The Catholic Church

[The Biblicist]

When Baptists baptize, they have the following intentions:

1. They intend to be baptizing, not bathing or playing games.

2. They intend to use the trinitarian formula.

Those are the intentions and that's all that is necessary. It matters not what you believe does or doesn't happen as a result of this procedure. Catholics believe it confers grace, even though the administrator and the subject may not believe that it does. Therefore, they accept Protestant baptisms administered under the trinitarian formula.

That is simply not true! The primary intention of Baptist baptism is well known and clearly stated in every modern Baptist Confession. Baptism is designed to show forth a SYMBOL of the gospel with complete denial that it conveys grace any way shape or form.

 

[The Biblicist]

I haven't noticed if anyone pointed this out, but regarding the relationship between 'faith', 'baptism', and 'new birth', look at what Paul said about it in Colossians:

"buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Col 2:12.

Notice Paul states that it is 'in baptism' that we are buried and raised with Christ 'through faith'.

This is a ceremonial context. In the ceremony of circumcision there is identification with regeneration as symolized in the act of circumcision. In baptism there identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ which is the confession of the person's faith being baptized. What is embraced by faith is expressed in baptism and NOTHING MORE!

Galatians 3:27 states the same thing. In the symbolic act of baptism the believer PUTS ON Christ publicly as a person PUTS ON a coat. NOTHING MORE!

This harmonizes with Romans 4:11 which explicitly denies that circumcision literally conveys justifying grace to the believing Abraham but rather that grace was "HAD" already been conveyed through faith while "IN UNCIRCUMCISION" but not "IN CIRCUMCISION." Thus circumcision, like baptism is a "sign" and "seal" that identifies a person with what is symbolized in the ordinance - in this case - regeneration and cutting off of the flesh.

However, what you are doing is exactly what TS was doing, PITTING Colossians 2:10-12 against Romans 4:11 and Pauls explicit denial that justifying grace is conveyed in circumcision to anyone.

 

[The Biblicist]

There is no question that justifying faith identifies with what circucmision and baptism are designed to be a "sign" and "seal" of! Baptism by design is immersion of the believer into water and then raised up out of the water because it by design is a "sign" and "seal" of what faith has embraced in the gospel which is the death and burial of Jesus Christ. That is one reason why sprinkling and pouring pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ because gospel faith does not embrace Christ SPRINKLED or POURED with dirt and such a perversion also denies a resurrection because one cannot be resurrected out of sprinkled or poured dirt over the body.

Romans 4:11 totally repudiates the Roman doctrine of sacramentalism and Roman Catholic scholars cannot possibly deal with that text within its context without perverting and distorting every verse they use.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

So instead of answering the argument based on the grammatical sense of the text, you state...

the big problem here is it CANNOT refer to water baptism, as there is NOTHING that can be added to faith alone in jesus allowing God to justify a sinner by basis of the Cross!

DSo however we view it, cannot be in a sacramental sense!

In otherwords, the grammatical sense of the text can be merely dismissed with the utterance "It cannot really mean that!" if it doesn't agree with the presuppositions inherent in one's preexisting doctrinal commitments. Based on what you wrote (which I bolded) these assumptions apparently include:
(1) Nothing can be added to 'faith alone', as if an intellectual assent is all that is required to have Biblical saving faith

(2) There's no distinction between the objective atonement accomplished on the cross (which is the meritorious ground for our justification) and our subjective appropriation of the same (ie when we are actually justified in time)

(3) God can't use material things to accomplish our salvation (ie as a means of grace)

Point (1) is fairly easily answered: James states faith (ie an intellectual assent) without works is dead and can't save. Paul states in Galatians 5:6 that what actually avails for anything in Christ is, NOT 'faith alone', BUT a faith with WORKS THROUGH LOVE. In Hebrews 11, we see a whole list of people who by faith DO THINGS. We don't see anywhere in Scripture where faith exists only in the intellectual realm--it always involves action.

I can say I believe a chair will hold me up, but until I actually SIT IN THE CHAIR, I am not actually trusting it. Baptism is seen, in those passages I listed above, as the moment in which we are actually buried/raised with Christ (Romans 6:3-5, Col 2:12-13) and PUT ON CHRIST (Gal 3:27), and in two of those passages baptism is intimately linked with faith--NOT opposed to it.

