• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

THE circumcision thread

JohnT

Regular Member
Oct 27, 2007
823
117
Finger Lakes, NY
✟27,300.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

I could NOT disagree any more than I do
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Romans 3:20
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Romans 3:28

ISBE also disagrees
In the account of the covenant between Yahweh and Abraham, circumcision is looked upon as the ratification of the agreement. Yahweh undertook to be the God of Abraham and his descendants. Abraham was the father of a multitude of nations and the founder of a line of kings. He and his descendants were to inherit Canaan.

The agreement thus formed was permanent;….
A series of key divine promises or covenants forms the backbone of God’s dealings with human beings. Because of our inability to secure our own prosperity—spiritual and physical—on the earth, a gracious God has committed Himself to providing what we cannot.

The main biblical covenants are a unifying factor for all events described in the Bible involving God and human beings... For example, the Abrahamic covenant is the basis for all of God’s subsequent dealings with Israel, and is expanded in the Palestinian, Davidic, and New covenants...
Karleen, P. S. (1987). The handbook to Bible study : With a guide to the Scofield study system
There are three main features to the Abrahamic Covenant
.

The promise of land (Gen. 12:1 ). God called Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees to a land that He would give him. This promise in Genesis 13:14–18 where it is confirmed by a shoe covenant; its dimensions are given in Genesis 15:18–21 . The land aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant is also expanded in Deuteronomy 30:1–10, which is the Palestinian Covenant
.

The promise of descendants God promised Abraham that He would make a great nation out of him. Abraham, who was 75 years old was promised many descendants. This promise is amplified in Genesis 17:6 where God promised that nations and kings would descend from the aged patriarch. This promise would eventuate in the Davidic throne with Messiah’s kingdom rule over the Hebrew people.

The promise of blessing and redemption . God promised to bless Abraham and the families of the earth through him. This promise is amplified in the New Covenant and has to do with “Israel’s spiritual blessing and redemption.” Jeremiah 31:34 anticipates the forgiveness of sin.

The unconditional and eternal nature of the covenant is seen in that the covenant is reaffirmed to Isaac . The “I will” promises suggest the unconditional aspect of the covenant. The covenant is further confirmed to Jacob. It is noteworthy that God reaffirmed these promises amid the sins of the patriarchs, which fact further emphasizes the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic Covenant.
Pentecost,& The Moody handbook of theology
In ZERO of these well-respected authorities is there a hint of works or obligation on the part of humanity. The “I will” demonstrates the unconditional element of the Covenant; ALL of God, to keep, but none of man’s to obey because of his imputed, sinful Adamic nature.


Paul tells us that the promises aren't part of the law because if they were they would cease to be promises.
Here is what you said in post 27: “The "condition" that God had for Abraham and his descendants was that actual "circumcision" itself. .” WHERE in Genesis 12 does God impose a “condition”? Again you are confusing unconditional covenant with the sign of this covenant. As a hypothetical, suppose the token was not given to Abraham’s offspring. Can you give us a Scriptural example where God said, “I gave you this promise unilaterally, but now I am going to permanently rescind it?


Good quotes, RND! Unfortunately, they seem to contradict your quote I posted from post 27. None of the above, except your post mentions any sort of condition.


No doubt that is what it may mean TO YOU, but the important thing is “What does a covenant mean to God?” God’s covenants are unconditional; they are not like contracts between equal humans.


Here, you seem to be all over the place, and I want to make sure that I understand you.


As it pertains to God you seem to believe that a promise from God is different than a covenant with God. If that is a true representation of your belief, please provide Scriptural references for that.

The second paragraph says you agree with the statement that Abraham EARNED his covenant. If that is a true representation of your belief, please provide Scriptural references for that.

It seems to be contrary to this:
Romans 4:9
Is this blessing then pronounced upon the circumcision, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say, To Abraham his faith was reckoned for righteousness.

10 How then was it reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision
:


Abraham received "unmerited grace" as you put it because of his faith which he exhibited to God before the covenant.
But RND can you not see the contradiction in your words, and what Scripture says?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

RND

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2006
7,807
145
Victorville, California, CorpUSA
Visit site
✟31,272.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
 
Upvote 0

JohnT

Regular Member
Oct 27, 2007
823
117
Finger Lakes, NY
✟27,300.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You are trying to create a distinction where NONE exists. A PROMISE OF GOD IS A COVENANT OF GOD. Whenever He promises something, He will do it. His word is his bond

Where do you get THAT distinction? It is unsupportable. I gave you several authoritative sources backing up what I wrote. Please supply any well-recognized source other than EGW making the distinction that you do. So far, you have merely supplied your opinion as evidence.

