An Ongoing Study/Debate of the New Testament

[The Biblicist]

Lutherans believe we are still sinners and we will always be sinners until the day we die. However, those who place their faith in Christ and repent, are sinners-saved-by-grace, and will inherit eternal life in heaven.

Please show me one verse in the Bible that states that one must know a time in the past that they "were" a sinner in order to be a Christian.

You have answered your own question when you said:

"those who place their faith in Christ and repent" and this is precisely what the scripture repeat over and over again by precept and by example.

However, your concept of NEVER experiencing a time in one's life of ever beleiving or repenting and yet still be saved contradicts that very statement and indeed is a contradiction in terms. If there was never a time you experienced a lost condition then it could only have occurred when one came to that realization NOT BEFORE!

What is necessary is that one know that he IS a sinner, lost and bound for hell, without the free gift of salvation offered by Christ to all those who place their faith in him, believe in Him, and repent.

That is the point, your hypothetical example HAS NO CONSCIOUSNESS OF SUCH A PAST CONDITION. Whatever point in time they grasped that concept is the time they were saved and not a moment before.

They may not remember the day or hour but they MUST remember the EXPERIENCE or they have NO WITNESS of salvation and they are not saved yet.

 

[Wittenberger]

You have answered your own question when you said:

"those who place their faith in Christ and repent" and this is precisely what the scripture repeat over and over again by precept and by example.

However, your concept of NEVER experiencing a time in one's life of ever beleiving or repenting and yet still be saved contradicts that very statement and indeed is a contradiction in terms. If there was never a time you experienced a lost condition then it could only have occurred when one came to that realization NOT BEFORE!




That is the point, your hypothetical example HAS NO CONSCIOUSNESS OF SUCH A PAST CONDITION. Whatever point in time they grasped that concept is the time they were saved and not a moment before.

We may be alot closer on this issue than we realize. Let me explain the Lutheran position. If I understand the RCC position on Baptism, they believe that the ACT of baptism saves. The baptismal water is "liquid grace". We Lutherans do not believe that the act saves.

Lutherans believe that the PROMISE of salvation is given in infant baptism, but the benefits of salvation (eternal life) are not received until they are received by faith. A child who is baptized must grow up and at some point in time express faith, believe in Christ as his Lord and Savior, repent of sins, and acknowledge that he is a sinner, lost and bound for hell except for the grace of God, Christ's free gift.

If a child grows up in a Christian home and is praying to Jesus at age 2 and 1/2 he does not really comprehend what he is doing. But as he matures, at some point in time, he will comprehend, and will either believe or not believe---to believe will require faith, and that is when the benefits of the promised salvation given at baptism, is received.

The issue is: does God require that this child remember the exact day and time when he crossed over from praying to Jesus because Daddy is "doing it" to a real understanding that he is praying to the God of Creation as his Lord and Savior?

Yes, the cross-over in beliefs has to occur, but the knowledge of the exact day and time, does not.

Lutherans do not believe that we are born Christians, as some Reformed believe. We are born sinners, but the children of Christian parents who are brought to the waters of baptism receive the promise of salvation there, but receive the benefits (eternal life) when they individually receive Christ's free gift of salvation by a personal faith in Him.

I know you still don't buy our doctrine of baptism, but hopefully you will understand that Lutherans do not believe that we have always been saved.

 

[The Biblicist]

We may be alot closer on this issue than we realize. Let me explain the Lutheran position. If I understand the RCC position on Baptism, they believe that the ACT of baptism saves. The baptismal water is "liquid grace".

No, you don't understand the RCC view and I am sure TS will help you out so I won't bother.

Lutherans believe that the PROMISE of salvation is given in infant baptism, but the benefits of salvation (eternal life) are not received until they are received by faith.

Book, chapter, verse please? No inferences please!

A child who is baptized must grow up

No, he could die two minutes after a handful of water was dropped on his head and it would do him no more good than if he had not had water dropped on his head.

and at some point in time express faith, believe in Christ as his Lord and Savior, repent of sins, and acknowledge that he is a sinner, lost and bound for hell except for the grace of God, Christ's free gift.

No, there is no "must" to that either as he could have a few drops of water dropped on his head and turn out to be an atheist.

If a child grows up in a Christian home and is praying to Jesus at age 2 and 1/2

He can't pray to someone he does not "KNOW" experientially but is just copy katting his parents.

he does not really comprehend what he is doing.

His prayer is no better than a hindu's prayer as both equally have no SALVATION EXPERIENCE and therefore do not KNOW God and eternal life is KNOWING God - Jn. 17:3

But as he matures, at some point in time, he will comprehend, and will either believe or not believe---to believe will require faith, and that is when the benefits of the promised salvation given at baptism, is received.