Point (2) should be very easy to answer as well. None of us are born automatically saved based on the Atonement which Christ has already objectively and finally accomplished on the cross. We have to RECEIVE Christ in time in order to be subjectively saved by Him. Throughout the New Testament, the sinner is invited (commanded) to "repent and believe", "repent and be baptized" or "believe and be baptized". None of these are opposed to each other and none adds anything to what Christ objectively accomplished on the Cross; but all three are involved in our subjectively receiving Him and becoming united with Him.

Finally point (3) is easily answered by recognizing that God accomplished our salvation in a very physical/material way--He became incarnate in a material body and died on a material cross shedding real material blood for our sins. If God can use material means to objectively accomplish our redemption (ATONEMENT), there is no reason whey he can't use material means (SACRAMENTS) by which He can communicate the benefits of the same to the penitent.

 

[The Biblicist]

The RJP hermeneutic

Gentleman,

RJP = Run from the text; Jump to another text; Pit that text against the former text.

That is not "name calling"! That is a description of a eisgetical method of dealing with problem scriptures and the most common method used by all cults.

TS and Doubting Thomas both resorted to that EISGETICAL METHOD when confronted with the text of Romans 4:11 and its context (Romans 3:24-5:2). Instead of demonstrating from the context a valid alternative interpretation they RAN from this context; JUMPED to an outside context (Col. 2:12) and PITTED their interpretation of Col. 2:12 directly against the plain and explicit denial of Romans 4:11 that circumcision whether in Abraham's time or in Paul's time ever conveyed justifying grace to ANYONE.

As long as you emply the RJP method in dealing with Romans 4:11 and its context that is precisely what I am going to DEFINE your hermeneutics as.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

There is no question that justifying faith identifies with what circucmision and baptism are designed to be a "sign" and "seal" of! Baptism by design is immersion of the believer into water and then raised up out of the water because it by design is a "sign" and "seal" of what faith has embraced in the gospel which is the death and burial of Jesus Christ. That is one reason why sprinkling and pouring pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ because gospel faith does not embrace Christ SPRINKLED or POURED with dirt and such a perversion also denies a resurrection because one cannot be resurrected out of sprinkled or poured dirt over the body.

Romans 4:11 totally repudiates the Roman doctrine of sacramentalism and Roman Catholic scholars cannot possibly deal with that text within its context without perverting and distorting every verse they use.

Despite our serious run-ins here, almost to the point of coming to blows if we were in physical proximity to each other, I wholeheartedly agree with your views on baptism, and this is one of the main reasons among many that I could never be Roman Catholic, and one of the few reasons I could never be Orthodox. This issue was settled for me many years ago after long and even agonizing study, contemplation, and prayer.

 

[The Biblicist]

So instead of answering the argument based on the grammatical sense of the text, you state...

There is no grammatical sense that proves your assumption in Colossians 2:12. Instead, it is your INTEPRETATION rather than grammar that you case stands squarely upon and an interpretation that only does not fit the immediate context (shadow versus substance) but is a direct contradiction to the grammatical sense of Romans 4:11.

Second, you build a straw man that does not exist. You confuse justifying faith with regenerative good works. Paul deals with this in Romans 6. Justification by faith is "without works" as Romans 3:24-5:2 systematically proves however, justification by faith is not without regeneration by the Spirit as Romans 6-8 systematically proves. Hence, in regard to pragmatic Christianity (Which James is dealing with) there is no such thing as "ONE OF YOU" (professedly regenerated - James 1:18 - baptized believing church member - James 2:1-8) that is justified by faith but without works. Simply because there is no such thing as a TRUELY justified man that is not also a regenerated man and "good works" originate from the regenerative man (Eph. 2:10).

Finally point (3) is easily answered by recognizing that God accomplished our salvation in a very physical/material way--He became incarnate in a material body and died on a material cross shedding real material blood for our sins. If God can use material means to objectively accomplish our redemption (ATONEMENT), there is no reason whey he can't use material means (SACRAMENTS) by which He can communicate the benefits of the same to the penitent.

However, that is not what he has chosen! Romans 3:24-28 clearly and repeatedly tells you how he has chosen for you to receive remission of sins and is "faith in his blood" and "without works." Romans 4:9-11 explicitly denies sacramentalism irrefutably.

 

[Zenas]

That is simply not true! The primary intention of Baptist baptism is well known and clearly stated in every modern Baptist Confession. Baptism is designed to show forth a SYMBOL of the gospel with complete denial that it conveys grace any way shape or form.

