So I guess I'd like to ask now, did Ambrosiaster adhere to baptismal regeneration? I think he makes some statements that could go either way. For example on his commentary on Rom 6:4 that "baptism is the sign and symbol of the Resurrection". Also that "this [baptism] is symbolized by water, because just as water cleanses the dirt of the body, so we believe that we have been spiritually cleansed by baptism from every sin and renewed, for what is incorporeal is cleanses invisibly."
Yet on Rom 6:2 he says, "Therefore when the grace of God through Christ and through faith came upon us, we began to live for God by the spiritual rebirth of baptism, and we died to sin."
I know what the ECF's wording can be confusing because a Protestant will interpret through the lens of their understanding and the likewise the Catholic. I understand baptism in a spiritual context to refer to regeneration, and baptism in the physical sense to be a sign of regeneration. Thus, it's hard to know where certain people stood. Can anyone help with this in light of Ambrosiaster?
Dave,
I'm also debating that same Catholic about solafide here
http://www.catholicforum.com/forums...uot-merits-quot&p=335997#post335997.Of course I fully agree with you. Paul is talking about the moral law, especially in Rom 2-4,7. It's inescapable. After arguing this with the Catholic my beliefs in solafide became even more solidified. Especially when it comes to Rom 3:19-21. 1. The moral law is the law that condemns the whole world (v.19), 2. the moral law brings death not life for having broken it once (v.20), 3. and thus, is what we are justified apart from (v.21).
That's what I've found to be the iron clad case. There really is no way around it. It's awesome!
