Not By Works

Abraham was justified by faith long before he got whacked.....wrap your head around that truth!

So you are saying any Jew who descended from him during the OT can use your reasoning, refuse to circumcise his kids, and his kids will be alright with God?

If you believe circumcision was never necessary, are you saying you believe that a Jew during the OT time could refuse circumcision and still be fine with God?

Circumcision was the sign of joining the Jewish community. Could a person of Hebrew descent been saved without being circumcised? Yes. Could they have participated in the community of faith that centered around God dwelling in the tabernacle and temple? No.

Salvation comes by faith, the only way it would have been an issue of salvation is if God directed them to be circumcised and they refused. But the method of salvation was not the circumcision or keeping of the law, and the life promised under Sinai was not the eternal life promised by Jesus.

OT circumcision was a foreshadowing, and is still required:

In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of your sinful nature, with
the circumcision performed by Christ and not by human hands. Colossians 2:11

It was a foreshadowing, but here we're speaking of the literal cutting of the flesh not the circumcision of the heart. Or are you saying Jews are still required to be circumcised physically?

Circumcision was the sign of joining the Jewish community. Could a person of Hebrew descent been saved without being circumcised? Yes. Could they have participated in the community of faith that centered around God dwelling in the tabernacle and temple? No.

Salvation comes by faith, the only way it would have been an issue of salvation is if God directed them to be circumcised and they refused. But the method of salvation was not the circumcision or keeping of the law, and the life promised under Sinai was not the eternal life promised by Jesus.

No....I am saying ABRAHAM WAS JUSTIFIED BY FAITH BEFORE GOD well before he got whacked.....and like BAPTISM, circumcision is an OUTWARD SIGN of something that had or has taken place inwardly....you miss the mark on almost every truth that can be discovered in the bible!

This should have been a distinct clue as to what I was talking about:

In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of your sinful nature, with
the circumcision performed by Christ and not by human hands. Colossians 2:11

I already explained to you, you have to show your faith by obeying what God commanded.

Before Christ came, what did God command the Jews to do in Genesis 17:14?

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

In time past, He commanded circumcision to everyone of Abraham's desecendants. If you disobey God's commandmant, you would be cut off from the nation Israel.

And how did Abraham respond?

23 And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.

24 And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

At age 99, it must have been ouch for him. But he obeyed and that showed his faith. He did not tell God "Hey I thought in Genesis 15:6 you already declared me righteous because I believe you would give me numerous descendants?"

But now, circumcision is no longer commanded.

So your objection to me saying that faith requires obedience is....that faith requires obedience but our command today is different than Abraham?

I'm in full agreement with both of those statements, though simply taking what's written on a page is not doing what God commands.

God engages us personally and directs our lives if we allow Him, and faith requires listening for what He actually directs and trusting Him. Not simply believing in but truly believing God.

Yes, God no longer requires physical circumcision for anyone of us who is saved in the But now time period. It was established in Acts 15.

What God commanded us is given in Paul's letters from Romans to Philemon. I have already quoted Romans 4:5 to you

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

When we obey that commandment, God will count our faith for righteousness

Again, that's taking the verse out of context. Romans 4 is an argument about how Abraham was justified to apply it to us so to say that 4:1-4 apply to Abraham but 4:5 applies to us but not Abraham is carving the Bible up into little bits rather than letting it speak.

The works specified in Romans are to be understood in the context of the discussion, which focuses on the question of when Abraham was justified. The point of pretty much all of Romans is that the old covenant("law") was never God's means of justification but instead was part of a plan to bring sin to its final extent. And Romans 4 is no different since immediately following the statement you ripped out of the text is this " Is this blessing then on [d]the circumcised, or on [e]the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.” 10 How then was it credited? While he was [f]circumcised, or [g]uncircumcised? Not while [h]circumcised, but while [i]uncircumcised; " so the works most likely in mind are works of the law, specifically the things the Jewish converts were attempting to place on the gentiles in Sabbaths and diet.

As for your approach to the Bible, I fear we are too far apart to even begin to find common ground. Carving up the Bible into parts that apply to you is wrong both for its novelty and for the strong possibility of twisting the Bible to suit self rather than being transformed by it.