Biblicist, I did not say or even imply that those were the primary intentions of Baptist baptism. But you can't deny that these are intentions in all Christian baptisms and if you do, you are a liar and the truth is not in you. Sorry to be so blunt but you know you're beating a dead horse here and you just can't give it up. Tell me, Biblicist, why is it a point of such concern to you that Catholics accept Baptist baptisms as valid? In your myopic view, baptism is strictly for show with no substance whatsoever, so it ought not to matter whether it is appropriated by the Catholics, the Mormons the Wiccans or any other group.

 

[DHK]

There is no spin. I was clear. Baptism is exactly what I said it is. And if you deny that God provides Grace by way of baptism which itself relys on the Merits of Jesus Christ your doctrine is Anathema or denounced. It is not a Catholic teaching and thus you are excommunicated from that Church. You never having been Catholic to begin with are not being cursed but being denounced by Anathema.

That is how this statement is to be understood.

No, that is your opinion, the RCC opinion, and the opinion formulated at the Council of Trent. No evangelical or evangelical scholar would agree with you. We call it heresy. It is not Biblical but anti-biblical. It goes directly contrary to what the simple gospel message of the Bible teaches. It goes directly contrary to what Jesus himself teaches in John 14:6. It goes against what ever apostle ever taught about salvation. It is complete heresy, the heresy that orthodox Christianity has fought against in every century since it has been introduced.

And then you say, or the RCC, says, we will accept this baptism that Baptists teach that goes entirely against everything that the RCC teaches. That is hypocritical. The Baptists consider it heresy. Why would the RCC accept a baptism that is in their eyes heresy. It works both ways. If the RCC baptism is heresy to the baptist so the Baptist baptism is heresy to the RCC.

History bears this out. Thousands upon thousands of Anabaptists of various stripes were killed, drowned, burnt at the stake, because "they baptized again." It was done by the RCC. They had the moral fortitude to deny the validity of infant baptism, and baptized converts, those that made a profession of faith in Christ, trusted him by faith and faith alone. Those they baptized because the baptism of an infant is no baptism at all. And these were the ones the RCC killed, assassinated. Great job RCC! We applaud you for your charitable Christian work!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Biblicist, I did not say or even imply that those were the primary intentions of Baptist baptism. But you can't deny that these are intentions in all Christian baptisms and if you do, you are a liar and the truth is not in you. Sorry to be so blunt but you know you're beating a dead horse here and you just can't give it up. Tell me, Biblicist, why is it a point of such concern to you that Catholics accept Baptist baptisms as valid? In your myopic view, baptism is strictly for show with no substance whatsoever, so it ought not to matter whether it is appropriated by the Catholics, the Mormons the Wiccans or any other group.

Not to answer for anyone else, but my view of water baptism is the same as the Biblicist, and your characterization of that view is not only a gross inaccuracy but insulting, as well.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

No, that is your opinion, the RCC opinion, and the opinion formulated at the Council of Trent. No evangelical or evangelical scholar would agree with you. We call it heresy. It is not Biblical but anti-biblical. It goes directly contrary to what the simple gospel message of the Bible teaches. It goes directly contrary to what Jesus himself teaches in John 14:6. It goes against what ever apostle ever taught about salvation. It is complete heresy, the heresy that orthodox Christianity has fought against in every century since it has been introduced.

And then you say, or the RCC, says, we will accept this baptism that Baptists teach that goes entirely against everything that the RCC teaches. That is hypocritical. The Baptists consider it heresy. Why would the RCC accept a baptism that is in their eyes heresy. It works both ways. If the RCC baptism is heresy to the baptist so the Baptist baptism is heresy to the RCC.

History bears this out. Thousands upon thousands of Anabaptists of various stripes were killed, drowned, burnt at the stake, because "they baptized again." It was done by the RCC. They had the moral fortitude to deny the validity of infant baptism, and baptized converts, those that made a profession of faith in Christ, trusted him by faith and faith alone. Those they baptized because the baptism of an infant is no baptism at all. And these were the ones the RCC killed, assassinated. Great job RCC! We applaud you for your charitable Christian work!

And it must continually be pointed out that the Magisterial reformers did the same thing -- persecuted and murdered in the name of Jesus.

 

[DHK]

And it must continually be pointed out that the Magisterial reformers did the same thing -- persecuted and murdered in the name of Jesus.

Yes some of them did. They persecuted Baptists as well. I don't defend what Calvin or Luther did. I am a Baptist.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, I did not say or even imply that those were the primary intentions of Baptist baptism.

Again, look at your definition of what you say Catholics will accept:

"The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes."

I am telling you that Baptist repudiate "the intention required" by Rome when they administer baptism!

