Roman Soteriology Exposed and Condemned

[The Biblicist]

The Roman Catholic Catechism spells out in no uncertain terms that circumcision under the Old Covenant is equivalent to baptism under the New Testament. You can see with your own eyes that is precisely how the Catholic catechism presents circumcision to baptism?

1150 Signs of the covenant. The Chosen People received from God distinctive signs and symbols that marked its liturgical life. These are no longer solely celebrations of cosmic cycles and social gestures, but signs of the covenant, symbols of God’s mighty deeds for his people. Among these liturgical signs from the Old Covenant are circumcision, anointing and consecration of kings and priests, laying on of hands, sacrifices, and above all the Passover. The Church sees in these signs a prefiguring of the sacraments of the New Covenant.

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

CIRCUMCISION: The rite prescribed in Judaism and other cultures which involves cutting off the foreskin of a male. Circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and his people Israel and prefigured the rite of Christian initiation in Baptism. Jesus was circumcised eight days after his birth in accord with Jewish law (527). - Glossary of the Catholic Catechism

The Catechism spells out in clear language that sacraments "communicates" spiritual life:

683 “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.”1 “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’”2 This knowledge of faith is possible only in the Holy Spirit: to be in touch with Christ, we must first have been touched by the Holy Spirit. He comes to meet us and kindles faith in us. By virtue of our Baptism, the first sacrament of the faith, the Holy Spirit in the Church communicates to us, intimately and personally, the life that originates in the Father and is offered to us in the Son. Baptism gives us the grace of new birth in God the Father, through his Son, in the Holy Spirit. For those who bear God’s Spirit are led to the Word, that is, to the Son, and the Son presents them to the Father, and the Father confers incorruptibility on them. And it is impossible to see God’s Son without the Spirit, and no one can approach the Father without the Son, for the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of God’s Son is obtained through the Holy Spirit.3 684 Through his grace, the Holy Spirit is the first to awaken

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:40

CONCLUSION: Circumcision under the Old Covenant is sacramental like baptism under the New Covenant. That teach that Baptism "communicates" spiritual life. They teach that justification is communicated through baptism.

However, Paul's explanation of the relationship between justification and circumcision repudiates the Roman Catholic doctrine of sacraments.

According to Paul, the "blessing" of justification (imputed righteousness and forgiveness of sins) with was not received "in circumcision" but "in uncircumcision":


6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.


Rome has acknowledged that circumcision under the old is equivalent to baptism under the New and so to test the Catholic view one merely can replace the term "circumcision" with "baptism" and you would have the consequences of Rome's view. So in the following text we replace "circumcision" and put in "baptism" as the Catechism of Rome claims to be equivilent with regard to sacramental value and this is what we end up with:

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 UNBAPTIZED? Not in BAPTISM, butUNBAPTIZED.

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 notBAPTIZED; 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.

As you can plainly see by placing "baptize" in the place of "circumcision" the whole Roman veiw of sacramental salvation is completely repudiated by Paul.


No doubt Catholics and Catholic sympathizers will not like this. They may attack the person who presents this. They may scorn it. However, it is clear that Paul did not believe that circumcision was a sacrament, nor "communicated" life or justifying grace. So the Catholic church has digged their own pit and fallen in it.


Moreover, redemptive language is commonly used for all Old Testament ceremonial ordinances and sacrifices. However, New Testament writers claim the ordinances and sacrifices themselves did not literally save or remit sins but did so only by type or like a "shadow" and never were able to remit sins literally (Heb. 10:1-4; Col. 2:14-16). Hence, the issue is not whether or not baptism and the Lord's Supper save for they do! But the issue is HOW do they save and the answer is FIGURATIVELY (1 Pet. 3:21; Rom. 4:11).

 

[utilyan]

Wow your reading the catechism?

I'm surprised you are going to argue against something we actually teach rather then something made up.

I am in shock right now. Thank You Lord Jesus Christ, for cutting me a easy break.


You guys have a bad habit of using ONLY, ALONE, SOLA........absolutes.
So don't get this idea that ONLY baptism justifies.

Thief on the Cross for example, I doubt he was baptized.



" Rome has acknowledged that circumcision under the old is equivalent to baptism under the New and so to test the Catholic view one merely can replace the term "circumcision" with "baptism" and you would have the consequences of Rome's view."

