Circumcision

[Svt4Him]

Greetings;

The circumcision referred to in Acts 15 is the third type of circumcision, that of keeping all the Commandments and walking a holy life, one without sin. It is an action whereby you distance yourself from the sinning world. In other words, just because your brother does it, does not mean that you can do it.

The first two circumcisions that I mentioned obviously most people are familiar with, however this last type, is as foreign to most as sushi might be. The first two, namely that of Abraham and David, I didn’t need to give any Scripture references for, for all that read these pages were comfortable with my findings, however this last type, we will have to post a few passages.

Defiance of the requirements of this last of the three circumcisions causes one to become a fornicator. It becomes a mixing of the white and the black, the pure with the impure, the holy with the sinner.

Where do I find support for this Circumcision?
2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (KJV)

The underlying theme in this passage is for us who are holy, to not defile ourselves. We are to be a separate people. “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord,”

Numbers 16:21 Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment. (KJV)

Ezra 6:21 And the children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the LORD God of Israel, did eat, (KJV)

Ezra 10:11 Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives. (KJV)

If you read the entire account in Ezra, you will see how His people had to get rid of their sinning wives, for as long as they had foreign wives, they were adulterers for their wives were fornicators.

Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. (KJV)

Proverbs 9:6 Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding. (KJV)

Isaiah 52:11 Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD. (KJV)

Jeremiah 51:6 Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every man his soul: be not cut off in her iniquity; for this is the time of the LORD'S vengeance; he will render unto her a recompence. (KJV)

Acts 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward (defiled/sinning) generation. (KJV)

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (KJV)

This cutting off/separation/circumcision became known as the Circumcision of Moshe. The people of God segregated themselves in such a way so as not to transgress against their Father. This is the only way by which we can please our God. This is the issue being addressed in Acts 15.

William

This is some bad logic here. If all the separation refers to is circumcision, then what does someone who becomes unclean and has to separate themselves for a short time do? Get it done again? The separation is not circumcision, but if you really believe it, get it done. But if it's to follow the law, follow the whole law, don't stop there. Don't eat pork, don't be in the same room as a woman menstrating, don't touch a dead body...but you probably don't already, but in case you have, separate yourself for a week outside the camp.

 

[William1]

Greetings

I for one would never want to place myself in such a superior position so as to deem myself one who has the authority to place the entering of a covenant with the Most High, as secondary or worse yet, as not essential!

I am a humble servant who is fully compliant to all of God’s Ways. As for the matter at hand, circumcision as found in Acts 15 and soon some other areas to be discussed, I want you to engage your ability to reason at this point? I will post the four regulations which the Council imposed, and I want you to keep in mind the context of all four. I am stating for the judgment, that Circumcision of the Foreskin is not an issue in this passage. I will try and gently take you into the situation which brought about the meeting so many years ago.

First of all, the four requirements as stated from Acts 15:29 which the Council approved, of which Yacob was the Head, are as follows;
1) That ye abstain from meats offered to idols,
2) and from blood,
3) and from things strangled,
4) and from fornication

Now answer this one question or maybe two, dear reader, what does this have to do with foreskins? Remember that the issue supposedly was foreskins. Are the Disciples still so dull so as to loose their train of thought? How is it that the Apostles can not stay within context? After all, according to those who have responded so far on this thread, the issue is foreskins, right?

Now tell me what the four requirements have to do with entering the Covenant of Circumcision in order to be saved? Answer, nothing!! So what circumcision might they have something to do with?

Let me take you back to the time of the Temple eras. The Gentiles had an Outer Court, (have you any idea why), and the Inner Court was for the Israelites. The Israelites were to evangelize the Nations around them, however as these interested heathens would come and listen and learn all about the Holy Ways, they weren’t accepted to partake of the holy feasts without prior initiation rituals. What happened over time was a type of snobbery.