The "required" intention behind baptism for Rome to accept it is "to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes" and that intention is repudiated by the "Baptist" intention when they baptize. They INTENTIONALLY repudiate the Roman Catholic "intention" when they administer baptism by DENYING it conveys grace of any kind, asserting it is only "FOR A TESTIMONY" of the gospel.

Hence, when you assert that Baptist baptism fits within the "intention required to will to do WHAT the Church DOES when she baptizes" is simply hypocritical in regard to accepting Baptist baptism. If you don't understand what I am saying I can spell it out a number of different ways for you?

But you can't deny that these are intentions in all Christian baptisms

Now you are building another straw man argument that simply does not exist? I was explicitly speaking of Baptist administrations of Baptism. However, the same can be true in regard to many other EVANGELICAL immersionist churches and denominations.

Tell me, Biblicist, why is it a point of such concern to you that Catholics accept Baptist baptisms as valid?

Trying to build another straw man that doesn't exist I see! I was exposing the hypocritical position of Rome in accepting Baptist baptism. I was also exposing your RJP eisgesis in response to Romans 4:11 by fleeing to Colossians 2:12 and then exposing the eisgetical remarks on that text.

In your myopic view, baptism is strictly for show with no substance whatsoever, so it ought not to matter whether it is appropriated by the Catholics, the Mormons the Wiccans or any other group.

That is because your "myopic view" is based purely upon ignorance of God's Word. Ask Moses how serious it is to pervert a PICTURE when he smote the rock instead of speaking to it. When you pervert a PICTURE of the gospel you pervert the truth that it was to express as a PICTURE. Furthermore, baptism not only publicly identifies one with the gospel of Jesus Christ but also identifies you with the proper administrator of baptism which is like faith and order with Christ in the essentials of the Great Commission.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is not an insult, that is a description of how you approached Romans 4:1-11! You simply avoided the text by running from it, jumping to Colossians and pitting Colossians against Romans. That is precisely how you responded to Romans 4:11 and your later post to Doubting Thomas prove my charge is 100% accurate.

You're comment "cultic game?" Thats an insult. First of all the Catholic Church isn't a cult. It had defined long before Luther was a twinkle in his father's eye what was Orthodox at the Council of Nicea. All Christian Churches when viewed for Orthodoxy are measured by the Nicean creed which btw was a Catholic Council 1200 years before the reformation and certainly John Smyth who started the baptist phenomina. Churches like the Mormons, Jehovah Witness, etc... are cultic because they don't measure up to the Orthodox rule for the Christian Faith namely Nicea. So stop the insults.

I have a reasonable approach to Romans 4. I didn't run from it I explained it. I said look at the passage. You so quickly jumped over Paul's comment about the seal of faith which was Abraham being circumcized. It's clear in that passage. It is also clear in that passage that Paul is saying to the Jewish Christians that by virtue of their circumcision it doesn't guarantee their salvation. Why because as Paul says in that Passage the act of circumcision for Abraham was the seal of the faith he already had. I then made the comment that is very much like baptism without faith. After that I went to Col. Which furhter shows Paul thoughts on baptism as he compares it to circumcision and says that it is a washing done with out human hands and by virtue of our faith and our baptism we have died to our sins and are raised to life with Jesus. Heavenly Pilgrim provided other examples of Paul's thoughts on baptism which are in line with what I said.

No relationship to Romans 4 whatsoever! Abraham was a believer BEFORE circumcision

This is called a swith and bait. Where did I say Abraham was not a believer or had no faith before his circumcision? In any of my post? I never did. That wasn't even the issue. I said that Circumsision was the Seal of his faith which btw he already had. However, it was a seal. If Abraham had not been circumcised would he have had faith? No. Because it was commanded by God whom he had faith in and it sealed his faith and the Abrahamic covenant. Just as Baptism seals our faith in the New Coveneant. So your argument doesn't follow because it was never and issue that I said Abraham had no faith before circumsision.

and therefore still a believer when he was circumcised but Paul's point is that circumcision did not play any part in conveying justifying grace to BELEIVERS and or to the "ungodly" (Rom. 4:5).

That is not the point of Romans 4:5. The point of Romans 4:5 is that by virtue of circumcision alone or apart from faith has no ability to save. Why because as Paul says its a sign and seal of their faith. The problem is that the Judaizers wanted to rely on the virtue of fulfilling the law in their own ability rather than the faith which leads to fulfilling the law. The Judaizers were pulling the cart before the horse.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Continued

No, he is not! He begins Romans 3:24-5:2 proving that none can justified under the law (Rom. 3:9-23) and that all are EQUALLY sinners - for "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE" is what introduces this section (Rom. 3:23-5:2).