What is the "Circumcision of Christ"?

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

NEXT!


Baptism and Justification.


Romans 6
3Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

4We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

5For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.


Are you baptized? DO YOU NOT KNOW!? DO YOU NOT KNOW!? DO YOU NOT KNOW!?

That you are baptized into his death? That you are UNITED with Jesus Christ in death at the cross, and that YOU WILL CERTAINTLY be united with him in a resurrection like his?

Good News huh?

Just don't read verse 15 if your into the OSAS stuff.


"They may attack the person who presents this."

I will attack in next post.

 

[The Biblicist]

Wow your reading the catechism?

I'm surprised you are going to argue against something we actually teach rather then something made up.

I am in shock right now. Thank You Lord Jesus Christ, for cutting me a easy break.


You guys have a bad habit of using ONLY, ALONE, SOLA........absolutes.
So don't get this idea that ONLY baptism justifies.

Thief on the Cross for example, I doubt he was baptized.



" Rome has acknowledged that circumcision under the old is equivalent to baptism under the New and so to test the Catholic view one merely can replace the term "circumcision" with "baptism" and you would have the consequences of Rome's view."

What is the "Circumcision of Christ"?

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

NEXT!


Baptism and Justification.


Romans 6
3Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

4We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

5For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.


Are you baptized? DO YOU NOT KNOW!? DO YOU NOT KNOW!? DO YOU NOT KNOW!?

That you are baptized into his death? That you are UNITED with Jesus Christ in death at the cross, and that YOU WILL CERTAINTLY be united with him in a resurrection like his?

Good News huh?

Just don't read verse 15 if your into the OSAS stuff.


"They may attack the person who presents this."

I will attack in next post.

Notice there is no denial of my OP but rather further affirmation but not one word about Romans 4:9-11 clear condemnation of Rome's view when Rome's view is consistently applied to that text.

 

[utilyan]

Notice there is no denial of my OP but rather further affirmation but not one word about Romans 4:9-11 clear condemnation of Rome's view when Rome's view is consistently applied to that text.

===-=-=-=-=
"They may attack the person who presents this."
My attack, Did it really take you 4 years to read the theology of a chick tract??
I learned it 5 mins at a toilet.
====-=-=-=


Not one word about romans 4? You didn't answer Colossians 2:11 or Romans 6. I'm not going to say your AVOIDING IT.


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.

Lets look at Romans 4.

Romans 4
9Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 10How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

He is just saying Abraham was everyone's father as much as the Jews.

God does not condemn circumcision he gave it as "a seal of righteousness".

Romans 4 is not "a clear condemnation" against circumcision.


Better yet JESUS CHRIST WAS CIRCUMCISED.

Luke 2
21And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.



Look you say Baptism has nothing to do with Circumcision. So where does one get that idea?

There it is:
Colossians 2
Colossians 2:11
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


At least tell us "well no you got it wrong......."

Example:

The "circumcision of Christ" is not baptism.........The circumcision of Christ is something MORE significant then being UNITED with him at the cross and united with him at resurrection.......

The Circumcision of Christ is when you put right foot in and then your right foot out, then yet again the right foot in........ and you shake it all about.......you do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around that's what Circumcision of Christ is all about.

No its baptism.

 

[The Biblicist]

===-=-=-=-=
"They may attack the person who presents this."
My attack, Did it really take you 4 years to read the theology of a chick tract??
I learned it 5 mins at a toilet.
====-=-=-=


Not one word about romans 4? You didn't answer Colossians 2:11 or Romans 6. I'm not going to say your AVOIDING IT.

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.

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.

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.

Lets look at Romans 4.

Romans 4
9Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 10How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

He is just saying Abraham was everyone's father as much as the Jews.

God does not condemn circumcision he gave it as "a seal of righteousness".

Romans 4 is not "a clear condemnation" against circumcision.

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.

 

[Adonia]

===-=-=-=-=
"They may attack the person who presents this."
My attack, Did it really take you 4 years to read the theology of a chick tract??
I learned it 5 mins at a toilet.
====-=-=-=


Not one word about romans 4? You didn't answer Colossians 2:11 or Romans 6. I'm not going to say your AVOIDING IT.