As time went on, Israel forgot the True Way and forged a religion which was in fact false. Thus enters the Messiah who then takes on the task of over hauling the system. This revamping process was to be continued, after He left, by the Apostles. However as we read the pages, we see the obstacles the Disciples encountered, and especially Paul. In the following verses you can read about this discrimination which are birthed.

John 4:9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. (KJV)

John 4:27 And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her? (KJV)

Luke 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. (KJV)

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. (KJV)

Listen, whose law was it that made it unlawful for a Jew to associate with one of another nation? Who embraced this law which forbade the Jews to even affiliate with the converted Gentiles? Remember, Cornelius was a devout man. So who was Peter,....to call him a pig? I am not saying that we shouldn’t call a sinner a sinner, but Cornelius was a holy man, totally obedient to all of God Ways.

Acts 10:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. (KJV)

So, who had inaugurated this LAW? And guess who swallowed the pill? The entire Council! Sooo, a meeting is called in which to discuss this issue, however Peter had his hand in the bag, for he already knew from God, what the right thing to do was.

You see, Acts 15 has to do with discrimination, segregation, disassociation, while being encircled by the nations. What is a man to do? I see sinners all around, and God’s Word says, “touch no unclean thing.....” Moses says so, etc etc.

So, in context, let’s see what the Council’s edict is which concerns the converting Gentiles’ walk while going to and fro.

Acts 15:29
1) That ye abstain from meats offered to idols,
Now doesn’t that make a lot of sense to us even today, after all, are you going to eat food that is blessed to a Christ who says lawlessness is the way to heaven?

2) and from blood,
Hey, there is no way I would eat blood sausage. So guess what, while you are out and about, and some of your heathen friends offers you a sandwich, hmm, maybe you should ask what is in it?

3) and from things strangled,
Hmm, I don’t know about you, but it is forbidden. When I slaughter an animal, I make sure I drain it’s blood. Obviously I can sell one of my animals which happens to be strangled to a sinner, but I can not eat of it, so I better ask the store, “is it kosher”.

4) and from fornication:
I would not go into a church which has Sunday as their day of worship while not keeping Saturday holy.

So in conclusion, we can see that the Council was in it’s jurisdiction to commence this action and to proclaim it as Law. After all, isn’t this what Yahoshua was all about? Didn’t he eat with sinners? Didn’t he talk to dogs? Didn’t He associate with the lost? Hmm, it almost makes sense, after all, how is anyone going to reach the sinners if he doesn’t talk to them?

Listen, the Jews wouldn’t even talk to the Samaritans who were their half relatives, and in all likelihood the Samaritans were from the ones sent away at the time of Ezra. Yahoshua came to show us the True Way in which to walk, it wasn’t different from that of Abraham, but it certainly was new to the people living at that time, sort of like this message is new to this generation.

His son
William

 

[William1]

Circ. cont’

If we look at the next passage with the back drop of Acts 15, knowing now that the word circumcision does not imply foreskins but rather , SEGREGATION, let’s see how context might either support this theory or discredit it.

Galatians 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

At this point you have got to ask yourself, why is Paul apprehensive about those “of reputation” and just what are they reputable of? Whatever his fears were about, he obviously was of the mind set that their cause could derail his mission. What we are told is that he wants to explain to these men, just what his message is to the Gentiles. Obviously we will encounter the word circumcision yet once again, and what we as the reader have to ask ourselves is, which circumcision is being addressed here, 1, 2, or 3?


3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

Alright, which circumcision could possibly fit within context? Was Titus not willing to undergo circumcision of the heart? Or was it foreskin circumcision he won’t want to endure? Hmmm, if Paul had been foreskin circumcised and not Titus won’t enter this sacred covenant, won’t this cause a divided house? Well, obviously neither of the above make any sense at all. The issue at hand is segregation, so... Titus would not allow himself to be dragged into the false brethren’s doctrine. Let’s read on.