Wait a minute, you still believe that circumcision was not necessary during the OT, for a Jew to be right with God? Are we still on that?

It seems to me the question is a bit of a misnomer, since the idea of a hereditary jew only really solidified after the diaspora. Circumcision is what made a member of the tribes of Israel a member of the tribes of Israel.

But if a physical descendant of Abraham wasn't personally directed by God to get circumcised then I don't think it would go against faith in God to not be circumcised.

In the same way, in order to participate in the church of God a person must be baptized, but baptism doesn't determine salvation.

The disagreement is essentially in whether there should exist a wall between sanctification and justification. Some, beginning with Luther, have taken the idea of justification by faith to such an extreme that they have perverted it and made it empty. They have set a wall of division between works and faith and, ironically considering Paul's primary concern was boasting, boast in their not working.

Certainly as you said in another post the bearing of apples is not what makes an apple tree an apple tree, and I believe you've got it right on the head with the thief's rebuke. Are there possibly some who as they take the last breath suddenly receive? I suppose, but such exceptions have no bearing on a conversation such as this.

Ultimately I have to question people who claim to have given their lives to Jesus who fight so hard against the idea that He expects obedience. To serve Him is a great privilege and not a cause for boasting.

So you think God was joking with Abraham in Genesis 17:14?

Water baptism is also not required for salvation in the But now time period, but it was required during the gospel of the kingdom for Israel (Luke 7:29-30, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38)

The truth that works complete a saved person (new works outwardly mirroring their new heart), does not contradict the truth that a person is saved because they believed in Jesus, and were born again. They are not saved because they showed fruit, but quite the opposite, they showed fruit in time because they were saved. This distinction is important.

The reason why we capitalize on grace is just like there are lawless people out there who trample grace that you warn about, there are also people out there, that nullify grace, and the Gospel, that we warn about. There are also various people who over the course of this thread denied that they have ever sinned in any regard since they accepted Christ, so since they are doing better than the apostles, maybe the apostles weren't saved.

I did not see any one of our friends fight against obedience, or deny obedience. We ONLY emphasize that obedience springs from salvation. This is in response teachings that we must "keep working to maintain salvation", and other teachings contradicting the Scriptures and denying eternal security, such as where it says that Holy Spirit was deposited into us as a GUARANTEE, or Christ promising to timely complete the good work He started in us. We are here because capitalizing on obedience combined with denying eternal security is a toxic brew, and it's not the Gospel. It's the unconditional love and grace that changes a person and causes them to want to obey and they are then shepherded with Jesus' staff (and rod if needed), unto obedience and producing fruit. But there are some people that seem to believe that God doesn't know what He's doing.

Jeremiah 32:40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.
As opposed to Romans 3:18 quoting Psalms about the ungodly, "There is no fear of God before their eyes."...

So there's not going to be departing, "walking away", people of the New covenant have a new heart. We get chastisements and warnings in the New testament exactly because God is working these to shepherd His people from walking away. We are sons not bastards, and we are chastised and warned so we do not end up condemned with the world (1 Cor 11:32). One who will not obey God and ignores Him to death, from these verses, did not have a new birth/new heart. So like you said, salvation and obedience do go together, the problem is when people apply an unbiblical causality between them, and then go on to deny Biblical eternal security - this is as bad as preaching security with kicking obedience out (like megachurches do), neither is the Gospel as taught by the apostles. Cheers

Not at all, circumcision served as a marker for carrying the promise and that did come through an unbroken physical descent, but that doesn't mean someone who somehow wasn't circumcised as a baby within Israel must join that community. Abraham's household extended beyond his relatives, and Israel was always a spiritual reality existing in the physical realm rather than a purely physical phenomenon.

So Paul's writings apply as commands, right? Did you miss the discussion between Magenta and I where she highlighted the command for baptism from Colossians that just happened?

Interesting, you actually hold the belief that a Jew in the OT could ignore circumcision, be cut off from the nation and God's covenant with them (Genesis 17:14), and still be considered right with God.

Alright then.