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.

Lets look at Romans 4.

Romans 4
9Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 10How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

He is just saying Abraham was everyone's father as much as the Jews.

God does not condemn circumcision he gave it as "a seal of righteousness".

Romans 4 is not "a clear condemnation" against circumcision.


Better yet JESUS CHRIST WAS CIRCUMCISED.

Luke 2
21And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.



Look you say Baptism has nothing to do with Circumcision. So where does one get that idea?

There it is:
Colossians 2
Colossians 2:11
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


At least tell us "well no you got it wrong......."

Example:

The "circumcision of Christ" is not baptism.........The circumcision of Christ is something MORE significant then being UNITED with him at the cross and united with him at resurrection.......

The Circumcision of Christ is when you put right foot in and then your right foot out, then yet again the right foot in........ and you shake it all about.......you do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around that's what Circumcision of Christ is all about.

No its baptism.

Bravo!

 

[utilyan]

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.

"Rome has acknowledged that circumcision under the old is equivalent to baptism"

I understand we agree there is a connection with circumcision and baptism.

Notice I could plug my ears and just insist you don't believe there is connection, this is called being honorable.

The Catholic Church does not believe circumcision is the equivalent to baptism. Can you be honorable?

Here is a good example of you reading into text a meaning that doesn't exist.

The text shows circumcision prefiguring baptism. But I believe Circumcision was symbolic, the Catholic position is Baptism is very real not symbolic.

No where does that text imply that Circumcision does exactly what Baptism does. Nothing there says Circumcision is a sacrament that justifies.

If that were the case we wouldn't baptize Jews......Jesus wouldn't be baptized.

For it to mean what you THINK it means. It has to say circumcision is a sacrament, then it has to say Circumcision does the exact same as Baptism.

Baptism does what circumcision does + MORE.
Circumcision however does not do what Baptism does.



Romans 6
3Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

4We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

5For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

"So the Catholic church has digged their own pit and fallen in it. "

Bib,

If you want to find something wrong with the Church The Catechism is the right place to do it. The little numbers on the entries will point to scriptural passages, ect. .

I got tears in my eyes right now, cause that Catechism is so solid and I've been trying to destroy it for years...... so watching a newbie try kinda gives a good chuckle.

Its going to school you.

 

[David Crosby]

Regardless, it's easy to see that the wool has wore off the Wolf's clothing years ago as the Catholic religion is not part of the Bride of Christ.

 

[utilyan]

Regardless, it's easy to see that the wool has wore off the Wolf's clothing years ago as the Catholic religion is not part of the Bride of Christ.

Jesus Christ is Catholic.

Started the Church 2000 years ago.

Baptist was started by a Anglican Priest and the icing on top is he dumped it afterwards.

 

[David Crosby]

I'm not denominational, just biblical. Yeah, I know all about the Catholic Religion (and Baptist), Roman Catholic religion unofficially came into being in 312 A.D... My mom was Catholic until I was about 10 until she started reading God's word (that the Catholic Religion didn't want her to do) and realized.
About Jesus being Catholic ain't even worth a response.

 

[utilyan]

I'm not denominational, just biblical. Yeah, I know all about the Catholic Religion (and Baptist), Roman Catholic religion unofficially came into being in 312 A.D... My mom was Catholic until I was about 10 until she started reading God's word (that the Catholic Religion didn't want her to do) and realized.
About Jesus being Catholic ain't even worth a response.

Prior 312 Catholic doctrine is being taught, The very first generation of bishops, St. Ignatius who was personally taught by John and appointed to succeed Peter Is teaching Catholic Doctrine

There is no one around 312ad whining about these new catholic heretics.

You in a bubble taught by a toilet chick-tract. Iron curtain. I dare you study church fathers and history.

"I'm not denominational" That means you can't get your story straight for nothing. Worst then a
gnostic.

You don't know what the bible is without the Catholic Church.

Who walks up to a religion says everything they are doing is silly and wrong, The way they pray, the way they dress, but hold on that book they wrote has got to be right.

Its not like you went into a library with thousands of books on Jesus and the old testament. And said ok I feel the holy spirit......This book here genesis is the first book it is right.

How you even know you got the right "genesis"?