More of the same distinction being made without any Scriptural reason.

Let's try it as simple as I can make it. Gen 12 and 13 are promises, not covenants, because there are "NO CONDITIONS REQUIRED." If there were conditions required then they would not be promises.
See above, RND. You make an assertion for which there is no theological basis

More of the same, baseless distinction.

No doubt that is what it may mean TO YOU, but the important thing is “What does a covenant mean to God?” God’s covenants are unconditional; they are not like contracts between equal humans.
You can not enter into a CONTRACT with God; you are not his equal. Therefore the rest of the paragraph is a bogus analogy.

That is why God deals with humans in covenants; they are one sided, and unconditional. "I will be their God, and they shall be my people" Do you remember when I posted those verses?

CONTEXT makes the difference, RND. any verse ripped from its context makes for a pretext, as does yours.
Matthew 21:
39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
40When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.
Please note that this example of Jesus has to do with people REJECTING (free will) the covenant, not law keeping. Therefore the example fails to prove your contention


Agreed, that preposition may be translated differently, according to its context, but IT STILL DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR CONTENTION THAT A COVENANT AND PROMISE ARE DIFFERENT.

You are changing the terms of your own argument, and you are providing no proof FROM SCRIPTURE of your original argument about those Indians.



Again, you are changing the terms of your argument. We sin because we are sinners, not because we lack sufficient knowledge. You need to provide FROM SCRIPTURE things that support your position, or else they fail flat because there is no basis of authority for them.


Romans 1:31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

CHAPTER 2.
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.


Romans 2:14-15 When Gentiles [ this includes your Anazasi Indians] who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them

Sorry, but the above Scriptures disagree with your contention. If you are unable to find Scriptures supporting your beliefs, will then will you admit that they are bogus, and Scripturally unsupportable?

BTW whatever God does is correct, even if we in our limited minds are unable to fully understand whatever He does.
 
Upvote 0

RND

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2006
7,807
145
Victorville, California, CorpUSA
Visit site
✟31,272.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
John, if you fell out of a boat you'd miss the water!

You are trying to create a distinction where NONE exists. A PROMISE OF GOD IS A COVENANT OF GOD. Whenever He promises something, He will do it. His word is his bond

Nope.

Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law (covenant) [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

The word law in this instance is nomos #3551 - anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command.

The "promise" didn't come by covenant, i.e. requiring Abraham to do something, it came by God swearing by Himself to do something apart of Abraham needing to do something.


Um, I get that distinction from the Bible. In Gen 12 and 13 the word "covenant" is not used which clearly indicates that God has promised something to Abraham without requiring Abraham to fulfill something to receive the promise.

Of course, we've been over this many times before John but it doesn't seem to be sinking in.

More of the same distinction being made without any Scriptural reason.

See above, RND. You make an assertion for which there is no theological basis

More of the same, baseless distinction.

No conditions were required of Abraham in Gen 12 or 13 John. None. John, I think we simply have a major disconnect in the understanding of what a promise is versus what a covenant is.

Covenant - A contract or agreement between two parties. In the Old Testament the Hebrew word berith is always thus translated. Berith is derived from a root which means "to cut," and hence a covenant is a "cutting," with reference to the cutting or dividing of animals into two parts, and the contracting parties passing between them, in making a covenant (Genesis 15; Jeremiah 34:18, 19).

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This prom·ise
Audio Help /ˈprɒm
ɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prom-is] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -ised, -is·ing. –noun 1.a declaration that something will or will not be done, given, etc., by one: unkept political promises.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This cov·e·nant
Audio Help /ˈkʌv
ə
nənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhv-uh-nuh
nt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified.
John, can you fully, completely and honestly understand that a covenant and a promise are not the same thing?


John, here's a classic example of the disconnect you have. On one hand you say, "You can not enter into a CONTRACT with God" and yet you say, "That is why God deals with humans in covenants."

John, they are the same thing. Do you understand that?

Please note that this example of Jesus has to do with people REJECTING (free will) the covenant, not law keeping. Therefore the example fails to prove your contention

Again John, more disconnect. Rejecting the covenant is rejecting the 'law' (contract) on which it was based.

Agreed, that preposition may be translated differently, according to its context, but IT STILL DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR CONTENTION THAT A COVENANT AND PROMISE ARE DIFFERENT.

John, I never offered this description to support the fact that a contract and covenant are the same thing. I offered this in answer to a completely different point you had asked about.

