Circumcision and OSAS

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

My wife saw your picture and asked if you are half wife and half black? I set her straight. I told her no, but that you are about half a Calvinist and half an Arminian. :laugh:

Just kidding!!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ro 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

What about some responses from others? Can circumcision be made uncircumcision? How could that be? How does circumcision profit if one is a keeper of the law? If keeping the law was impossible, why would he even use the illustration???

 

[RAdam]

Paul is speaking to Jews who boast in themselves that they keep the law and are therefore righteous, and furthermore picture themselves as teachers to the gentiles. Paul, in the first two chapters of Romans, is setting out to declare that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin. How do I know? Chapter 3 says, "we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin." In chapter 1 he primarily takes aim at the Gentiles, in chapter 2 the Jews. He had to first establish this point: all of humanity is under condemnation. Why? So that he could establish the doctrine of justification, not by the works of the law, but by faith.

 

[Tom Butler]

Y So baptism is a permanent state--you can't be unbaptized. However, salvation is not a permanent state inasmuch as an individual can move into and out of a state of grace.

That last line got my curiosity up. To make sure I understand, you are saying, aren't you, that one can lose his salvation? Then get it back and lose it again?

You're a Baptist. How prevalent is this view in your church. Surely you have to be a tiny minority.

If that's true, you must be part of a great church if you want to remain as a member despite having a major disagreement over soteriology.

 

[DHK]

Though I may not agree with the policy, there are some Baptist Churches that require you to be baptized to enter into their fellowship no matter if you have been scripturally baptized or not.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Though I may not agree with the policy, there are some Baptist Churches that require you to be baptized to enter into their fellowship no matter if you have been scripturally baptized or not.

HP: What utter hypocrisy. If it is a Baptist Church that creates a doctrine contrary to the Word of God it is a mere ‘policy’ one is simply able to disagree with it, but if it is any other group that has a practice outside of what DHK sees as ‘Scriptural,’ it is heresy, cultish etc. etc.

What ever happened to your sense of fairness DHK??? You owe some Catholics and others a sincere apology over infant baptism. It is no less un-Scriptural than the policies of a whole lot of Baptist Churches (not just a few) to re-baptize those desiring to come into fellowship with them. Before you straighten out the Catholics on infant baptism, maybe you had better train your sights on the unscriptural practices of those within your own Baptist ranks.

 

[DHK]

HP: What utter hypocrisy. If it is a Baptist Church that creates a doctrine contrary to the Word of God it is a mere ‘policy’ one is simply able to disagree with it, but if it is any other group that has a practice outside of what DHK sees as ‘Scriptural,’ it is heresy, cultish etc. etc.

HP, reign in your fangs and bite your tongue.
There are many types of Baptist Churches. I would have hoped that you would realize that by now, but alas you don't.
There are Baptist Briders, Landmark Baptists, KJVO Baptists, Sabbath-Day Baptists, and many others that set themselves off from the norm.

It is a normal practice in our church (now bite your tongue) to re-baptize another believer who has been in a movement not in agreement with our church--especially one coming out of the Charismatic movement. There are reasons for that. That is all I am going to say on this matter, because I am not going to derail this thread. If you debate this topic in this thread I will delete your posts because they will be off-topic. Clear? Topic is "Circumcision and OSAS"

What ever happened to your sense of fairness DHK??? You owe some Catholics and others a sincere apology over infant baptism. It is no less un-Scriptural than the policies of a whole lot of Baptist Churches (not just a few) to re-baptize those desiring to come into fellowship with them.

Nonsense! Have you ever heard of the Anabaptists, and why they were called that? I don't owe anyone an apology. Infant Baptism is heresy, since an infant cannot have faith.

Before you straighten out the Catholics on infant baptism, maybe you had better train your sights on the unscriptural practices of those within your own Baptist ranks.

Maybe you better shut up until you know what you are talking about!

 

[Zenas]

That last line got my curiosity up. To make sure I understand, you are saying, aren't you, that one can lose his salvation? Then get it back and lose it again?

Yes, based on the parable of the sower in Matthew 13 and dozens of other N.T. passages that bear this out.

You're a Baptist. How prevalent is this view in your church. Surely you have to be a tiny minority.

Very tiny, but not a minority of one.

If that's true, you must be part of a great church if you want to remain as a member despite having a major disagreement over soteriology.

Yes, I am part of a great church--the best anywhere around here. I have served there more than 35 years and I love them all. However, they're not very dogmatic on matters of doctrine. For example, I didn't know until about 15 years ago that OSAS was a prevalent belief among Baptists. I only learned that when the seminaries started to require their faculty to affirm the BF&M. Being naturally curious, I decided to read the BF&M and learned a lot about Baptist beliefs that I had not known before.