We told you what it was. Brilliant.

 

[The Biblicist]

"Rome has acknowledged that circumcision under the old is equivalent to baptism"

I understand we agree there is a connection with circumcision and baptism.

Notice I could plug my ears and just insist you don't believe there is connection, this is called being honorable.


The Catholic Church does not believe circumcision is the equivalent to baptism. Can you be honorable?

Never said they did. What I said is that they see both as equivilent with regard to sacramental value rather than to any relationship between them as actions.

The text shows circumcision prefiguring baptism. But I believe Circumcision was symbolic, the Catholic position is Baptism is very real not symbolic.

I am talking about Romans 4:9-11 what are you talking about? The Catholic catechism clearly states that circumcision is equivilent to baptism with regard to sacramental value, just read it again.

No where does that text imply that Circumcision does exactly what Baptism does. Nothing there says Circumcision is a sacrament that justifies.

Of course circumcision is a completely different act that has no comparison to baptism with regard to its nature of administration.

Of course no text says that circumcision is a sacrament but the Roman Catholic Catechism certainly does say it is a sacrament under the Old Covenant as is baptism under the New Covenant and you know very well the definition Rome gives to the term "sacrament" so lets stop the double talk.

If that were the case we wouldn't baptize Jews......Jesus wouldn't be baptized.

You baptize circumcised Jews because circumcision is not the New Testament rite but is the Old Testament rite, therefore cirucumcision cannot fulfill baptism under the New Covenant, but that is not the point. The point is that Rome clearly states circumcision is equivilent with regard to sacramental value under the old covenant as baptism is under the New Covenant.

Jesus was circumcised before God introduced Christian baptism and so obviously he was circumcised first and then baptized second. Again, circumcision under the Old Covenant cannot be a substitute for baptism under the new covenant and so your argument is nonsensical because Rome sees them both with respect to their own covenants as "sacramental" within those boundaries. The catechism expressly likens his circumcision under the Law to his baptism under the New Covenant as sacramental equivilents with respect to each covenant.

So it makes no difference if baptism is superior to circumcision with regard to a fuller understanding of salvation as they are both fundementally sacramental in value according to the catechism.

"So the Catholic church has digged their own pit and fallen in it. "

Bib,

If you want to find something wrong with the Church The Catechism is the right place to do it. The little numbers on the entries will point to scriptural passages, ect. .

I got tears in my eyes right now, cause that Catechism is so solid and I've been trying to destroy it for years...... so watching a newbie try kinda gives a good chuckle.

Its going to school you.

You have to be kidding me. The catechisms clear unequivocal assertion that circumcision UNDER THE OLD COVENANT is equal with regard to the term "sacrament" as is baptism UNDER THE NEW COVENANT is repudiated altogether by Paul in Romans 4:9-11 as justification was a completed action long before he was circumcised and the very meaning of the term "sacrament" in Catholic theology is that it is a means to convey justifying and regenerating grace and yet the New Testament doctrine of justification is patterned after ABRAHAM before the Old Covenant was instituted and before the New Covenant was instituted. That means, justification cannot be conveyed by outward ordinances then, now or ever or justification ceases to be after the pattern of Abraham. End of story!

 

[utilyan]

Never said they did. What I said is that they see both as equivilent with regard to sacramental value rather than to any relationship between them as actions.






I am talking about Romans 4:9-11 what are you talking about? The Catholic catechism clearly states that circumcision is equivilent to baptism with regard to sacramental value, just read it again.



Of course circumcision is a completely different act that has no comparison to baptism with regard to its nature of administration.

Of course no text says that circumcision is a sacrament but the Roman Catholic Catechism certainly does say it is a sacrament under the Old Covenant as is baptism under the New Covenant and you know very well the definition Rome gives to the term "sacrament" so lets stop the double talk.



You baptize circumcised Jews because circumcision is not the New Testament rite but is the Old Testament rite, therefore cirucumcision cannot fulfill baptism under the New Covenant, but that is not the point. The point is that Rome clearly states circumcision is equivilent with regard to sacramental value under the old covenant as baptism is under the New Covenant.

