Question about baptism, circumcision, justification

[Reformed_Rob]

Hi!

I’ve been reading up more on what the Church teaches about Justification. Like, I’m really wanting to know more, and well…I’m learning.

So here is my question. And this is from reading Catholic teaching on it.

Justification is, according to Trent, the transition to being a son of Adam to being a son of God by grace and adoption through Jesus Christ. That happens, generally speaking, at Baptism.

Ok, and what we get from Paul’s letter to the Romans is that we are saved by faith apart from the works of the law. That is…apart from ceremonial things like circumcision. Not apart from “good works” he makes that clear.

And this entails a change of heart. Undergoing an interior change, a circumcision of our heart, by which Abraham was “reckoned righteous” before he was circumcised. Which brings me to my main point.

If our basis for describing Catholic teaching in St. Paul’s letters is based partly on his distinction between “works of the flesh” and the “obedience of faith” then why is it that baptism is so important, when Paul’s major point was that Abraham himself was justified before his circumcision?

I’m not like doubting Catholic teaching. I’m just wondering. Lot of times, wondering things like this and discussing it helps a person understand it better.

And I know…Romans 6… baptism…I’m just wanting to get a bigger picture.

Thanks

 

[Chesster]

Baptism is how we come into contact with the blood of the covenant. When God made the covenant with Moses He inaugurated it with a sacrifice and Moses then sprinkled all the people with the blood. Likewise the New Covenant was inaugurated with a sacrifice and we too must come into contact with the blood of the inaugurating sacrifice and that is done through baptism.

 

[John_Henry]

If our basis for describing Catholic teaching in St. Paul’s letters is based partly on his distinction between “works of the flesh” and the “obedience of faith” then why is it that baptism is so important, when Paul’s major point was that Abraham himself was justified before his circumcision?

Like you say, when St. Paul contrasts the “obedience of faith” with the “works of the law”, he is not denying the necessity of good works. Rather he is contrasting the old covenant and new covenant as means of justification. Thus, we are not justified by “works of the law” means we are not justified by the Mosaic Law. Being justified “by faith in Christ” means that we are justified by Christ’s atoning work. He is not contrasting what we do to be saved, as much as contrasting the old covenant and the new. This was important because many early Christians thought you had to be subject to the Mosaic Law for salvation. Baptism becomes the means of justification not by analogy to circumcision, as people were justified apart from circumcision in the old covenant (e.g., Abraham), but simply by the institution of Christ. Like you say, Romans 6 and all that. This justifying, “saving” baptism was prefigured in the OT by Noah’s flood (1 Pet. 3) and the crossing of the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10). In both of these events, people were saved through water, although differently in each example.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Thank you Chesster and John Henry.

It’s hard for me to get my question out precisely the way I should when I don’t exactly understand what it is I’m trying to ask in the first place.

It’s not like I’m wanting to ask “what’s the big deal with baptism” because I know what baptism is for and believe it’s importance and necessity.

Here’s maybe a better way to deal with the question:

As a Presbyterian, I was taught that circumcision was a prefigurement of Baptism. And a good passage to support that is 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,** in which you were also raised up with Him…

And that would go great with I Peter 3:21 and the verses in the Old and New Testaments about “circumcision of the heart” like Romans 2:28,29 and Deuteronomy 10:16

And as a Catholic, I understand that even though the CCC doesn’t bring that out, St. Thomas Aquinas understood that to be the case, and so did some of the Early Fathers. So, the ink is there to support it as a Catholic understanding too, that baptism was prefigured or maybe even, in some way, took the place of circumcision.

So…relating the circumcision to baptism, if St. Paul’s point (and our point as Catholics following St. Paul’s teaching) is that Abraham was justified by faith working through love before he was circumcised (to show that we’re not saved by works of the law such as circumcision), should we then understand that people can now be saved by faith working through love before they are baptised?

I think we call it “Baptism of Desire” or “Fire.”

And St. James, he mentions Rahab, not a Jew, but she was justified by her works (that is works done in faith). Ok, she’s a woman, she wouldn’t be circumcised, but you get the point.

 

[Veritas41]

As a Presbyterian, I was taught that circumcision was a prefigurement of Baptism. And a good passage to support that is Colossians 2:11,12:

And that would go great with I Peter 3:21 and the verses in the Old and New Testaments about “circumcision of the heart” like Romans 2:28,29 and Deuteronomy 10:16

And as a Catholic, I understand that even though the CCC doesn’t bring that out, St. Thomas Aquinas understood that to be the case, and so did some of the Early Fathers. So, the ink is there to support it as a Catholic understanding too, that baptism was prefigured or maybe even, in some way, took the place of circumcision.

So…relating the circumcision to baptism, if St. Paul’s point (and our point as Catholics following St. Paul’s teaching) is that Abraham was justified by faith working through love before he was circumcised (to show that we’re not saved by works of the law such as circumcision), should we then understand that people can now be saved by faith working through love before they are baptised?

I think we call it “Baptism of Desire” or “Fire.”

And St. James, he mentions Rahab, not a Jew, but she was justified by her works (that is works done in faith). Ok, she’s a woman, she wouldn’t be circumcised, but you get the point.

One thing to keep in mind is that the ceremonial rites of the OT (including circumcision) were, like you mentioned, prefigurements/types of things to come in the New Testament. Read Hebrews 9 and 10 --Heb. 10:1, “For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities. . .” As such, they had no power to save in themselves – they were pointing to realities that *would *have the power to save. Baptism is very different from circumcision in that it actually infuses God’s grace and His Holy Spirit into the human soul.

If you look at the context of what St. Paul is saying in Romans about Abraham, he’s emphasizing that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised in order to demonstrate that even those not originally included in the Mosaic covenant and circumcised can still be children of Abraham and children of God’s promise of salvation through faith because the ritual ceremony of the law isn’t what justified the Jews. (Rom. 4:16). The promise rests on grace which Baptism provides.