I will say this however. There are more people in my church who believe you can lose your salvation (about 5) than there are five point Calvinists (only 2 that I can identify).

 

[DHK]

I will say this however. There are more people in my church who believe you can lose your salvation (about 5) than there are five point Calvinists (only 2 that I can identify).

The only point in Calvinism (if I understand the point correctly) that I agree with is the last one--the eternal security of the believer.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: The only point in Calvinism (if I understand the point correctly) that I agree with is the last one--the eternal security of the believer.

HP: :laugh:

 

[DHK]

HP: :laugh:

It appears that HP doesn't understand any of Calvinism.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, can I respond without being edited?

 

[BobRyan]

There was an interesting issue brought up recently concerning circumcision. Circumcision was in a way set forth as an illustration of similarity with salvation, and the issue of becoming uncircumcised was likened unto an impossibility, therefore producing a like figure of OSAS in that once saved it is impossible to become un-saved just as becoming once circumcised it is impossible to become uncircumcised.

Since it was not discussed much as I can remember, it would be an excellent to explore. Is it impossible to become uncircumcised? Do you feel the connection between the stated permanence of circumcision (being said to be a permanent once for all issue) and the stated permanence of salvation in the belief of OSAS (as OSAS purports salvation to be a permanent once for all issue likened to circumcision) exists?

It is simply a play on words - nothing of substance to it.

It is like the argument that you must be "unborn" to fall into sin - after being "born again".

It is like saying that Adam (said in the gospels to be "the son of God" via direct creation) needed to be "uncreated" so as to need to be "adopted" in like all sinners need to be adopted.

But as we see clearly in the case of Adam - he did NOT need to be UNCREATED in order to fall into sin. In his sinful state he really needed the "adoption" as sons - found only in the Gospel - just as do we all.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Ro 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

What about some responses from others? Can circumcision be made uncircumcision? How could that be? How does circumcision profit if one is a keeper of the law? If keeping the law was impossible, why would he even use the illustration???

In Romans 2 - Paul shows the succeeding examples among BOTH Jews AND Gentiles.

He also shows the FAILING examples among BOTH Jews and Gentiles.

Paul does not say "all Jews fail and all gentiles succeed" in Romans 2 (though some seem to imagine that idea).

You bring up a good point - Paul actually does show how circumcision is negated.

Both Matt 18 and Ezek 18 show "forgiveness revoked".

In Romans 11 Paul shows how the unbelieving Jews were removed - cast out but Paul argues "God is able to graft them in AGAIN IF they do not continue in unbelief".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bob Ryan: In Romans 11 Paul shows how the unbelieving Jews were removed - cast out but Paul argues "God is able to graft them in AGAIN IF they do not continue in unbelief".

HP: The absurdity of it all is that we know what is at the heart of OSAS, and that is a complete unadulterated system of pure necessity, regardless of how it is packaged, or the precise words used. When one says he believes in OSAS, there is no appreciable distinction between them and any other that holds to a Calvinistic system of necessity, the end is the same. They will even tell you that one can deny God and still make it in. NO sin can separate no matter how vile or evil it may be. Such doctrine is an evil curse upon the Church. There is simply no other way to put it and that needs to shouted from the housetops.

 

[donnA]

you can only be circumcised once, and can never be uncircumcised.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Donna: you can only be circumcised once, and can never be uncircumcised.

HP: But your circumcision can become uncircumcision and as such your circumcision is made of absolutely no effect.

 

[DHK]

They will even tell you that one can deny God and still make it in.

Who said that?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

If you have not heard that you live a sheltered life DHK. Are you going to tell us that if one denies God that he will not make it in? Think carefully before you answer. Ask yourself, what might one do to deny their Lord? How about or adultery just for starters? Does one deny God when they partake of adultery? Do some sins separate and others cannot???

Can any sin, I said 'any sin,' in a believers life separate such a one from their hope of eternal life? You have told us you believe in OSAS. Are you going to say I have no conception of what that means either?

 

[DHK]

If you have not heard that you live a sheltered life DHK. Are you going to tell us that if one denies God that he will not make it in? Think carefully before you answer. Ask yourself, what might one do to deny their Lord? How about or adultery just for starters? Does one deny God when they partake of adultery? Do some sins separate and others cannot???

Can any sin, I said 'any sin,' in a believers life separate such a one from their hope of eternal life? You have told us you believe in OSAS. Are you going to say I have no conception of what that means either?

Perhaps HP, if one has denied the Lord, and previous to that had claimed to be a believer, that he wasn't a believer in the first place. John spoke of many pretenders in his day--the first century:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.