Nope.
Circumcision was the outward sign of membership in the old covenant.
That’s what I said and you said, “Wrong.”
What does God have to say on the matter?
***"14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” (Genesis 17:14) ***
Where’s the outpouring of grace for the circumcized?
Tell me, was there a measure of some grace in the old covenant? Did God favor the people of His covenant? If someone had broken that covenant and was cut off from the favor of God, were they not out of the grace of the old covenant and such that Christ called dogs (as He called the Canaanite woman)?
There was only actual grace. Sanctifying grace came with Jesus Christ.
There was grace in the old covenant. Not SAVING grace, mind you, but there was favor from God. And entrance and membership in that covenant was predicated on circumcision.
But there was no outpouring of grace with circumcision as there is with Baptism and the other Sacraments.
We cannot undermine the old covenant as meaningless
I never said it was meaningless.
without likewise tearing the foundation out from under the sacraments of the New Covenant. You are incorrect to malign God’s commanded actions as hollow externals.
When did I say they were hollow externals? It is you who used those words just now.
God does nothing without just reason behind it. He is not frivilous.
Correct.
Of course it is. No one is arguing that the old covenant is better than the new, or even equivalent. The new covenant is the fulfillment and perfection of the old covenant. I have no idea why you even thought to make this point.
Because you claim that circumcision brought an outpouring of grace the same as Baptism.
This is because, as St Paul writes:
11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+2&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29506b”)**] 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, who raised him from the dead. (Col 2:11-12)
It does exactly the same as circumcision did for the Jews:
There you go again. No. It doesn’t.
it is the entrance to the NEW Covenant in the way that circumcision was the entrance to the old covenant.
But the entrance to the Old Covenant did not have an outpouring of Sanctifying grace.
But it is not predicated on personal faith. It is predicated on undeniable grace which leaves an indelible mark on the soul. As you said, a baby without personal faith who is baptised is washed of original sin and receives the indelible mark of grace with no personal faith.
First I heard of circumcision leaving a mark on the soul. I doubt that is a Catholic doctrine.
And faith is both a work and a gift of grace.
So a baby with no personal faith doesn’t get an indelible mark of grace from God when going through baptism? That is quite contrary to catholic teaching.
You are arguing apples and oranges.
First of all, I didn’t mention infants at all.
Second, nor did I deny that anyone’s soul was marked in Baptism.
The idea that there is this magical “grace of faith” which always comes first in christian development is a novel idea, but it is false.
Two errors here.
- I didn’t say that faith was the absolutely first grace given by God.
- I said that faith precedes repentance and forgiveness.
So, you’re still arguing against straw men. However, the prevenient grace which God gives to man is faith. As Scripture says:
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Romans 5:2
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
and also:
Romans 4:16
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Without faith, man would not seek God. Without faith, man would not convert, or turn to God. As St. Thomas Aquinas said;
QUESTION #113
Of the Effects of Grace
Article 4:
Whether a movement of faith is required for the justification of the ungodly?
…
On the contrary, It is written (Rm. 5:1): “Being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God.”
I answer that, As stated above (3) a movement of free-will is required for the justification of the ungodly, inasmuch as man’s mind is moved by God. Now God moves man’s soul by turning it to Himself according to Ps. 84:7 (Septuagint): “Thou wilt turn us, O God, and bring us to life.” Hence for the justification of the ungodly a movement of the mind is required, by which it is turned to God. Now the first turning to God is by faith, according to Heb. 11:6: “He that cometh to God must believe that He is.” Hence a movement of faith is required for the justification of the ungodly…
God renders grace even to those who have found no measure of faith at all (yet!)
But first comes faith, then repentance and then forgiveness.
Sincerely,
De Maria
“Faith begins with reason.”