Abraham's Faith and Romans 4:11

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reformed_Rob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Reformed_Rob

Guest
I know, I know, there’s like 33 threads on Justification already! But can I start one that is very precise and narrow in scope?

I’m not saying I have a great understanding of the Catholic view of Justification, but even if I did, there is still one passage that would probably give me aches and pains. Perhaps your Protestant apologists use it against you quite often. Anyways, the passage in question is Romans 4:9-12
Is this blessing then upon the circumcised, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness (Gen. 15:6).” How then was it reckolned? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be reckoned to them, and the father of cifrcumcision 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.
I’ve got Sungenis’s book “Not By Faith Alone” but I’ve not read it. Before you give me a hard time about that, let me say that I am reading “Not By Scripture Alone”, so give me a break allright! But, I don’t see Romans 4:11 referenced in the faith book. I take that back, it’s referenced, but not discussed much, just a little on p. 162.
Ok, if Abraham was righteous by faith, faith before he was circumcised, then how can any righteousness, or justification be given to him due to his circumcision? As a covenant theology Presbyterian, I understand circumcision to be the OT “equivalent” to baptism, and so I’d just as well ask “How can justification or righteousness be given to someone when he is baptised?” Paul says here that the circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of the faith he had while uncircumcised. That’s the Presbyterian view of baptism when administered to adult converts to Christ - they have faith, they’re justified by that faith, then they are baptised to receive the sign and seal of that faith.
Any discussion?
 
Reformed Rob:
Ok, if Abraham was righteous by faith, faith before he was circumcised, then how can any righteousness, or justification be given to him due to his circumcision? As a covenant theology Presbyterian, I understand circumcision to be the OT “equivalent” to baptism, and so I’d just as well ask “How can justification or righteousness be given to someone when he is baptised?”
Click to expand...
Catholics don’t really see justification or righteousness as a one time only kind of category. So, just because someone is described as justified at one moment, that doesn’t disallow some mention of it in another moment. The book you mention will talk about ongoing justification. The question you ask seems to assume that you can’t have such a thing.

Catholics also see circumcision as some sort of type or prefigurement or symbol of baptism cf col2:11,12, but that does not mean we assign them equality in what they accomplish. If one were to determine that circumcision did not confer grace, that would not automatically show such about baptism.
 
You are limiting your examination of Abraham’s faith to only what was written in Romans, however, James 2:20-24 also addresses Abraham’s faith. In fact, it is addressing the same Old Testament reference to Abraham’s faith as is Romans.
 
Reformed Rob:
I know, I know, there’s like 33 threads on Justification already! But can I start one that is very precise and narrow in scope?

I’m not saying I have a great understanding of the Catholic view of Justification, but even if I did, there is still one passage that would probably give me aches and pains. Perhaps your Protestant apologists use it against you quite often. Anyways, the passage in question is Romans 4:9-12
Is this blessing then upon the circumcised, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness (Gen. 15:6).” How then was it reckolned? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be reckoned to them, and the father of cifrcumcision 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.
I’ve got Sungenis’s book “Not By Faith Alone” but I’ve not read it. Before you give me a hard time about that, let me say that I am reading “Not By Scripture Alone”, so give me a break allright! But, I don’t see Romans 4:11 referenced in the faith book. I take that back, it’s referenced, but not discussed much, just a little on p. 162.
Ok, if Abraham was righteous by faith, faith before he was circumcised, then how can any righteousness, or justification be given to him due to his circumcision? As a covenant theology Presbyterian, I understand circumcision to be the OT “equivalent” to baptism, and so I’d just as well ask “How can justification or righteousness be given to someone when he is baptised?” Paul says here that the circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of the faith he had while uncircumcised. That’s the Presbyterian view of baptism when administered to adult converts to Christ - they have faith, they’re justified by that faith, then they are baptised to receive the sign and seal of that faith.
Code: 
Any discussion?
Click to expand...
If I understand you correctly, you are saying:

Since Paul said that an act of circumcission is NOT what caused a person to be justified, but rather it’s when one have faith that justification take place, then how can Catholic claim that baptism, which is an act, justified a person?

If this is what you’re implying say so or correct me. then I may answer your inquiry.

I have all of Sungenis “not by… alone” books. I’ve started to read the “Not By Faith Alone” only. So I may be able to speak your language.
 