Another switch and bait comment. again I never said that Paul implied that following the law on our own merits Justifies. Look above. Never once said that. In fact, I don't even think I said anything about Romans 3:23 However, I will now as context is necissary. Again just read what Paul is saying in the context of the whole. the Start of the argument begins in Romans 1 and 2 specifically

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

speaking about humanity and all people who do evil and live in sin. God's wrath is being revealed against all such people. Then he explains what these people are like

they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them

However, Paul then makes the next logical step. Yes God's wrath will come against these people but be careful lest you judge them thinking that you are better than them.

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.

They are in the same boat as those to recieve the wrath of God. And it doesn't matter if you are a jew or gentile. If you are a gentile you still have to deal with the offense of your sin as he says in this passage.

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law

but if your a jew you have to contend with the law as well

and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

and further more if you think you are righteous just by hearing the law and thing your ok then:

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

you still have issues because you need to actually obey the law do what it says. So by virtue of just hearing the law isn't enough. However Paul wants to make something very clear to the Jews.

Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law;

In other words: "If you think you're so high and mighty because you have heard the law and think to instruct others in it know this":

you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?

in otherwords: You don't even follow the law. And since you don't even follow the law what good is circumcision to you? It would only be useful to you if actually followed the Law

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised.

So in essence the gentiles are condemned by their sin apart from the Law. The Jews have the Law and are condemned by that law. So the obvious question Paul gets to is

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision

Is there even vaule in being a Jew? Certianly because God made promises to the Jews and is faithful to them.

Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4 Not at all

However, this is still no reason to look down on anyone else if you are a Jew.

Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”?

God's faithfulness is good but not if your going to continue to sin. So then we get back to the basic point.

What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.

Both Jew and gentile are condemned by their sin. So Jews don't have the advantage to sin more than the gentiles. When it comes to sin they are still in the same boat. So how can the Jews and the gentiles be righteous? Since the gentile are condemned apart from the law and the Jews in the law

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile

For both their is relief; Faith in Jesus Christ. So that now

Where, then, is boasting?

Jews can't boast about their law especially since they didn't follow it anyway. Faith brings about obedience to the law

Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

But note the argument: The Jews believed they were made righteous just by hearing the law whether or not they adhere to it and looked at it as an advantage over the gentile. But they didn't even obey the law. But God wants his people to obey the law but in order to do so they must first have the heart to do so which comes by faith. That is the context of how Rom. 3:23 is to be understood. There is no advantage being Jew or gentile we must all come to obedience by starting with faith. Which Matches up with the context of the book of Romans which Paul outlines in the first chapter and the last chapter

Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from[c] faith

and

but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from[f] faith

And so we get back to Chp 4: does circumcision apart from faith do anything for the Jews? Does it save them? No. Abraham had faith first and that faith was sealed by his circumcision in the Old Covenant. So it is with baptism it is the seal of our faith in the New covenant. That is the context.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

cont.

That simply is not true! You used Colossians to directly contradict Romans 4:11 and its explicit denial that divine ordinances convey justifying grace to believers.

Never did as Paul wrote both books. Romans he was making the Point that Jews had no cause above the gentiles by virtue of their circumcision alone and in Colosians he is affirming to Christians that by their faith and baptism they are dead to sin and raised to new life in Christ they recieve the fulness of Christ and therefore cannot be judged by others (especially the judiazers). They can have certainty they are in the New Covenant. So the purpose of providing Colosians is to get a fuller look at how Paul views baptism. And Heavenly Pilgrim provided even more verses on Paul's notes regarding baptism. Thus we have the picture of the efficasy of baptism in the New Covenant.

 

[The Biblicist]

You're comment "cultic game?" Thats an insult. First of all the Catholic Church isn't a cult.

Your building a straw man that does not exist. The "cultic game" refers to the heremeneutic defined as RJP not to you or the Catholic church. Don't miscostrue my language. I never called either you or the Catholic church a "cultic game."

You have no basis to charge with me making insults against you or your denomination. Again, "cultic game" describes the hermeneutic in the context of my speech.

I have a reasonable approach to Romans 4.

That is simply not true! You made neither any exegetical or expositorial response at all - Nada, nothing, Zilch! You RAN and JUMPED to Colossians 2;12 and then PITTED it squarely against the INTERPRETATION I gave of romans 4:11.

You so quickly jumped over Paul's comment about the seal of faith which was Abraham being circumcized.

