they view baptim under the New Covenant as LITURGICAL SIGNS or SACRAMENTS.

In section 527 the Cathechism explicitly states concerning the circumcision of Christ, that circumcision is "the sign of his incporation into Abraham's descendants, INTO THE PEOPLE OF THE COVENANT. It is the sign of 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."

In other words, it provides the VERY EXACT SAME Sacrmental application of a sign and symbol under the Old Covenant, as baptism does in regard to the "people of God" and worship throughout life under the New Covenant.

So you are wrong when you attempt to define it as a "sign" or "symbol" in a GENERAL SENSE when the Roman Catholic Catechism defines it as "the" sign and symbol in a LITURGICAL SACRAMENTAL sense JUST AS they do baptism.

QUESTIONS:

1. Why then is circumcison placed under the topic of SACRAMENTS if it is nothing more than a GENERAL symbol and sign??

2. Why then is circumcison described as a sign and symbol that obtains the very exact same thing under the Old Covenant as baptism does under the New Covenant if it is no more than a GENERAL symbol and sign?

3. Why then is circumcision called "THE" sign that prefigures baptism in regard to SACRAMENTAL application if it is no more than a GENERAL sign and symbol?

"Roman Catholic Catechism clearly teaches that Rome views circumcision under the Old Covenant in the same exact sacramental sense as they veiw baptism under the New Covenant."
-----

I don't know what is meant by "exact same sacramental sense." which you posted on the 'Great Whore' thread, but
circumcision is not a Sacrament of the New Law but is a Sacrament of the Old Law.

The Roman Catechism states:

"Speaking of circumcision, a Sacrament of the Old Law which was given to Abraham, the father of all believers, the Apostle in his Epistle to the Romans, says: And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith." (Part II, "Proof from Scripture," citing Rom 4:11)

St. Thomas Aquinas also explains why the ceremonies of the Old Law (but not the sacrifices) were sacraments:

"The sacrifice of the New Law, viz. the Eucharist, contains Christ Himself, the Author of our Sanctification: for He sanctified 'the people by His own blood' (Heb 13:12). Hence this Sacrifice is also a sacrament. But the sacrifices of the Old Law did not contain Christ, but foreshadowed Him; hence they are not called sacraments. In order to signify this there were certain sacraments apart from the sacrifices of the Old Law, which sacraments were figures of the sanctification to come. Nevertheless to certain consecrations certain sacrifices were united." (ST, Ia-IIae, Q.101, A.4, ad 2 -- http://bit.ly/1h76WUX)

So circumcision was like unto baptism in that they both are Sacraments of Faith which remit sins, original and actual, but because circumcision was done in view of the future merits of Christ and baptism is done with a view towards the past and present, their modes are different.

St. Paul himself draws the comparison between baptism and circumcision:

"In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead." (Col 2:11-12)

Baptism and circumcision are the Sacrament of Faith by which a person professes faith in Christ. Therefore, it is impossible to try to oppose faith to the sacrament and ask in which part justification is achieved. It may be that a person receives the gift of Faith prior to baptism, as with those in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-5). But with infants, who cannot have Faith of their own (save for Our Lady*), rely entirely upon baptism to receive the gift of Faith.

St. Augustine writes:

"Now believing is nothing else than having faith; and accordingly, when, on behalf of an infant as yet incapable of exercising faith, the answer is given that he believes, this answer means that he has faith because of the sacrament of faith, and in like manner the answer is made that he turns himself to God because of the sacrament of conversion, since the answer itself belongs to the celebration of the sacrament. Thus the apostle says, in regard to this sacrament of Baptism: 'We are buried with Christ by baptism into death.' [Rom 6:4] He does not say, 'We have signified our being buried with Him,' but 'We have been buried with Him.' He has therefore given to the sacrament pertaining to so great a transaction no other name than the word describing the transaction itself.

"Therefore an infant, although he is not yet a believer in the sense of having that faith which includes the consenting will of those who exercise it, nevertheless becomes a believer through the sacrament of that faith. For as it is answered that he believes, so also he is called a believer, not because he assents to the truth by an act of his own judgment, but because he receives the sacrament of that truth." (Ep 98, par. 9-10)
So both through circumcision and baptism, a child receives the gift of faith and through that faith, is justified. It is possible for adults to receive the gift of faith and be justified prior to baptism but here we should also distinguish between an intellectual belief, which lays the groundwork for faith, and faith itself, which is a gift of God and not a simple belief. This is why it is not possible to oppose faith to the Sacrament of Faith, although there are cases in which a person may receive the gift of faith prior to receiving the Sacrament. It also may happen a person receives baptism but does not receive the gift of faith because they reject it through disbelief and thus the person is not justified. (ST, IIIa, Q.69, A.9, resp. -- http://bit.ly/1h7gnDH)

Between circumcision and baptism, baptism is the greater Sacrament because it not only remits original and actual sins and incorporates a person into the body of the faithful but also remits all punishments due to sin (ST, IIIa, Q.70, A.4, ad 5 -- http://bit.ly/1h79zGh)

 

[Walter]

First tell me why your profile says "Baptist" and why you were recently posting in the Baptist forums, while at the same time defending doctrine.
You cannot be a Catholic and a Baptist at the same time, so which are you?

Secondly, in the portion quoted, it was under "signs and covenants."
It made the specific statement that circumcision is a sign of the OT covenant.
Elsewhere it makes the statement that baptism is a sign of the NT covenant.
You draw the conclusion.

I think I can answer the 'why' his profile and my profile states he is Baptist. For the life of me I can't find a way to change my denominational status on my profile. I doubt Zenas has found a way either. You CAN change your home church status which both of us have done.

I do try to follow the boards rules about posting in the right forum. I do visit the Baptist Only forums because I find them interesting and informative but don't engage in doctrinal debates there. I have posted (one post) in the Baptist schools and colleges forum only because I have been a student in a Baptist college and only mentioned it as being a good accredited liberal arts school worth checking out. I also asked an innocuous question once (also stating I wasn't Baptist and that I would appreciate feedback) and refrained from posting more on the thread. No one seemed to mind my intrusion.