4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

Now, what is this bondage that is being addressed? Heart circumcision? Foreskin circumcision? Of course not, it would be foolishness to say that either is a form of bondage, for to do so, would be blasphemy. So what are we left with?..... discrimination!

5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

What is the truth of the gospel??? Only this, that Gentiles have total access to become children of the Most High, if they repent and change their walk to match that of the Messiah’s. Alleluia or Praise YaH!

6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

(chuckle) Hmmmm, one has to wonder, what possible need would the circumcision have of the good news? Why would Peter need to spread the gospel to the circumcision? Was his message to them that they don’t need to be circumcised?? Lol, a little late, don’t you think? Obviously the circumcision is really a group noted for it’s segregation policy and therefore needed the gospel.

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Hmmm, let me see, here we have the words, “separated” and :the circumcision” within a single verse. Does it get any clearer than this? Here we can clearly see that there was a sect called “the circumcision”. Peter is about to be chastised by Paul and rightfully so, maybe. The situation is one where Peter was associating with the Gentile converts until certain men came from Yacob and at this juncture he decides to eat with them. Myself, not having been there, I have no idea if Peter really was guilty for I am sure Peter had lots to talk about with his former first nation brethren, however it had the appearance of evil and so Paul addresses it and we do not have Peter justifying his actions, so we can draw from that, that he was guilty, however I still would give him the benefit of the doubt. Old friends congregate, period.

Having said that, if we look at the word “the circumcision” in this verse, we see that it is spelt entirely different from that of segregation. Here we have the word denoting yet another type of circumcision, to make it a grand total of four types. (There are in fact 6 types)
Here the words, “the circumcision” suggests, “those deemed honorable”! If that is the case, then the verse would read that Peter fears “those who are of the honorable”. I wonder who that might be? Hmmm, my first guess would be, the Jews. Let’s read on.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

You see, the Jews wanted the converting Gentiles to be isolated from the sinning populace just as they were doing and in this way, they would be truly honorable according to them. This is however in direct violation of what God’s people are to do for how will the sinners turn from sin if they do not first of all hear the good news?

Now, the next few verses will be confusing for anyone who deems the words “the law” to portray the “Commandments”. I really don’t want to change the topic to “the law” in this thread, for it might be considered, high-jacking. Suffice it to say that no man is deemed righteous by a degree from an authority, not even if you hold the title of “the pope”.

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

His son
William

 

[William1]

Getting back to our friend Paul, let’s see what mood he is in this morning.

Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

Really!?? Paul, do you mean heart circumcision? !! Wow, so are you saying that I undo Christ by circumcising my heart? Hmmm, I guess that doesn’t work, you must mean foreskins, right?

Ok, so let’s see if I get what you mean. I got circumcised at birth, therefore I am out of bounds as far as the NT is concerned? Nice. Sounds like a nice slant for the Gentiles who would now like to think that they are number one.

It’s really hard to get a drift for you Paul, one day you are all for converting both Jews and Gentiles unto the good news of the Messiah, now here you disqualify each and everyone who was circumcised at birth. Hmmm, pretty fair God we got. Oh, by the way, Paul, aren’t you circumcised? Sooo, all the letters you wrote, all the persecution you endured, your entire ministry, all for nothing, huh? Wow, I feel for you buddy.

Next verse;
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

Wow Paul, I most certainly wouldn’t want to be a debtor to the whole law. Sooo, if I don’t get circumcised, then I don’t have to obey the Laws of God? Wow, neat trick. To bad the devil and the Jews never knew that for then all they would have had to do is abandon the one Commandment of God, and therefore be justified to dismantle every Law God ever decreed.


Next verse;
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

So let me see if I get this right, Paul. If I try to keep the Commandments, then no mercy will be shown to me?

For sake of time and topic, let’s drop down to verse; 11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. 12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

Wait a minute Paul, how would preaching circumcision override the cross event? And verse 12... Paul, settle down, certainly you don’t mean...... well I can’t even bring myself to saying such a thing. And this from a holy man? I rebuke you!