St. Thomas Aquinas said that God the sacraments are the normative means God uses to give grace, but He isn’t *bound *to the sacraments (Acts 10:44-48 gives us a Scriptural example of that). So this leaves open the possibility of baptism of desire. If anyone is sincerely seeking God it’s because God is drawing that person to Himself. God always takes the initiative in salvation, so it follows that if someone were to die without baptism through no fault of his own, God isn’t going to just drop him like a hot potato and condemn him because he didn’t get around to going through the actual act of baptism. I know the early church considered martyred catechumens to be baptized in their blood. They obviously realized that if someone were willing to give up his life for Christ God was at work in that soul to save it even without baptism. So, yes, someone can be saved without baptism (grace is given outside the sacrament), but that doesn’t take away from the normative necessity of baptism for salvation.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Justification is, according to Trent, the transition to being a son of Adam to being a son of God by grace and adoption through Jesus Christ. That happens, generally speaking, at Baptism.

To clarify, it is by sacramental baptism or its desire, by absolute necessity, according to Trent.

Paul’s letter to the Romans is that we are saved by faith apart from the works of the law.

Yes, and if an adult repents of his past sins, and has been given the gift of supernatural faith by God (which in the ancient Greek “pistis” connotes both believing and obeying), even if given faith before sacramental baptism, he is saved, through his desire for baptism (cf. Cornelius, Acts 10). St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the desire for the sacraments bring its effect. I suspect most adult converts to Christianity are baptized extra-sacramentally by God, as Cornelius was, prior to sacramental baptism. Yet only God could say for sure.

… why is it that baptism is so important

Because it is commanded.

“***he commanded ***(Gk prostasso) them to be baptized” (Acts 10:48)

It’s almost as if Peter had some hierarchical authority that he possessed which gave him “command” authority over these already Spirit-filled, born-again Christians.

Obstinant refusal to do that which is commanded by apostolic authority is contrary to “pistis” which connotes both belief and obedience. Thus, to suppose you have faith but refuse to be baptized is inconsistent.

The word “command” is used only 7 times in the NT. It is significant in that it is used ONLY for commands from God, angels of God, Moses, and Peter. We don’t interpret, therefore, that baptism is optional. Instead, we see it as necessary, as it was instituted by Christ as a means of Christian initiation, and reception of His grace. If one had already received baptism by desire, as did Cornelius in Acts 10, we believe sacramental baptism is still commanded because it conveys further grace from God, to include an indelible mark upon the soul which configures the recipient to Christ–a sacred oath (Lat. sacramentum) perceptivel to the senses, with the Church as witness, signifying in a manner instituted by Christ that they are an adopted son of God. We are rarely given the supernatural evidence of baptism by desire, which is seen in Acts 10. Thus, visible signs which efficaciously convey grace (sacraments) have been gifted to the Church by Christ Himself for our benefit.

 

[bibleapologist]

Hello everyone,

I have published an article that has some very good information regarding baptism, the circumcision, justification and repentance. You can read that article here.

I realize it is somewhat lengthy… it does have subheadings though which you can scroll through. The subheadings of “the covenant”, “circumcision”, and “baptism” are the ones most relevant to this topic.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[John_Henry]

Hello everyone,

I have published an article that has some very good information regarding baptism, the circumcision, justification and repentance. You can read that article here.

I realize it is somewhat lengthy… it does have subheadings though which you can scroll through. The subheadings of “the covenant”, “circumcision”, and “baptism” are the ones most relevant to this topic.

John
www.gideonsword.net

You should move this elsewhere, BA. This thread is not a debate about Catholic beliefs, which is what it will become if you derail it with this “interesting” piece of work. Seriously I’m sure people will be interested in discussing “pedal baptism” (??) and this Council of “Milevitan”.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

If one had already received baptism by desire, as did Cornelius in Acts 10, we believe sacramental baptism is still commanded because it conveys further grace from God, to include an indelible mark upon the soul which configures the recipient to Christ–a sacred oath (Lat. sacramentum) perceptivel to the senses, with the Church as witness, signifying in a manner instituted by Christ that they are an adopted son of God.

Thank you for your words and thoughts,

Regarding the character imprint / indelible mark…

A book I read and am reviewing for this post makes the argument, well, let me summarize it as follows:

1. Participation in the life of Christ is necessary for salvation
2. 3 sacraments that imprint an indelible mark on the soul (Baptism, Orders, Confirmation)
3. That mark is permanent
4. Mortal sin places one outside the life of Christ, but does not remove the indelible mark / sacramental character
5. There can and may be people in hell that have the indelible mark.

Therefore) - The character (indelible mark) is in and of itself NOT a participation in the life of Christ. That’s because… you can be in hell and have the mark on your soul!

Aquinas explains the mark as (See Aquinas, ST, III Q. 63, art. 2), they are a “dupatation to the worship of God.”.

However, that does not by any means suggest that a person can knowingly refuse to be baptised, because it would be to disobey a command, and that is contrary to the life of Christ.

** Would you agree, Dave, with the above?**

This is very helpful, reviewing this together with my study in Romans here!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… ** Would you agree, Dave, with the above?
**

Yes.

[note: this is the shortest answer I’ve ever given on this forum.
Totally out of character for me. ]

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Yes.

[note: this is the shortest answer I’ve ever given on this forum.
Totally out of character for me. ]

Well that’s quite allright, nothing wrong with being brief and precise, and your answer was both!

I’m now going to continue my study and hopefully I can come to a better understanding on some things myself and be able to explain it better to some Protestant friends I’m getting back in touch with now.

Take care everyone!!