Does the RCC Teach regenerated/saved by water baptism?

[Thinkingstuff]

It emphatically, clearly and unambigously repudiates it! You cannot possibly interpet it HONESTLY in any other way! Challenge me to prove it!

Why when I already disproved it?

What does the passage actually say?

And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised

Circumcision is a sign and seal of faith already had. Circumcision is the sign and the seal of the old covenant. Next Paul says

So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.

Since the old covenant shows that the sign and seal were the outward evidence of the inward faith that Abraham is father of all who have faith but haven't the old covenant sign or seal. Next Paul says

And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Next that Paul then expands to say that Abraham is the father of both groups. then Paul discourses about the law and that the law is of no use because it wasn't by that that made Abraham righteous but his faith. He doesn't say the sign and seal of the covenant is wrong but insist

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring

Thus the promise of circumsision is only validated by faith and grace guarantees the promice of the sign and seal. Which makes sense with Pauls discourse in Colosians

In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by[c] Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

 

[The Biblicist]

Why when I already disproved it?

What does the passage actually say?
Circumcision is a sign and seal of faith already had. Circumcision is the sign and the seal of the old covenant. Next Paul says Since the old covenant shows that the sign and seal were the outward evidence of the inward faith that Abraham is father of all who have faith but haven't the old covenant sign or seal. Next Paul says Next that Paul then expands to say that Abraham is the father of both groups. then Paul discourses about the law and that the law is of no use because it wasn't by that that made Abraham righteous but his faith. He doesn't say the sign and seal of the covenant is wrong but insist Thus the promise of circumsision is only validated by faith and grace guarantees the promice of the sign and seal. Which makes sense with Pauls discourse in Colosians

No "Old covenant" existed in Abraham's time. The old Covenant was not given or ratified until 430 years later under Moses. Hence, so much for your "old Covenant" application in the case of Abraham.

Abraham is being set forth as the MODEL for justification by faith WITHOUT works (Rom. 4:1-6) , WITHOUT sacraments (Rom. 4:7-12), WITHOUT law keeping (Rom. 4:13-16) , and WITHOUT active participation in obtaining the promise (Rom. 4:17-22)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No "Old covenant" existed in Abraham's time. The old Covenant was not given or ratified until 430 years later under Moses. Hence, so much for your "old Covenant" application in the case of Abraham.

Abraham is being set forth as the MODEL for justification by faith WITHOUT works (Rom. 4:1-6) , WITHOUT sacraments (Rom. 4:7-12), WITHOUT law keeping (Rom. 4:13-16) , and WITHOUT active participation in obtaining the promise (Rom. 4:17-22)

Do you disregard that we are in a new covenant?
The sign and seal by faith is water baptism. Law doesn't even come into the discourse. Baptism isn't by law but the sign and seal of the new covenant which is why Paul doesn't contradict himself in Col. Nor does he contradict Peter.

 

[The Biblicist]

Do you disregard that we are in a new covenant?

You are disregarding it by assigning the Old Covenant to Paul's example of circumcision in connection with Abraham and the doctrine of justification by faith!

You are just too proud to admit you are wrong, so you, change the subject and run as fast as you can to a Proof texting.

Romans 4:7-11 repudiates that divine ordinances are sacraments or have any bearing to justification before God except as LATER external symbols of a PREVIOUS completed work of justification and most importantly that justification by faith does not need such outward symbols at all "though they be uncircumcised"

 

[The Biblicist]

You are disregarding it by assigning the Old Covenant to Paul's example of circumcision in connection with Abraham and the doctrine of justification by faith!

You are just too proud to admit you are wrong, so you, change the subject and run as fast as you can to a Proof texting.

Romans 4:7-11 repudiates that divine ordinances are sacraments or have any bearing to justification before God except as LATER external symbols of a PREVIOUS completed work of justification and most importantly that justification by faith does not need such outward symbols at all "though they be uncircumcised"

Love to continue our discussion but got to run and do errands.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are disregarding it by assigning the Old Covenant to Paul's example of circumcision in connection with Abraham and the doctrine of justification by faith!

You are just too proud to admit you are wrong, so you, change the subject and run as fast as you can to a Proof texting.

I'm showing you the exegete of that passage and what Paul is atually saying. Paul supports what I've said.