No promise was given him any more than the child of an muslim who was taught to pray at an early age without understanding. The child of a muslim growing up and confronting with the gospel can be saved EQUALLY as much as the child who grows up is likewise confronted with that conscious knowledge. As Paul says it is not circumcumcision or uncircumcision (baptism or unbaptism) but A NEW CREATURE.

The issue is: does the child have to remember the exact day and time when he crossed over from praying to Jesus because Daddy is "doing it" to a real understanding that he is praying to the God of Creation as his Lord and Savior?

Yes, the cross-over in beliefs has to occur, but the knowledge of the exact day and time, does not.

The cross over is a CONSCIOUS ACT and EXPERIENCE without which there is NO SALVATION and NO SALVATION TESTIMONY.

 

[The Biblicist]

There has been only ONE WAY of salvation before and after the cross (Mt. 7:13-14; Acts 4:12; 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Jn. 14:6) and one gospel (heb. 4:2) as any other gospel is accursed (Gal. 1:8-9) and it is the same gospel preached unto Abraham (Gal. 3:6-8), and any other WAY is to destructiom (Mt. 7:13).

External divine ordinance have ALWAYS had the very same relationship to this ONE WAY of salvation and ONE GOSPEL before the cross as after the cross (Rom. 4:11) and the pre-circumcised Abraham is THE EXAMPLE of that precise unchanging relationship between justification by faith and submission to ordinances for "ALL" who are "OF FAITH."

This is the bigger contextual picture you are not seeing! Man has not changed before and after the cross, his lost condition is not different before or after the cross and the solution is not changed before versus after the cross. External Divine ordiances play no different role before the cross than they do after the cross - they are all equally a "shadow" or FORM empty of LITERAL substance but only providing FIGURATIVE expression that can "never take away sins" literally (Heb. 10:1-4). They were never designed by God to replace the gospel nor to implement the gospel but rather to be a public confession of that gospel in FORM but not in substance!

 

[Wittenberger]

There has been only ONE WAY of salvation before and after the cross (Mt. 7:13-14; Acts 4:12; 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Jn. 14:6) and one gospel (heb. 4:2) as any other gospel is accursed (Gal. 1:8-9) and it is the same gospel preached unto Abraham (Gal. 3:6-8), and any other WAY is to destructiom (Mt. 7:13).

External divine ordinance have ALWAYS had the very same relationship to this ONE WAY of salvation and ONE GOSPEL before the cross as after the cross (Rom. 4:11) and the pre-circumcised Abraham is THE EXAMPLE of that precise unchanging relationship between justification by faith and submission to ordinances for "ALL" who are "OF FAITH."

This is the bigger contextual picture you are not seeing! Man has not changed before and after the cross, his lost condition is not different before or after the cross and the solution is not changed before versus after the cross. External Divine ordiances play no different role before the cross than they do after the cross - they are all equally a "shadow" or FORM empty of LITERAL substance but only providing FIGURATIVE expression that can "never take away sins" literally (Heb. 10:1-4). They were never designed by God to replace the gospel nor to implement the gospel but rather to be a public confession of that gospel in FORM but not in substance!

Ther reason you fail to grasp the orthodox view of salvation and baptism is because you start with the false foundational belief that conversions in first century Palestine occurred in the same manner as sixteenth century western Europe!

People did not change religions/faiths as individuals. They did it as families. Check with the Jews, check with the Arabs: people converted in family units in that time. The idea that a father would not convert his entire household: wife/wives, older children, toddlers, infants, servants/slaves and their children and infants at the same time he converts, is preposterous!

You are forcing western European values on a middle eastern culture because your interpretation of the Bible seems to you as occurring in individuals only.

However, since historical evidence means nothing to you, evidence of cultural norms in Palestine in the first century AD probably mean nothing to you either.

Your interpretation of the Bible is not only your final authority, it is your ONLY authority.

 

[The Biblicist]

Ther reason you fail to grasp the orthodox view of salvation and baptism is because you start with the false foundational belief that conversions in first century Palestine occurred in the same manner as sixteenth century western Europe!

Simply unbelievable! I think you better reread my post. Everything I said was Biblical based without one single word or reference to anything about Post-first century much less 16th century Western Europe. Are you seriously that blind? I never developed my theology based upon anything outside the Scriptural CONTEXT and I never offered you anything else but explicit scriptures that you cannot possibly refute and so you are forced to this kind of rediculous response!

People did not change religions/faiths as individuals.

Tell that to Abraham! Tell that to Ruth! Tell that to Paul! Salvation is never a GROUP experience but an INDIVIDUAL experience. I know of many believers who converted to Christ out of a family devoted to ungodliness and false religion.

You are forcing western European values on a middle eastern culture because your interpretation of the Bible seems to you as occurring in individuals only.

