When was original sin removed from OT saints?
#13
(07-20-2012, 08:38 AM)Melkite Wrote: No cleansing took place by the circumcision itself.  This is readily apparent.

Scripture treats circumcision as being more:

Genesis 17:14 Wrote: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.

Circumcision was a visible sign of entering into the Covenant. It bound the male who was circumcised to the Law. I think St. Thomas is correct barring reasoning to the contrary.

Circumcision was more than just a human act when done for the purposes of the Law.

Circumcision in itself is meaningless, just like pouring water on people is meaningless, otherwise. However, circumcision was an issue after the institution of Baptism because there heresy stated that one had to be circumcised to be righteous...this is only contested in light of Baptism. Nobody questioned the reasoning before. So clearly, circumcision was related to Baptism in more than just externals. It bound the man to the Law. With the fulfillment of the Law, the grace of God was extended to all through Baptism.

"Circumcision" is a pain for me to type (I do not type that word often), and barring any clear comprehensive reasoning contrary to what Saint Thomas wrote, I think we should accept it.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: When was original sin removed from OT saints? - by Historian - 07-20-2012, 07:55 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)