When was original sin removed from OT saints?
#10
(07-20-2012, 08:38 AM)Melkite Wrote: Aquinas was wrong about the immaculate conception, he is wrong about this as well.  He may be a very esteemed teacher, but there is no need to immediately presume he is basically infallible, when there is a more reasonable answer to a given question.  In this case, certainly it makes no sense that the faith of OT women alone saved them, but circumcision was necessary for females.  It was merely a symbol of baptism.  No cleansing took place by the circumcision itself.  This is readily apparent.

Circumcision was not a symbol of baptism.

It was a visible sign of the Covenant.

Genesis 17:10-14 Wrote:This is my covenant which you shall observe, between me and you, and thy seed after thee: All the male kind of you shall be circumcised: And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be for a sign of the covenant between me and you. An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant shall be circumcised, and whosoever is not of your stock:  And my covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant. The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant.

While it prefigures Baptism, it is not just a symbol of it. That it is for males only is by definition, given the nature of the Covenant being passed in the flesh.

Aquinas was not "wrong" as much as you think. I highly doubt you could find any flaws in his reasoning. Only in preconceptions and assumptions which precede the reasoning are there errors.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: When was original sin removed from OT saints? - by Historian - 07-20-2012, 08:45 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)