Reformed Rob:
Ok, if Abraham was righteous by faith, faith before he was circumcised, then how can any righteousness, or justification be given to him due to his circumcision? As a covenant theology Presbyterian, I understand circumcision to be the OT “equivalent” to baptism, and so I’d just as well ask “How can justification or righteousness be given to someone when he is baptised?” Paul says here that the circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of the faith he had while uncircumcised. That’s the Presbyterian view of baptism when administered to adult converts to Christ - they have faith, they’re justified by that faith, then they are baptised to receive the sign and seal of that faith.

Any discussion?
Click to expand...
Did that happened after he left Ur? I can’t remember (and I should, ex-Southern Baptist and all!). In the discussion about faith vs. faith and works, I always wondered why this wasn’t brought up: Justification by faith seems to say that Abraham was justified solely by faith (“I trust you, God, to do all that you said that you would do for me, make me a great nation, bless all nations through me, etc. Go ahead and do that while I drink a latte.” Faith and works as a demonstration of that faith, works rising out of that faith (in love) would seem to say that Abraham was justified by the faith that lead him to pick up one foot and start on the road out of Ur, faithfully following the God who called him by name. Would he have been justified if he had just hung out in Ur? Of course, Cardinal Ratzinger I ain’t.
 
Rob:

Circumcision was a foreshadowing or type of baptism, but it was also a foreshadowing of the ritual laws given at Sinai. All the events in Abraham’s life foreshadowed Israel’s experience. Abraham went down into Egypt because of a drought, his wife was taken by Pharaoh and he and Sarah were miraculously delivered when Pharaoh was struck with a plague. Israel moved to Egypt because of a drought, was enslaved by Pharaoh and miraculously delivered through the ten plagues. In the Golden Calf incident, Israel built an idol to the Egyptian fertility god, the worship of which involved ritual orgies. Abraham taking fertility into his own hand with Hagar pre-figured this. Abraham was given the ritual of circumcision to renounce his back-sliding as a penitential ritual, just as Israel was given the Levitical laws as penitential rituals, to serve as a “constant reminder of sin” (Heb 10:3).

These Old Testament rituals are never described as salvific. They remind the people of their sin, and their need for God’s mercy, but they are never described as taking away sin. Baptism, the New Covenant ritual, is described as doing more than reminding us of our sins; it is described as washing those sins away (Eph 5:26, Titus 3:5, etc.).
 
40.png
Emmaus:
Reformed Bob,

Starting with this link may be helpful to you.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT6.HTM
Click to expand...
Thanks,

I’ve opened it up, I’ve read it before, but I’ll review it to renew myself. I’m sure the answer is quite simple, but that passage just seems to cast concern on the whole justification thing for me. Not for me only, so that’s what this thread is for!
 
40.png
beng:
If I understand you correctly, you are saying:

Since Paul said that an act of circumcission is NOT what caused a person to be justified, but rather it’s when one have faith that justification take place, then how can Catholic claim that baptism, which is an act, justified a person?
Click to expand...
Well, I think that’s an accurate summary of the question. Maybe I should add that Abraham had righteousness accounted to him by the faith that he had while uncircumcised. So, the Protestant view of baptism as a seal of the faith we have is supported, because the circumcision was a seal of the faith that Abraham had.
 
Reformed Rob:
Well, I think that’s an accurate summary of the question. Maybe I should add that Abraham had righteousness accounted to him by the faith that he had while uncircumcised. So, the Protestant view of baptism as a seal of the faith we have is supported, because the circumcision was a seal of the faith that Abraham had.
Click to expand...
The answer is actually quite simple. Baptism confers grace. Circumcission does not. Baptism is not just a sign but it has regenerative effect. You may look at CA (Catholic Answer) tract here for scriptural and patristic support that Baptism confers grace.

You would then say, “Then how can an act of men called upon the grace of God?” well this thinking is flawed because it assumed that the act of baptizing is the act of men. When in fact man can do no good* without the grace of God. Thus the act of baptism is properly call the act of God.

PS
  • man can only do natural goodness without the grace of God. Such as building houses, feed himself etc.
 
40.png
beng:
The answer is actually quite simple. Baptism confers grace. Circumcission does not. Baptism is not just a sign but it has regenerative effect. You may look at CA (Catholic Answer) tract here for scriptural and patristic support that Baptism confers grace.
Click to expand...
Ok,

That helps. Surely there’s more to it, or at least I though there would be, but I’ll take that and hide it away, or something, and roll on.

Thanks Big Beng!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top