Jesus was circumcised before God introduced Christian baptism and so obviously he was circumcised first and then baptized second. Again, circumcision under the Old Covenant cannot be a substitute for baptism under the new covenant and so your argument is nonsensical because Rome sees them both with respect to their own covenants as "sacramental" within those boundaries. The catechism expressly likens his circumcision under the Law to his baptism under the New Covenant as sacramental equivilents with respect to each covenant.

So it makes no difference if baptism is superior to circumcision with regard to a fuller understanding of salvation as they are both fundementally sacramental in value according to the catechism.





You have to be kidding me. The catechisms clear unequivocal assertion that circumcision UNDER THE OLD COVENANT is equal with regard to the term "sacrament" as is baptism UNDER THE NEW COVENANT is repudiated altogether by Paul in Romans 4:9-11 as justification was a completed action long before he was circumcised and the very meaning of the term "sacrament" in Catholic theology is that it is a means to convey justifying and regenerating grace and yet the New Testament doctrine of justification is patterned after ABRAHAM before the Old Covenant was instituted and before the New Covenant was instituted. That means, justification cannot be conveyed by outward ordinances then, now or ever or justification ceases to be after the pattern of Abraham. End of story!

"The Catholic catechism clearly states that circumcision is equivilent to baptism with regard to sacramental value, just read it again."

Copy an paste it here then, without you adding words. I'm saying your statement is FALSE.
Show us where you THINK it says that and Ill tell you what it really means.

"I have noticed the repeated use of a very dishonest debate tactic. The tactic is taking a statement from an opponent and isolating it from the context in which it is found and then proceeding to dismantle it without regard to the actual context it is placed in by their opponent." --Biblicist

Yeah me too.

 

[utilyan]

Let me also provide practical evidence.

A Jew who has lived following the Jewish religion was circumcised as a child.

He decides to be Catholic. We don't say WELL since you've been circumcised that is the equivalent of Baptism.

No, he gets baptized.


Circumcision is a SIGN that prefigures the "circumcision of Christ". The "circumcision of Christ" is baptism. Colossians 2:11-12.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

Let me also provide practical evidence.

A Jew who has lived following the Jewish religion was circumcised as a child.

He decides to be Catholic. We don't say WELL since you've been circumcised that is the equivalent of Baptism.

No, he gets baptized.


Circumcision is a SIGN that prefigures the "circumcision of Christ". The "circumcision of Christ" is baptism. Colossians 2:11-12.

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.

This post makes it obvious that you dont even finish reading my responses or this post would never have been posted. Why not take the time to read what i say before making yourself foolish? This post had been fully answered in my last post where I pointed out the error in this kind of rationale. Indeed, i spent some time doing it - just read it.

 

[utilyan]

This post makes it obvious that you dont even finish reading my responses or this post would never have been posted. Why not take the time to read what i say before making yourself foolish? This post had been fully answered in my last post where I pointed out the error in this kind of rationale. Indeed, i spent some time doing it - just read it.

Its not there buddy. We have seven Sacraments. A better argument if not just as silly would be Marriage.

And then argue that Marriage is the equivalent of Baptism and that we Catholics claim being married would justify you as baptism. On account its called a "sacrament"

Talk about foolish. If I started just insisting a belief as yours it doesn't make it so even if I repeat myself till I'm blue in the face. You obviously would have to state the way it works.

Debating you always involves you having to tell me how my faith works and that's just stupid. Let me tell you how it works, exactly how it works and then take it apart.

Do you ever hear me MAKE UP what you believe? Bib worships potatoes.
I might point out a easily corrected glaring flaw like "You don't believe the command of God is his Desire"

I will admit to misrepresent and check with you till I have your faith down pat, Then while it runs perfectly then try to break it.

I don't have to make up a false belief and stick it on you.

I can say "is this right?" is "this what you believe?" have you confirm it all to be true......and then smash it to pieces.

Let me pull one of your quotes:

By virtue of our Baptism, the first sacrament of the faith, the Holy Spirit in the Church communicates to us, intimately and personally, the life that originates in the Father and is offered to us in the Son. Baptism gives us the grace of new birth in God the Father, through his Son, in the Holy Spirit.


If Baptism is the First Sacrament, then obviously circumcision isn't, there are 7 sacraments.

Stop worshipping potatoes.

 

[The Biblicist]

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?