Will I AM

 

[William1]

Greetings;

Getting back to the word circumcision, maybe it would be good to do a recap. As I have already told you, there are three legitimate circumcisions from God which His children MUST obey in order to be saved in the end. In addition to these three, I also stated that there are another three types of circumcision in the NT, for a grand total of six. The latter three are a false circumcision and as such, not only are they in error of the WAY, but these three types is what Paul refers to in the NT. I also stated that foreskin circumcision is not mentioned once in all of Paul’s letters.

I see this as a rather important discovery seeing as most of those who would call themselves adherents to God’s Word, have discredited this all important Covenant of God, as one of uselessness. Not only does this constitute blasphemy but by nullifying a decree from God in this manner, they themselves consider themselves not only as spokesmen from God, but a god unto themselves.

Therefore those who would pursue righteousness and Life Eternal, need to make note of the true translations of God’s Word, knowing that anyone who changes His Word, can not be from God.

Listing the types of circumcision once again they are as follows.
1) Abraham’s circumcision which involves ear marking the male’s foreskin, not removing it.
2) David’s circumcision which involves heart examination, basically doing as you ought to do, harboring no animosities within but obeying the Commands whole heartily.
3) Moshe’s circumcision which tells us to not assimilate with the nations around us, while coming in contact with them.

The above mentioned circumcisions are from God and as such are mandatory if we want Clemency in the end.

Listed below then, are several circumcisions which we have already touched on, and it is these circumcisions which Paul addresses for they are not of God, and if one embraces these circumcisions, then one in fact can not please God and furthermore they over turn Christ’s Character.

4) As already discussed in an earlier post, the “perverted circumcision of Moshe”, which would have one NOT associate with not only the heathens, but even the converting Gentiles. It is called, segregation. Segregation is probably foreign to most people today, right? Americans know nothing of this type of action, huh!

5) Next we touched on a sect which calls themselves, “the circumcision” which translates into, “deemed honorable”. We see Paul encountering this group numerous times and one can only imagine why this group deems itself so. My guess is that they were pure Jews, maybe even from the flesh of Jesus, as His direct blood relatives. For in several areas the words “Jew” and “circumcised” are interchanged.

Taking a look at Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

I ask you, without having the ability of translating the Greek writings, which circumcision fits this passage? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5? Allow me to help.

Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if you segregate, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is truly considered to be honorable, that he is a debtor to do the whole of instructions.

You see, every man is without excuse, for with even just a little reason, one can make sense of the writings if we do not become god unto ourselves. Paul is saying that if you live in isolation, if you never reach out to the failing world around us, if we never preach the good news which says that sinners can become God’s people if they but stop their sinful ways, then we aren’t what Jesus told us that we need to be. Christ told us to be salt and to be light. Well we can’t be either if we are segregated.

Let’s try these verses.
Galatians 5:11And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

Paul is saying that if he were to preach a different message to those deemed honorable, how is it that he is being persecuted by them? You see, they “the flesh” were major trouble makers and he had had enough of their doctrines and arguments to the point where he finally says, he wishes that they would stay to themselves, let them live removed at least then they wouldn’t constantly be themselves, “a pain in the flesh”.

So I think this covers half a dozen occurrences of the word circumcision, any suggestions as to which passage we should visit next? I believe there are another 40 occurrences or so. If not, then I guess I will pick one.

In His Service
William

 

[deu58]

Hi BeanMak

First of all BeanMak, I want to thank you for writing and letting me know where I have failed to communicate adequately. Let me try again, if you read the Greek, you will not find the word for foreskin circumcision mentioned anywhere in Paul’s letters.

When you read ‘circumcision’, it has nothing to do with foreskin rituals. What I mean to say is that although this word appears in the NT in English, it does not mean circumcision.

