Circumcision and OSAS

[DHK]

Sorry you find answering such simple questions so self incriminating. Why not just plead the fifth? :smilewinkgrin:

1. The questions are simple, as you say--so find the answers yourself! Do some study for once in your life.
2. I am tired of spoon-feeding you all the time.
3. There is nothing here that is self incriminating.
4. I can't "plead the fifth," if I wanted to. I live in Canada, not America. :laugh:

 

[Alive in Christ]

DHK posted...

"Absolutely wrong.
Salvation is a permanent state. Once a person is saved, he is saved for all eternity and can never lose his salvation. He cannot "move out of that state of grace (salvation). It is Christ that holds him there. Christ does not fail. Christ is greater than all. He is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

Not only is he able; he will!!"

100% correct.

Once a person is born of the Spirit, they are forever Gods child and a joint heir with Christ. It is a complete impossibility for a child of God to ever lose their salvation.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, I believe I have somewhat of an understanding of Scripture. I cannot debate with myself. I was asking you to ascertain not what Scripture says but what YOU believe Scripture represents as the truth. I am trying my best to understand your beliefs so that I do not misrepresent you in any way. Is not that what we all should be trying to do our best at, understand the positions of the others as accurately as possible? You are making meaningful debate very hard with your answers on this issue.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Alive in Christ, was circumcision, as well as other stated conditions, necessary for the Jewish male in the OT to experience a hope of eternal life? Did the lack of circumcision affect ones standing before God in the OT once God commanded it to be done?

 

[DHK]

DHK, I believe I have somewhat of an understanding of Scripture. I cannot debate with myself. I was asking you to ascertain not what Scripture says but what YOU believe Scripture represents as the truth. I am trying my best to understand your beliefs so that I do not misrepresent you in any way. Is not that what we all should be trying to do our best at, understand the positions of the others as accurately as possible? You are making meaningful debate very hard with your answers on this issue.

Then ask a simple question that you would like answered. Don't come at me like a machine gun three or four questions at a time like your previous post.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

No machine guns here. :smilewinkgrin:


All three questions are related. I was trying to basically ask the same thing in three different ways for clarity, not that I needed an answer to ech one. :wavey:
Could a Jewish male once God commanded them to be circumcised, entertain a hope of eternal life and not be circumcised? Could you entertain a hope of eternal life and be saved if you violated the Sabbath in a manner consistent with God’s command to keep it? I am not asking if they could have been saved and violated the laws of the Jews concerning the Sabbath, but rather could you have been saved and been found to be in clear violation of breaking the Sabbath in the manner in which the Lord instilled the commandment?

 

[DHK]

No machine guns here. :smilewinkgrin:


All three questions are related. I was trying to basically ask the same thing in three different ways for clarity, not that I needed an answer to ech one. :wavey:
Could a Jewish male once God commanded them to be circumcised, entertain a hope of eternal life and not be circumcised? Could you entertain a hope of eternal life and be saved if you violated the Sabbath in a manner consistent with God’s command to keep it? I am not asking if they could have been saved and violated the laws of the Jews concerning the Sabbath, but rather could you have been saved and been found to be in clear violation of breaking the Sabbath in the manner in which the Lord instilled the commandment?

You do have a problem with being concise, don't you?
Your verbosity discourages one from reading posts.

Simply put the law does not save. It never did. It was a "schoolmaster to bring us to Christ." It showed us our sinfulness. No Jew could keep the Law.

Romans 4:2-3 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
--It wasn't the law that saved; it was faith in God.

Romans 4:6-7 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
--Abraham was before the law, but David was not.
Like Abraham, God imputed righteousness to David also on the basis of his belief, not his works; not on the basis of the law.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Simply put the law does not save. It never did. It was a "schoolmaster to bring us to Christ." It showed us our sinfulness. No Jew could keep the Law.

HP: Your problem is that regardless how careful I try and ask the questions, you are a master at avoiding them.

I did NOT ask you if obedience to the law saved, now did I? I asked you if you could have been saved if you refused to be obedient to the conditions God set forth for salvation, in this case circumcision or Sabbath observance. Try again DHK.

 

[DHK]

HP: Your problem is that regardless how careful I try and ask the questions, you are a master at avoiding them.

I did NOT ask you if obedience to the law saved, now did I? I asked you if you could have been saved if you refused to be obedient to the conditions God set forth for salvation, in this case circumcision or Sabbath observance. Try again DHK.

This is the answer to your question. It is simple.

Rom.4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

The same is true in the NT.
Salvation is by faith, and faith alone.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Salvation is by faith, and faith alone.

HP: If faith could save, why did Jesus have to die? We could have all just had faith like Abraham. Faith is NOT the grounds of salvation, and it is NOT what saves us. It is a stated condition of salvation without which we cannot be saved, but so are repentance and obedience until the end conditions of salvation.

What you are espousing DHK is pure antinomianism of the Calvinistic flair. By the way, what ever happened to it being “ALL OF GOD???’”

Does the reader see the contradiction at every turn DHK makes? He tells us on one hand it is ‘all of God’ and then he tells us we need to exercise faith. If it is all of God it is all of God. If we need to exercise faith then there is something man must do without which we shall not be saved. It does not stop there according to Scripture either. Unless ye repent ye shall all likewise perish, and that is a command to us to fulfill, and not just some necessitated coercion upon the elect at God’s pleasure to either give or withhold.