 

[The Biblicist]

Its not there buddy. We have seven Sacraments. A better argument if not just as silly would be Marriage.

And then argue that Marriage is the equivalent of Baptism and that we Catholics claim being married would justify you as baptism. On account its called a "sacrament"

Talk about foolish. If I started just insisting a belief as yours it doesn't make it so even if I repeat myself till I'm blue in the face. You obviously would have to state the way it works.

Debating you always involves you having to tell me how my faith works and that's just stupid. Let me tell you how it works, exactly how it works and then take it apart.

Do you ever hear me MAKE UP what you believe? Bib worships potatoes.
I might point out a easily corrected glaring flaw like "You don't believe the command of God is his Desire"

I will admit to misrepresent and check with you till I have your faith down pat, Then while it runs perfectly then try to break it.

I don't have to make up a false belief and stick it on you.

I can say "is this right?" is "this what you believe?" have you confirm it all to be true......and then smash it to pieces.

Let me pull one of your quotes:

By virtue of our Baptism, the first sacrament of the faith, the Holy Spirit in the Church communicates to us, intimately and personally, the life that originates in the Father and is offered to us in the Son. Baptism gives us the grace of new birth in God the Father, through his Son, in the Holy Spirit.


If Baptism is the First Sacrament, then obviously circumcision isn't, there are 7 sacraments.

Stop worshipping potatoes.

Well, I guess you cannot read so I will repost it for you to read it if you can read:

You baptize circumcised Jews because circumcision is not the New Testament rite but is the Old Testament rite, therefore cirucumcision cannot fulfill baptism under the New Covenant, but that is not the point. The point is that Rome clearly states circumcision is equivilent with regard to sacramental value under the old covenant as baptism is under the New Covenant.

Jesus was circumcised before God introduced Christian baptism and so obviously he was circumcised first and then baptized second. Again, circumcision under the Old Covenant cannot be a substitute for baptism under the new covenant and so your argument is nonsensical because Rome sees them both with respect to their own covenants as "sacramental" within those boundaries. The catechism expressly likens his circumcision under the Law to his baptism under the New Covenant as sacramental equivilents with respect to each covenant.

So it makes no difference if baptism is superior to circumcision with regard to a fuller understanding of salvation as they are both fundementally sacramental in value according to the catechism. - Post #12

This was in response to your argument concerning why Catholics baptize Jews instead of accepting circumcision as equal in sacramental value with baptism.

 

[The Biblicist]

Jesus Christ is Catholic.

Started the Church 2000 years ago.

Baptist was started by a Anglican Priest and the icing on top is he dumped it afterwards.

Neither is historically accurate but are simply Roman Catholics perversion of true history. Baptists in early America were commonly called "Anabaptists" and they were called this in England before 1600. They were called this on the continent during the Reformation by the Reformers and Catholics alike. They were traced by Catholics and Reformers as "Anabaptists" back to at least 250 A.D. and they were the original apostolic Christian churches.

BTW if you were baptize by a Catholic what would you be? A Catholic? By a Methodist what would you be? A methodist! Who baptized Christ? Answer "the baptist".

 

[The Biblicist]

However, Paul makes it clear that the pattern of Abraham's justification by faith is the pattern for "all who are of faith." That pattern repudiates the use of divine rites as instrumental or sacramental in the act of justification. It also repudiates progressive justification as Abraham was justified by faith "in uncircumcision" but not "in circumcision" which covered the great part of his life. Additionally, the Aorist tense is used by Paul in Romans 4:11 proving that he was justified as a completed action "in uncirumcision" at the point of faith. These aspects of the Abrahamic pattern repudiate the entirety of Roman Catholicism.

Finally, Abraham lived BEFORE the Old Covenant and New Covenant and yet he is the "father" or pattern for "all who are of faith" from Genesis to Revelation and there are no ordinances involved in his justification not "faithfulness" involved in the term "faith" as used in Romans 4 as Paul's definition of justifying faith in Romans 4:16-21 repudiates the idea that faithfulness justified Paul but defines justifying faith as "being pursuaded that God was able to do what he promise" WITHOUT his assistance as his ability was defined by Paul "dead" just as Sarah's ability was defined as "deadness" and therefore without any assistance on their part whatsoever.