What is the technicality the council in Acts 15 ruled on? BeanMak, I want you to try and put on my set of glasses for a while. Suppose nothing changed with the Ways of God with the Coming of the Messiah. Yes, of course I fully embrace all of His teachings, and He is my Saviour, but suppose the Messiah came to straighten out the crocked ways of the religious leaders. Suppose that the Ways of Old, still apply. Suppose that in order to be saved, you need to walk like Abraham, Moshe, David, etc.

Ok, with those glasses on, and knowing that we have three types of circumcision in the OT
1) Abraham, all males get ear marked. (Just a tid bit here, the removal of the foreskin was never the intent, but rather just an ever so small a clipping so as to remove a tiny piece of skin and draw some blood, my wife did me/ my three sons/ and several other men over the years. It was a cut in the foreskin, not the removal.)

2) David, Circumcision of the Heart. Mind and actions as one, both teaming to praise the Almighty One.

3) Moshe, come ye out from among the people. This is where we do not do as our neighbors do and even though we see evil celebrations approaching us, we do not get roped into their ways.

Now answer this one question BeanMak, which of the three circumcisions are being addressed in Acts 15 :1 and Acts 15:5? 1 Abraham, 2 David or 3 Moshe? When you find the answer, ask yourself, how do the findings of the Council, the four requirements, fit this circumcision. Hmm, I guess that is two questions.

You see, the entire Christian religion has used this passage as their trump card, heralding it as the defense for a new way and especially in the area of foreskin circumcision. But as you will see as this thread goes on, this is a false teaching.

William

William
I would suggest you clean your glasses. Miss me? Don't worry I have no intention of following this thread as a poster. I had my fill of your "Greek"
interpretations on the Sabbath page. Now I understand where the expression
"It's all Greek to me" came from. In case William has not informed his viewing public he has taught himself Greek to interpret the Scriptures for himself. I think The results are obvious. How are your goats William? probably scared. Do you burn them on and earthen altar or do you use your bar-b-que pit? William thinks we should follow the example of Abraham, Including animal sacrifice. Do they have a humane society where you live. Or do you live in the wilderness in a tent?

Well gotta go but I will stop back from time to time just to see how far people are going to let you go. Hey william watch out for that cliff .

oh well such is death, Thats a little private joke between me and William.

bye bye William
deu58

 

[McCravey]

You certainly need to be circumcised somewhere.

I find it interesting that the organ of the body that Abraham had circumcised seems to be the very one that causes me the most problem in a fleshly sense.

The organ of the body that causes me the most problem in a spiritual sense(my heart) is the one that needs to be circumsized. And if truly circumsized takes care of the other organ's problems.

 

[pmarquette]

a tid bit .....
It seems the day upon which the male child was to be circumcised , and still is done
is the day his immune system is at its highest state ...

Several forms of cervical cancer can be traced to men who do not regularly
cleanse the secretions within the unremoved foreskin

that perphaps as the thread above states , God demonstrates , by science
the reason for a requirement of the Law ; as the Law of Isolation of the sick
would have limited or ended the Plague of the Black Death in Euorpe ; the ordinance to bury / cover our urine and feces would have prevented out breaks of cholera , disentary , typhoid , etc. before we understood bacteria , virus , pollution ...
some of the epidemics

 

[JayD]

Classic example of someone going off the deep end

 

[christianbeginning]

...if its so important to God that males be physically circumcised, why did God design the penis to be "uncircumcised"? Why aren't male babies already born circumcised? Would God have designed man and then realized that he used too much tissue?

Or maybe, perhaps, the Jews felt that in order to show that you are truly a man, a Jew, and pious, you should be circumcised.....it sounds alot like a cultural ritual (not divinely inspired) that is used to officially welcome someone into the Jewish fold, and as a form of self identification.

 

[humble_soul]

William1 -

Hi there. I've read your posts and I must say I am quite interested in exactly what you believe. At one point you said: "I am a humble servant who is fully compliant to all of God’s Ways".