Paul says no such thing! What Paul is speaking about is the "BLESSING" described in verses 6-8 consisting of imputed righteousness and non-imputation of sin. This consistitutes justifciation received by faith and that is what circumcision is a "sign" and "seal" of -this "BLESSEDNESS"

It is also clear in that passage that Paul is saying to the Jewish Christians that by virtue of their circumcision it doesn't guarantee their salvation.

He says no such thing! He denies it has any bearing whatsoever in receiving justifying grace! When did he receive this blessedness? "NOT IN CIRCUMCISION" but "IN UNCIRCUMCISION." The sign and seal PLAYED NO PART in its reception whatsoever.

I then made the comment that is very much like baptism without faith. After that I went to C

You made no exegetical based comments on Romans 4:11 but just unfounded assertions and I quote:

That just isn't so. Note what Paul says circumcision is the seal and a sign. This by its very nature is Mysterion which by the way is where we get sacrament. You focus on the word Sign and forget seal. Which is a real and palpalble thing. Romans 4 upholds sacramentalism. However, since Jesus Christ established the New Covenant. Circumcision by itself does not guarantee salvation as many Jews relied on their circumcision for salvation.

Neither does baptism if done without faith and remaining in Jesus guarantee our Salvation but baptism in faith is the seal of our faith. Note how Paul describes baptism in Col. 2:13

Quote:
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

a very clear connection for the NT and sacramentalism.


It does not take a rocket scientist to read the above and see it is simply unfounded assertions without any contextual exegesis or exposition of the passage to support it.

This is called a swith and bait. Where did I say Abraham was not a believer or had no faith before his circumcision?

Where did I say you did? Nowhere! I am making a statement not making a charge. You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am destroying any contextual basis for you to go that direction.

However, it was a seal. If Abraham had not been circumcised would he have had faith?

.

First, your question has no bearing on the context as it is not "faith" that he is considering but the "THIS BLESSEDNESS" received by faith - imputation of righteousness and non-imputation of sin. He repudiates that circumcision has any role whatsoever in communicating that blessing to Abraham or to anyone whatsoever:


though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

So your argument doesn't follow because it was never and issue that I said Abraham had no faith before circumsision.

You are building another straw man that does not exist! I never accused you of saying Abraham had no faith before circumcision! That is your own fertile imagination which is just another attempt to circumvent and pervert the contexual argument by Paul.

Paul's argument is that circumcision plays absolutely no role whatsoever in communicating "THIS BLESSEDNESS" as described in verses 6-8 to believers. "THIS BLESSEDNESS" was received WITHOUT circumcision and not "IN CIRCUMCISION" as the Roman Catholic doctrine of sacramentalism demands in connection with ordinances.

That is not the point of Romans 4:5. The point of Romans 4:5 is that by virtue of circumcision alone or apart from faith has no ability to save.

It is obvious you are oblivious to Paul's point in Romans 4:5 as you can't even provide a exegetical based or expository based support for your wild assertion. You simply make a wild assertion and expect me and others to receive it as gospel fact without one shred of contextual/exegetical/expository evidence whatsoever.

He is speaking about justification that includes "works" before God and admits that works may be a basis of "glory" to Abraham or before men but not "before God." - vv. 1-2

In verse 3 there is the Pauline assertion that righteousness was by faith and imputation on the basis of that faith.

In verses 4-8 Paul turns to ABSTRACT teaching to support his denial in verses 1-2 and his assertion in verse 3 that works play a role in the justification of Abraham "before God."

In verses 3-4 he explains ABSTRACTLY why works cannot be part of justification before God. Because justification is by faith and imputation (v. 3) whereas "works" are not of grace but of debt (v. 4).

Verses 5-6 is the conclusion of his argument in verses 1-4. In verses 5-6 Paul uses the present tense verbs showing identical action when describing the event of justification by faith (which in the case of Abraham occurred as a completed action BEFORE circumcision - vv. 9-11).

In that occurrence, believing, justifying and imputing in connection with the "ungodly" were simeltaneous actions and all "WITHOUT WORKS" and especially without obedience to divine ordinances (vv. 9-11).

Verses 7-8 define the elements contained within justification that Paul calls "THIS BLESSEDNESS" in verse 9.

1. Imputed righteousness
2. Non-imputation of sin = remission of sin

You have no concept of the meaning or argument of Paul in this chapter.

 

[The Biblicist]

Never did as Paul wrote both books.

Of course you didn't from YOUR PERSPECTIVE but I am not talking from YOUR PERSPECTIVE am I????