There has never been salvation of anyone, from Adam to our day and age, in which there were not clear stated conditions for all to fulfill, without which no salvation is or ever has been possible.

 

[RAdam]

Circumcision was never a condition of salvation. Neither was the commandment to honor father and mother, to keep the sabbath, to observe the feasts, etc. Circumcision was a sign, a seal, a token.

 

[DHK]

What you are espousing DHK is pure antinomianism of the Calvinistic flair. By the way, what ever happened to it being “ALL OF GOD???’”

Next time you start falsely accusing me of Calvinism I will start editing your post, and deleting great portions of it.

Study Eph.2:8,9

Understand:
1. Salvation is all of God.
2. Salvation is by faith alone.

 

[ccrobinson]

Faith is NOT the grounds of salvation, and it is NOT what saves us.

It isn't? God doesn't seem to agree with you.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

 

[billwald]

Depends upon what "through" means and whose faith is referred. Jesus had sufficient faith to die for the sins of every person in the world. Did he fail?

 

[DHK]

Depends upon what "through" means and whose faith is referred. Jesus had sufficient faith to die for the sins of every person in the world. Did he fail?

Nonsense! Jesus didn't need faith. If God has need of anything then God is not God. God is all sufficient. He has need of nothing.

Acts 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

He needs nothing. If He did, He wouldn't be God. He is all-sufficient.

 

[ccrobinson]

Depends upon what "through" means and whose faith is referred. Jesus had sufficient faith to die for the sins of every person in the world. Did he fail?

Huh?

What on earth are you talking about?

You're going to have to explain more because all you've posted here is, as DHK rightly pointed out, nonsense.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bill Wald: Depends upon what "through" means and whose faith is referred. Jesus had sufficient faith to die for the sins of every person in the world. Did he fail?

HP: If the literal payment theory is carried out to its logical ends, the price paid would certainly have been ineffective in securing its end.

Bill, by far the most confusion is advanced in relationship to salvation when one fails to distinguish between the grounds of salvation and the conditions of salvation. The grounds of salvation is always though of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of,’ while conditions are always thought of as ‘not without which.’ To understand why repentance, faith and obedience are not the grounds of salvation, one only needs to ask, are we saved ‘for the sake of’ repentance, faith, or obedience? The answer is obviously no. We are saved ‘for the sake of’ God’s mercy.

Repentance, faith and obedience are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which’ not ‘that for the sake of’ and as such are considered conditions of salvation, NOT the grounds of salvation. The grounds of salvation are all of God, while God requires man to fulfill the conditions, without which no one shall see God.

 

[DHK]

The grounds of salvation are all of God, while God requires man to fulfill the conditions, without which no one shall see God.

Salvation is all of God, not of works, to be accepted by faith alone.
First it is all of God. Period.
You don't agree with that statement. So let me ask you, when Jesus was hanging on the cross, and cried out, "It is finished", Did you object? Did you think that you had to die with him and play a part to try to contribute to His work? What part in the role of the work of salvation did you play? Was not the blood of Christ sufficient? Do you believe as the RCC does that one must pay further penance and suffer more in purgatory for additional payment of sin? Why do you think that Christ's suffering was not enough to make an atonement for our sins or for your sins? I just don't get it HP. I don't understand.

So salvation is not all of God. It is "of God" + "of HP". Is that correct? Is it a cooperative salvation. You help God to attain salvation? Does God need your help in order for you to get to heaven. I haven't heard of this before. Will you explain it to me?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: So salvation is not all of God. It is "of God" + "of HP". Is that correct? Is it a cooperative salvation. You help God to attain salvation? Does God need your help in order for you to get to heaven. I haven't heard of this before. Will you explain it to me?

HP: It is hard to understand what one means by ‘all of God.’ If it is all of God that would mean it is none of me or you. That means we contribute nothing, nothing at all, not even by way of voluntarily fulfilling any condition such as faith, repentance or obedience. If it is ‘all of God’ all is necessitated from the beginning, those necessitated to be saved and those necessitated to be damned. God picks and chooses ‘all’ on His own who to damn and who to save and that arbitrarily. Surely you will not contradict yourself and tell me that ‘all’ does not mean ‘all’ and that we need to do something, like exercise faith, to becomes saved. If we needed to do anything, anything at all, it would not be ‘all of God.’

Just in case your wondering, I asked nine (9) less questions than you asked me DHK in your last post. Go ahead. Chastice me again for asking so many questions. :wavey::laugh:

 

[DHK]

HP: It is hard to understand what one means by ‘all of God.’ If it is all of God that would mean it is none of me or you. That means we contribute nothing, nothing at all, not even by way of voluntarily fulfilling any condition such as faith, repentance or obedience. If it is ‘all of God’ all is necessitated from the beginning, those necessitated to be saved and those necessitated to be damned. God picks and chooses ‘all’ on His own who to damn and who to save and that arbitrarily. Surely you will not contradict yourself and tell me that ‘all’ does not mean ‘all’ and that we need to do something, like exercise faith, to becomes saved. If we needed to do anything, anything at all, it would not be ‘all of God.’

Yes salvation is all of God.
What part in the sufficiency of the blood of Christ did you play? How much did you atone for the sins of the world, HP?