Am I reading that incorrectly, or did you say that you were in compliance with the laws of God? I was under the assumption that this is why Christians need Jesus, because they CAN NOT possibly be in compliance with the law. The law doesn't justify us, it condemns us.

It honestly looks to me like you are seeking salvation by being compliant with the law, or saying that people are justified by their actions. It is noble and good that you seek the law of God and seek to obey it, but if you're seeking justification in the law, you're looking in the wrong place.

You also wrote the following: "there are three legitimate circumcisions from God which His children MUST obey in order to be saved in the end".

Are you saying that our salvation is conditional on our work of obedience? If that is the case, I must respectfully disagree with you. It is true that 100% obedience to the law is required for salvation. However, this complete obedience is not obtainable by man. If you believe it is, then you are deceiving yourself. Jesus was able to obey, where man is not. Jesus impart this righteousness on those that come to faith in him.

Circumcision of the heart is the only requirement to enter heaven. This isn't a commandment that you can "obey", it is something God does!

May the Father impress His law upon our hearts.

Your obedience to His law is dependent on His grace - Him being merciful to you.

Salvation is a work of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It does not dependent on your obedience. It is the other way around. Your obedience is dependent on their work in your life!

 

[RevDinosaur]

No, you know who had faith? The guys who had to nip the tips off the rods of Abraham and Moses. How much do you have to love God to even put your hands near a century-old tallywacker?

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I can no longer even respectfully disagree with people who teach that we must follow the law. It is very clear in the scriptures (NT) that if you follow any part of the law that you are subject to all of the law and that the law is a curse. It is false doctrine and very dnagerous. Nothing we can do will add to our salvation, anyone who thinks otherwise is simply arrogant. We are saved by grace and grace alone, we cannot add to or take away from that grace. Following the law invalidates Christ's work on the cross. If the law could save us then Christ would not have been necessary.

If you are being taught in church that you should follow the law then I urge you to bring your pastor the scriptures and if he tries to explain them away then that should be a warning sign to you. Anyone that teaches that the scriptures do not mean what they say is teaching false doctrine and you should not sit under their teaching. There are many things that are taught that are false doctrine that will not affect your salvation, the law is not one of those. Attempting to follow any part of the law puts you under the curse of the whole law and that does affect your eternal salvation. I pray for you all that your eyes will be open and you will be given an understanding of what Christ's work truly means to us and for your eyes to opened and see that the law is death, especially teching the letter of the law.

 

[fieldsofwind]

posted this awhile ago in a different debate, but it seems applicable here as well

--------------------------------------------------

Here are a few pieces from the word:

1) John 3:15-- that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life

2) John 3:18-- Whoever believes in him is not condemned…

3) John 1:12-- Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God

4) Acts 1:4-5-- On another occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (This would be the “baptism unto salvation” so many talk about. It isn’t a dunking in water, but the reception of the Spirit that one receives through faith, not from some act of our own such as circumcision or baptism. Just as people in the OT were circumcised, so should we be baptized, but it isn’t the requirement to receive the Spirit—that belongs to faith.)

5) Romans 5:1-2-- Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand…

6) There are so many more in the Gospels, Acts, Romans, the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, etc, etc, etc…

I believe there was a question about John 3:5-6, which says, “Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.’”

Before these two verses Nicodemus was asking about how one could be born again, saying that it is impossible to enter back into the mother’s womb. The reference to water cannot be correlating to baptism by water because that would contradict the numerous accounts in the word of faith/believing being the only key. I assert that it is a reference to our physical birth (gotta become a man first to be saved) especially because of verse six. “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” That follows the same order as “unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” I think this is also gone over in 1 Corinthians 15:44-49. I won’t type it out here, but it is worth looking up and contemplating.