Romans he was making the Point that Jews had no cause above the gentiles by virtue of their circumcision alone

he is teaching no such thing! Indeed, he is denying that circumcision plays any role whatsoever in connection with receiving "THIS BLESSEDNESS" as it is defined in Romans 4:7-8 which is the content of justification.

He is denying that divine ordinances play any role whatsoever in the reception of "THIS BLESSEDNESS."

and in Colosians he is affirming to Christians that by their faith and baptism they are dead to sin and raised to new life in Christ

He is teaching no such thing! He is teaching that circumcision and baptism both give expression to their faith in Christ as both are signs of death to the flesh while baptism alone is a sign of the resurrected life of Christ.

He goes right on to claim the Old Testament SIGNS or CEREMONIAL LAWS which were only a "shadow" not the "substance" are done away with.

 

[The Biblicist]

Another switch and bait comment. again I never said that Paul implied that following the law on our own merits Justifies. Look above. Never once said that. In fact, I don't even think I said anything about Romans 3:23

You are building another straw man that does not exist. Here are your words I was responding to:

Originally Posted by Thinkingstuff
2) I will repeat what I said above because it wasn't a "Jump". It was a fuller context of Paul's thought. "The fact is Paul is speaking to converted Jews who believe they can rely soley on their circumcision.

I was responding to your claim that you were in keeping with "the fuller context of Paul's thought." I simply denied that to be the case and went to show the fuller context which is a systematic demonstration that there are none righteous, there is no difference between Jew and Gentiles because both have sinned and equally violated the law of God (whether written on stone or on conscience) and "no flesh" can be justified by works (whether in response to stone or conscience) before God.

However, I will now as context is necissary.

This should be delightful!?!

So in essence the gentiles are condemned by their sin apart from the Law.

Fairly good up to this point. The SAME substantive law written on stone is written on the consciene of the Gentiles. Not two different laws but two different forms of the same law. The Jewish law is simply a far more expanded version of what is condensed in conscience form. That is exactly why Paul can use the phase "the law" in verses 19-20 to condemn "every mouth" and "all the world" so that "NO FLESH" can be justified by the works of the law.

So the obvious question Paul gets to is Is there even vaule in being a Jew? Certianly because God made promises to the Jews and is faithful to them. However, this is still no reason to look down on anyone else if you are a Jew. God's faithfulness is good but not if your going to continue to sin.

Here is your next mistake. The advantage of the Jew is simply they have more revelation of His will and promises and separated as a chosen nation, which is a chief advantage over the Gentile but at the same time is a cheif problem to the Jews as it provides more grounds for condemnation because no Jew ever satisfied the demands of the Law and could collect on the promises. Romans 3:3-8 are dedicated to demonstrating this failure cannot be attibuted to God but rather it is their failure DUE TO A SINFUL NATURE that both Jews and Gentiles EQUALLY SHARE - Romans 3:9-18.

His conclusion is that "NO FLESH" can be justified by keeping the law because they are sinful by nature and thus come under its condemnation rather than blessing - Rom. 3:19-23

The righteousness demanded by God as revealed in the law (on stone, in conscience) is also the righteousness preached by the Prophets and has been revealed now in the Person and work of Jesus Christ - Rom. 3:21 - and BOTH Jews and Gentiles - ALL MANKIND with no exceptions - FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND COME SHORT OF THIS GLORIOUS RIGHTEOUSNESS revealed in the law, in the prophets and in the Person of Christ.

Faith brings about obedience to the law

Paul teaches no such thing. Here is your major eisgetical mistake. Your questions are good but your conclusion stinks to the pits of hell. He has proven already that all men are under condemnation by the law and cannot acheive its righteousness.

What God has provided is justification "freely by grace" through faith in the "propitiation" of Jesus Christ. His satisfaction of the Law in His own person. His righteousness that was revealed in HIS PERSON and HIS BLOOD that satisfied the full condemnation of the law. This is God's provision "freely by grace" received "through faith in his blood....faith in him" - Rom. 3:24-26

But God wants his people to obey the law but in order to do so they must first have the heart to do so which comes by faith.

Here is your next mistake. The law was given to reveal sin (Rom. 3:21) never to convey eternal life (Gal. 3;21) without or with God's help. Christ's own works in His own Person satisfied the laws demands FOR all who believe in Him and so justification is without ANY KIND OF WORK emanating from the person of the believer - Rom. 3:27-28 but is received by faith ALONE and that is why justificaiton is LEVEL GROUND for both Gentiles and Jews - Rom. 3:29-30 - because the law was "established" in the person and works of Christ alone which is why we receive it and are justified by faith "in Christ" WITHOUT WORKS of our own.