You are changing the terms of your own argument, and you are providing no proof FROM SCRIPTURE of your original argument about those Indians.

Not at all John. And I used scripture (Romans 1) to show that a knowledge of God and a revelation of God can come through nature by the calling of the Holy Spirit.


Not at all John. I merely expressed by beliefs (opinion) about something.


Sorry, but the above Scriptures disagree with your contention.

Really? How? What covenant did God enter into with the native Americans? How were they without understanding of God? How do you know that they didn't have 'natural affection' for either one another or nature? How did they know the 'judgment of God'?


Sorry, but the above Scriptures disagree with your contention.

John, how do you know the type of judgment meted out by the native Americans?



Yep, this verse confirms the point I was making with respect to the Anazasi Indians. If they did by nature what the law required then that is proof that the law (contract/covenant) was written on their hearts. Who or what could have possibly caused this to happen?

The Holy Spirit perhaps?

Sorry, but the above Scriptures disagree with your contention. If you are unable to find Scriptures supporting your beliefs, will then will you admit that they are bogus, and Scripturally unsupportable?

John, you are in the midst of a major disconnect.

BTW whatever God does is correct, even if we in our limited minds are unable to fully understand whatever He does.

Sure. But I'm of a mind to believe that God reveals Himself and His ways to us so we can understand God and what He does and why.

Gal. 1:15-16 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
 
Upvote 0

JohnT

Regular Member
Oct 27, 2007
823
117
Finger Lakes, NY
✟27,300.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
From RND: Why do you use a SECULAR SOURCE to define a THEOLOGICAL ISSUE???

from ISBE for the third time (at least!)
The etymological force of the Hebrew berith is not entirely certain...
In the Old Testament the word has an ordinary use, when both parties are men, and a distinctly religious use, between God and men...

As already noted, the idea of covenants between God and men doubtless arose from the idea of covenants between men. Hence, the general thought is similar. It cannot in this case, however, be an agreement between contracting parties who stand on an equality, but God, the superior, always takes the initiative. To some extent, however, varying in different cases, is regarded as a mutual agreement; God with His commands makes certain promises, and men agree to keep the commands, or, at any rate, the promises are conditioned on human obedience.

In general, the covenant of God with men is a Divine ordinance, with signs and pledges on God's part, and with promises for human obedience and penalties for disobedience, which ordinance is accepted by men. In one passage (Ps 25:14), it is used in a more general way of an alliance of friendship between God and man.
===================================
You can not enter into a CONTRACT with God; you are not his equal. Therefore the rest of the paragraph is a bogus analogy.

That is why God deals with humans in covenants; they are one sided, and unconditional. "I will be their God, and they shall be my people" Do you remember when I posted those verses?
John, here's a classic example of the disconnect you have. On one hand you say, "You can not enter into a CONTRACT with God" and yet you say, "That is why God deals with humans in covenants."

John, they are the same thing. Do you understand that?
READ the above, once again, please.
OR ELSE FIND A SCRIPTURAL SOURCE PROVING YOUR CONTENTION.


Please supply THE EXACT WORDS IN THAT SCRIPTURE that support this idea, or else it is nonsense.

.

There are 32 verses in Romans 1. Which verse (s) can you cite that support you? ZERO. By definition then, your BELIEFS are not Scripturally supportable.

John, how do you know the type of judgment meted out by the native Americans?
Please do not put words into my post that are not there NOPE! It is the very CREATION of God doing that:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
Sorry, but the above Scriptures disagree with your contention. If you are unable to find Scriptures supporting your beliefs, will then will you admit that they are bogus, and Scripturally unsupportable?

John, you are in the midst of a major disconnect.
Nice ad hominem there! Wonder if the mods will catch it. Here is the entire verse IN CONTEXT:
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name...

It is about Jesus Christ. Thanks for demonstrating the fact that any verse taken out of its context is a pretext, saying things not intended in the original thought.
 
Upvote 0

RND

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2006
7,807
145
Victorville, California, CorpUSA
Visit site
✟31,272.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
 
Upvote 0

JohnT

Regular Member
Oct 27, 2007
823
117
Finger Lakes, NY
✟27,300.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
From RND:Why do you use a SECULAR SOURCE to define a THEOLOGICAL ISSUE???

PLEASE CITE THE WORDS FROM ISBE THAT GIVE YOU THIS ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION
You are making things up here, for NONE of the verses you cite above prove anything close to what you state that I bolded: He requires a sign for the acceptance of that covenant and he expects performance regarding that covenant.