How did folks in the Old Testament time period receive salvation, or the Holy Spirit? Was it through their obedience to every law? Was it through circumcision? Well, the Bible makes it very clear in many places, one of which Romans 4:3, but I will type out Romans 4:9-11—Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised…

Here’s a question for you “baptism by water is required before one is ‘saved’” people: Can people have the Holy Spirit before they are “baptized with water”? --- I’ll give you a verse or two for thought when you reply. Oh yea, and how about that guy on the cross next to Jesus?

following post------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, I never said the Spirit washes us. I said that it is given as a result of faith, and that faith is what allows us to receive Christ’s cleansing. As I said earlier, where in the Bible does it say that through baptism you have been saved or where does it say you have been justified because of baptism? And, I’m not looking for some indirect connection to forgiveness by baptism being in the same verse as salvation. I’m looking for a direct reference to it just like the tons of direct references to being saved through faith. I’ve already demonstrated that it is by faith that we are credited with righteousness (being saved). If you disagree, then you’re denying the obvious truth found throughout the Bible and the reference I gave you in Romans Ch. 4 in particular. The result of that faith is the change, the being born again, the death of our sinful self and the resurrection of a new creation in Christ, or the “baptism” so to speak. It is exactly what Romans Ch 6 is saying. If you’re saying the being “born again” process means being dunked under water physically, then you’ve completely missed the point of what Christ was saying when he said, “flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” (John 2) And, you’re missing the point entirely of Romans Ch 4, where Paul says that circumcision had nothing to do with being credited with righteousness. It was something to be done symbolically afterwards, (as it clearly says, and was typed out in one of my previous posts.) Are you asserting that God changed the nature of how man is to be credited with righteousness, and started demanding a physical process (like circumcision – baptism in water on earth *not a baptism into Christ*) for salvation?

Your reference to Colossians 2:12 and Galatians 3:27 is basically saying the same thing. I’ll type it out.

1) Galatians 3:27 – for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ

2) Colossians 2:12 – having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

See, faith is the key CofCD. The baptism is not one of water, (that is symbolic.) It is the word describing what occurs spiritually between you and Christ as a result of one’s believing Him, as is clearly demonstrated below.

Besides, Romans 10:9-10 is very clear about how you receive justification – That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. ---- very clear isn’t it?

Also, you receive the Spirit of God through faith, not by being baptized in water. Galatians 3:2,5-6,11,14 – I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? …. Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard? Consider Abraham: “He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”…. Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.”… He (Christ) redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by FAITH we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Here is another verse to ponder:

Galatians 5:6 -- For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. (Once again, circumcision was the physical act symbolizing a cutting away from the flesh and commitment to the one true God. And, it had nothing to do with being credited with righteousness – faith was responsible there. Would God change His mind about this in regard to being dunked under water?)

If all of that didn’t convince you then this should clarify things.

John 2:29 – The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me’ I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.” Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’

This clearly indicates that the water baptism (as given by john or any other man) was meant to ‘reveal’ what Christ was going to actually do physically by dying and rising from death, and spiritually by being the sacrifice providing cleansing of our sins. This is the baptism that is referred to in the two verses you mentioned. And it is a spiritual process resulting from faith. Period. Checkmate.

And, just one more set of verses for good measure. (You said that the Holy Spirit was received after baptism by water.)

Acts Chapter 10 verses 46-48 – While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

So, looks like they received the Spirit of God through their faith, and then they observed the symbolic baptism in water in symbolic recognition (just like circumcision) of the actual spiritual “baptism” they had received from Christ. (He baptizes with the Spirit, remember.)

 

[duster1az]

Strange as it may seem, Abraham was circumcised at the age of 100 years old and Moses at the age of 80. It has occurred to me that if these men of renown entered this covenant as adults, and if we supposedly would consider ourselves as having the faith of these giants, that just maybe we need to exercise this ritual as well, if we want to be saved.
William

It's those who have no understanding of their position in Christ that find it neccessary to return to a system of merit.

In Christ,
Tracey