We are justified by works - His works that were performed in His Person 2000 years ago.

We are sanctified by His power working through us but which has nothing to do with our justificatin but with regeneration.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your building a straw man that does not exist. The "cultic game" refers to the heremeneutic defined as RJP not to you or the Catholic church. Don't miscostrue my language. I never called either you or the Catholic church a "cultic game."

Its not a straw man. You set up the RJP your own device by the way and said I was engaged in a cultic game. That is an insult as I nor the RCC is cultic. So yes I do have basis.

That is simply not true! You made neither any exegetical or expositorial response at all - Nada, nothing, Zilch! You RAN and JUMPED to Colossians 2;12 and then PITTED it squarely against the INTERPRETATION I gave of romans 4:11.

This just isn't true. I made an expositorial responce to Romans and concluded with Col. espressing the fuller vision of Paul with regard to baptism. Look:

Note what Paul says circumcision is the seal and a sign. This by its very nature is Mysterion which by the way is where we get sacrament. You focus on the word Sign and forget seal. Which is a real and palpalble thing. Romans 4 upholds sacramentalism.However, since Jesus Christ established the New Covenant. Circumcision by itself does not guarantee salvation as many Jews relied on their circumcision for salvation

exposition and exegete on Romans 4:11. It is only after this that I move to Col.

Note how Paul describes baptism in Col. 2:13

and certainly as can be seen in my post 215 I go on further to exeget and expound on the meaning of Romans1-4.

Paul says no such thing! What Paul is speaking about is the "BLESSING" described in verses 6-8 consisting of imputed righteousness and non-imputation of sin.

He absolutely does! As I've shown in post 215. You want to read that verse in isolation of all the rest of the passage and that just isn't what Paul was getting at! The blessedness is in conjunction with forgiveness that comes by faith which ends in obedince. That is the context which Paul started way back in chp1 and speaking specifically to the Jews who had believed they had something over everyone else.

This consistitutes justifciation received by faith and that is what circumcision is a "sign" and "seal" of -this "BLESSEDNESS"

That is not what the passage says

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

Circumcision is the sign and the seal of the faith which Abraham had which is gave him the righteousness by which he obeyed God.

He says no such thing!

He Absolutely does. Look at the progression of Paul's argument again

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness...You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth...All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law ...and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law...Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God... Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised...What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all!...

So he absoluetly does!

Where did I say you did? Nowhere! I am making a statement not making a charge. You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am destroying any contextual basis for you to go that direction.

Still a bait and switch because you are trying to frame an argument I didn't make by saying as you did

No relationship to Romans 4 whatsoever! Abraham was a believer BEFORE circumcision

which implies I said or implied that ABraham was not a believer before circumcision.

First, your question has no bearing on the context as it is not "faith" that he is considering but the "THIS BLESSEDNESS" received by faith - imputation of righteousness and non-imputation of sin.

JThe passage isn't about blessedness. This whole time Paul has been speaking about faith. He doesn't then change subjects. Again the blessedness is related to the forgiveness of sins! Which happens in Faith. A faith that by the way Paul wants to lead Jews and gentiles into obedience.

You are building another straw man that does not exist! I never accused you of saying Abraham had no faith before circumcision! That is your own fertile imagination which is just another attempt to circumvent and pervert the contexual argument by Paul.

What does your statement

No relationship to Romans 4 whatsoever! Abraham was a believer BEFORE circumcision

suppose to imply then? Its not a strawman. Its clear what your implication is.

Paul's argument is that circumcision plays absolutely no role whatsoever in communicating "THIS BLESSEDNESS" as described in verses 6-8 to believers. "THIS BLESSEDNESS" was received WITHOUT circumcision and not "IN CIRCUMCISION" as the Roman Catholic doctrine of sacramentalism demands in connection with ordinances

First of all the passage isn't about blessedness the blessedness is the forgiveness of sins which occures by faith and leads to obedience. Look at what Paul says again

Circumcision has value if you observe the law

But they weren't following the law therefore it has no value. Had they followed the law it would have had value because it is the sign and seal of faith which leads one to obedience.

It is obvious you are oblivious to Paul's point in Romans 4:5 as you can't even provide a exegetical based or expository based support for your wild assertion.

I've made no assertion. I clearly put the passage in context of the whole. And clearly exegeted the passage to include some exposition in my post 215. It's clear you want to read this verse in isolation of the whole context and missed Paul's point all together.