Romans 4:7-11 repudiates that divine ordinances are sacraments or have any bearing to justification before God except as LATER external symbols of a PREVIOUS completed work of justification and most importantly that justification by faith does not need such outward symbols at all "though they be uncircumcised"

It does not all it repudiates is action upon Law alone.

 

[DaChaser1]

I'm showing you the exegete of that passage and what Paul is atually saying. Paul supports what I've said.


It does not all it repudiates is action upon Law alone.

What else does God have to provide to us other than the Cross of Christ in order to justify us before God, and to give us eternal life ?

when we receive Jesus by faith, than the HS has come into our lives, and we are fully justified before God, right now have eternal life, and will be going to heaven to be with the Lord at point of death!

We are immediatly saved, kept by god, and His HS will give power to live for Christ...

Really, what need would there be for ANY sacramental forms of God, in order to either save or keep us saved?

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm showing you the exegete of that passage and what Paul is atually saying. Paul supports what I've said.

"Circumcision is a sign and seal of faith already had. Circumcision is the sign and the seal of the old covenant. Next Paul says

Since the old covenant shows that the sign and seal were the outward evidence of the inward faith that Abraham is father of all who have faith but haven't the old covenant sign or seal." - TS

You are attempting to place Pauls discussion on circumcision within the context of LAW when it is not being discussed by Paul in the context of LAW but in the context of 430 years BEFORE law in direct connection with Abraham and his justification by faith BEFORE the law.


Hence, you are not exegeting the passage correctly but practicing eisgesis completely and wholly.

Paul's placement of the discussion of Circumcision 430 years before the Law proves that justification by faith is accomplished SEPARATE and APART as well as WITHOUT divine ordinances and that the rite of circumcision is not a SACRAMENT and therefore neither is baptism as Rome equates them as equally SACRAMENTS and uses the same langauge directed toward circumcision in Romans 4:11 to equally apply and explain baptism as a sacrament ("sign and seal"). Paul repudiates that line of interpretation and thus repudiates the whole Roman Catholic doctrine of sacramental salvation.

 

[DaChaser1]

"Circumcision is a sign and seal of faith already had. Circumcision is the sign and the seal of the old covenant. Next Paul says

Since the old covenant shows that the sign and seal were the outward evidence of the inward faith that Abraham is father of all who have faith but haven't the old covenant sign or seal." - TS

You are attempting to place Pauls discussion on circumcision within the context of LAW when it is not being discussed by Paul in the context of LAW but in the context of 430 years BEFORE law in direct connection with Abraham and his justification by faith BEFORE the law.


Hence, you are not exegeting the passage correctly but practicing eisgesis completely and wholly.

Paul's placement of the discussion of Circumcision 430 years before the Law proves that justification by faith is accomplished SEPARATE and APART as well as WITHOUT divine ordinances and that the rite of circumcision is not a SACRAMENT and therefore neither is baptism as Rome equates them as equally SACRAMENTS and uses the same langauge directed toward circumcision in Romans 4:11 to equally apply and explain baptism as a sacrament ("sign and seal"). Paul repudiates that line of interpretation and thus repudiates the whole Roman Catholic doctrine of sacramental salvation.

What else does God have to provide to us other than the Cross of Christ in order to justify us before God, and to give us eternal life ?

when we receive Jesus by faith, than the HS has come into our lives, and we are fully justified before God, right now have eternal life, and will be going to heaven to be with the Lord at point of death!

We are immediatly saved, kept by God, and His HS will give power to live for Christ...

Really, what need would there be for ANY sacramental forms of God, in order to either save or keep us saved?

or was the Apostle paul wrong when he agreed with the OT that the Just shall live by their faith?

 

[The Biblicist]

What else does God have to provide to us other than the Cross of Christ in order to justify us before God, and to give us eternal life ?

when we receive Jesus by faith, than the HS has come into our lives, and we are fully justified before God, right now have eternal life, and will be going to heaven to be with the Lord at point of death!

We are immediatly saved, kept by God, and His HS will give power to live for Christ...

Really, what need would there be for ANY sacramental forms of God, in order to either save or keep us saved?

or was the Apostle paul wrong when he agreed with the OT that the Just shall live by their faith?

Absolutely correct:thumbs::thumbs: