Questions and answers with Jeremiah2911 and others

[The Biblicist]

Then ask yourself this very simple question. Why does Paul call it a sign and seal? A sign of what? A seal for what?

What condemns your whole responsive interpretation is the fact that Paul adamently denies it was received "IN CIRCUMCISION" but rather received "IN uncircumcision" as he says "NOT IN CIRCUMCISION" but your entire position rests upon the fact that it cannot be received "IN uncircumcision" but must be received "IN baptism" while Paul says it was received "in UNCIRUCMISION" and even more condeming to your position is that it can be received by those who NEVER submit to circumcision.

If your position were correct, Paul would have had to say "not UNTIL in circumcision" and could never could say "not IN circumcision" or contrast "in circumcision" with "in uncircumcision" as that would never be the proper contrast for your position.

In addition, this is the only text that deals with "WHEN" it is received and Paul does not use the present tense or the imperfect tense which your position would require but uses the Aorist passive in verse 10 demanding a COMPLETED ACTION not an INCOMPLETE action.

"How was it then RECKONED" (Aorist passive).

Futhermore, Romans 5:1-2 uses the Aorist and Perfect tenses to demonstrate it is is COMPLETED ACTION at the point of faith before circumcision or any other consequential evidences occur.

However, to answer your question about the significance of a sign. A sign does not mean it is causative for what is signified! An heir under Roman law would put on a white toga as a sign that he was the legal heir of his father's estate. He was born the heir. The putting on of a coat did not make him an heir! His birth long before he put on the toga made him the heir. Nor did putting on the toga convey the right to take his inheritance but was merely declarative he had already taken the inheritance.


Could he take the inheritance without putting on the toga! Yes, as it was only a "sign" or "seal" of what he already had by legal right before he ever put on the toga. Therefore, was the sign or seal essential to being the rightful heir or taking the inheritance to himself? No!


Hence, the "sign" and "seal" is NOTHING OTHER THAN AN OUTWARD SYMBOL that never literaly or actually conveys grace, justification, regeneration or any other aspect of LITERAL salvation, but is in precise keeping with all ceremonial ordinances that merely provide an EXTERNAL TESTIMONY to something already accomplished by faith long before the ceremonial act:


Luke 1212 ¶ And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

When was his cleansing literally completed? When Jesus said "be thou clean. and IMMEDIALELY the leprosy departed from him"?

OR while ceremonial act "for thy cleansing"????

What was the design for the ceremonial cleansing? Was it to conclude his LITERAL cleansing and obtain LITERAL cleansing in the act?

OR was it "for a testimony UNTO THEM"???

This is the significance of a "sign" and "seal" - "for a TESTIMONY" not to literally obtain anything it signifies.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What condemns your whole responsive interpretation is the fact that Paul adamently denies it was received "IN CIRCUMCISION" but rather received "IN uncircumcision" as he says "NOT IN CIRCUMCISION" but your entire position rests upon the fact that it cannot be received "IN uncircumcision" but must be received "IN baptism" while Paul says it was received "in UNCIRUCMISION" and even more condeming to your position is that it can be received by those who NEVER submit to circumcision.

You've done a lot of rationalization attempting to disproved Paul meant what he said. Circumcision was a sign and a seal. He doesn't have to say "until" to make his point. But the fact that they were show their operation. Its very simple but you've just eiesigesis by etreme rationalization the passage to fit your interpolation.

 

[The Biblicist]

You've done a lot of rationalization attempting to disproved Paul meant what he said. Circumcision was a sign and a seal. He doesn't have to say "until" to make his point. But the fact that they were show their operation. Its very simple but you've just eiesigesis by etreme rationalization the passage to fit your interpolation.

I don't have to rationalize anything. The very fact that Paul explicitly and clearly states "NOT IN CIRCUMCISION" and that gentiles who NEVER ARE CIRCUMICISED but yet justified by faith repudiates your rationalization of this passage in the clearest possible mannner.

The fact that you have no response for the very language of redemption used in most ceremonial ordinances (sacrfices, cleansings) and in particular Luke 5:12-15shows your position is pure unbiblical rationalization to the extreme.

Again, When was the lepor LITERALLY COMPLETELY cleansed of his leprosy? Immeidately upon believing or only after going to the priests applied the SIGN and SEAL of cleansing????