Please supply THE EXACT WORDS IN THAT SCRIPTURE that support this idea, or else it is nonsense.
Nice collection of verses, but NONE provide proof of your contention He requires a sign for the acceptance of that covenant and he expects performance regarding that covenant.
Big, hypothetical IF there! There is no record of that hypothetical being remotely probable

I just axed (sic) a question John. How do you know the type of judgment meted out by the native Americans?
You assume something for which there is no evidence, or assume that I know what the heck you ask.
NOPE! It is the very CREATION of God doing that:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
Sorry, but the above Scriptures disagree with your contention. If you are unable to find Scriptures supporting your beliefs, will then will you admit that they are bogus, and Scripturally unsupportable?
John, wouldn't native Americans be considered part of God's creation?
And your point here is???
Repeating the same verse five times does not alter the FACT that the verse is OUT OF CONTEXT

Here is the chase:

Repeatedly I asked you to show via Scripture the basis for your beliefs. You have not been able to do that; instead, you went of tangentially on many thoughts trying to prove something not stated in Scripture explicitly or implicitly

Thus I conclude that rather than having concrete, Bible-based beliefs, you seem to make it up as you go along. That is OK to do it, for your beliefs are not my business, and you are entitled to them, no matter what.

What I am concerned about is the fact that you are unable to state "The Bible says... ergo I believe thus and such". Do you get it?

That is why I found your stance on circumcision so well, unusual and pressed you to get to the basis of your beliefs.

Enjoy your Sabbath.
 
Upvote 0

RND

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2006
7,807
145
Victorville, California, CorpUSA
Visit site
✟31,272.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
PLEASE CITE THE WORDS FROM ISBE THAT GIVE YOU THIS ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION

John, did you miss this from ISBE?


There is 1 (one) covenant, i.e. a solemn mutual agreement and there isthe other "it" is more a command, i.e. instead of an obligation voluntarily assumed.




You are making things up here, for NONE of the verses you cite above prove anything close to what you state that I bolded: He requires a sign for the acceptance of that covenant and he expects performance regarding that covenant.

John, it is more than obvious that God requires a sign of some sort to confirm a covenant he makes. According to Paul it would not have been a promise had law (a covenant) been involved.

Circumcision was one type of sign, accepting the 10 Commandments was another.

Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

The words of the Ten Commandments were the covenant that were areed to be performed by the COI.

Exd 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

Sorry John, I didn't make better cites for you on this point. I just figured that this is such basic, 101 type understanding that I didn't need to.

Nice collection of verses, but NONE provide proof of your contention He requires a sign for the acceptance of that covenant and he expects performance regarding that covenant.

See above.

Big, hypothetical IF there! There is no record of that hypothetical being remotely probable

Not really. Do you know who God has set aside for himself? Will you be surprised when you get to Heaven one day, walk-up to a man and his family and find out they were Anasazi Indians!?

I won't be.


But John, I just showed you from scripture that Gos speaks to people in different ways through the Holy Spirit.

Why are you so bothered by the fact that God can adequately perform His duties as God?


And your point here is???

That Native Americans were part of God's creation and only God knows if they are good candidates for an eternity in Heaven, not you and certainly not I.


Repeating the same verse five times does not alter the FACT that the verse is OUT OF CONTEXT

That's true. But not in this case. We can have the same mind and the same thoughts as Jesus Christ. This too is basic theology 101.

Jhn 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

1Jo 2:24 Let that (the Gospel) therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.


Actually I did, you just missed them.

Thus I conclude that rather than having concrete, Bible-based beliefs, you seem to make it up as you go along. That is OK to do it, for your beliefs are not my business, and you are entitled to them, no matter what.

Hey thanks!

What I am concerned about is the fact that you are unable to state "The Bible says... ergo I believe thus and such". Do you get it?

John, I've actually used quite a bit of scripture to get my point across to you. Unfortunately, you just missed them.

That is why I found your stance on circumcision so well, unusual and pressed you to get to the basis of your beliefs.

Well, how many times do I need to post Romans 4 for you.

Romans 4:9-13 Is this blessing then pronounced upon the circumcision, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say, To Abraham his faith was reckoned for righteousness. How then was it reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision: and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be reckoned unto them; and the father of circumcision to them who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had in uncircumcision. For not through the law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he should be heir of the world, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they that are of the law are heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made of none effect:

Enjoy your Sabbath.

Hey thanks! You do the same. BTW, when is yours?
 
Upvote 0