You can't be serious? The only salvation that is passed along genetically and socially is a WORKS salvation as that is of man. The new birth is required previous to the cross (Jn. 3) as well as after and the new birth by its very nature is INDIVIDUAL and personal and it is that same way today!

Your interpretation of the Bible is not only your final authority, it is your ONLY authority.

Here is the real truth- you cannot respond to the scriptures I presented and so your resort to the real authority for your faith and practice - YOU and UNINSPIRED traditions. You are blinded by traditions of men and willing to reject plain obvious Bibical statements that repudiate your bible of uninspired opinions.

 

[The Biblicist]

Simply unbelievable! I think you better reread my post. Everything I said was Biblical based without one single word or reference to anything about Post-first century much less 16th century Western Europe. Are you seriously that blind? I never developed my theology based upon anything outside the Scriptural CONTEXT and I never offered you anything else but explicit scriptures that you cannot possibly refute and so you are forced to this kind of rediculous response!




Tell that to Abraham! Tell that to Ruth! Tell that to Paul! Salvation is never a GROUP experience but an INDIVIDUAL experience. I know of many believers who converted to Christ out of a family devoted to ungodliness and false religion.






You can't be serious? The only salvation that is passed along genetically and socially is a WORKS salvation as that is of man. The new birth is required previous to the cross (Jn. 3) as well as after and the new birth by its very nature is INDIVIDUAL and personal and it is that same way today!




Here is the real truth- you cannot respond to the scriptures I presented and so your resort to the real authority for your faith and practice - YOU and UNINSPIRED traditions. You are blinded by traditions of men and willing to reject plain obvious Bibical statements that repudiate your bible of uninspired opinions.

I got news for you. You claim to seek the truth by insisting some other man prove you wrong! Well, my friend that is now how it works. Change from false doctrine to truth is not a human possibility. God has to open your eyes or you will never ever see it no matter if it stares you in the face and backs you into a corner - you will NEVER change unless God permits that change:

Mt. 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

If you think that is a contrast between saved and lost just read further:



Mt. 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

It is God who gives the seeing eye and hearing ear and God alone.

 

[Wittenberger]

I got news for you. You claim to seek the truth by insisting some other man prove you wrong! Well, my friend that is now how it works. Change from false doctrine to truth is not a human possibility. God has to open your eyes or you will never ever see it no matter if it stares you in the face and backs you into a corner - you will NEVER change unless God permits that change:

Mt. 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

If you think that is a contrast between saved and lost just read further:



Mt. 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

It is God who gives the seeing eye and hearing ear and God alone.

The scripture passages that you have quoted are very true. It IS God who decides who he will call to be saved.

The problem with Baptists and evangelicals is that you have convinced yourselves that your interpretation of Scripture IS the inspired Word of God, therefore anyone who disagrees with you has to be of Satan, and blind to the ways of God.

Once again, you follow a circular argument. "I'm right, because God tells me in my heart that I'm right."

Let's keep looking at Scripture, brother.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Then you are equally as wrong as he is as that is absurd. Jesus said I came not to save "the righteous but sinners and you and Wittenberger have someone being saved who never was conscious of a sinful condition! We are saved "from sin" not from a sinless mindset!

All who claim they were always saved are still lost in their religous sins.

Gentlemen,

There has NEVER been one way of salvation prior to the cross (Mt. 7:13-14; Acts 10:43) and it is the very same way after the cross (Heb. 4:2) as there never has been any other name given under heaven to men at any time other than the Old Testament "Christ" who is the New Testament "Jesus" or Yahweh our Savior (Acts 4:12; Jn. 14:6).

If divine ordinances are related and/or essential at all to salvation and in particular to remission of sins they were just as essential prior to the cross as after the cross. However, the scriptures clearly repudiate that relationship in a UNIVERSAL PRE-circucmision example for "ALL" who are "OF FAITH" in the case of Abraham who did exist prior to the cross and who is the example for ALL who are of faith AFTER the cross (Rom. 4:11).

Hence, prior to the cross, prior to circumcision remission of sins were obtained by faith in the gospel of Christ - Acts 10:43 - the very same gospel preached now - Heb. 4:2 - and external ordinances prior to the cross NEVER TOOK AWAY SINS but were ("shadows") FORMS empty of LITERAL substance in regard to remitting sins.

I am not saying I have always been saved; I am saying I don't remember a specific moment when I accepted Jesus as my Savior. I don't remember a specific moment that I accepted my parents as my parents; I just always knew they were my parents and accepted them as such. That's kind of the way it was with me and God and Jesus. I was raised to believe and know Jesus from the very beginning. I always believed and accepted Him.

 

[Wittenberger]

Simply unbelievable! I think you better reread my post. Everything I said was Biblical based without one single word or reference to anything about Post-first century much less 16th century Western Europe. Are you seriously that blind? I never developed my theology based upon anything outside the Scriptural CONTEXT and I never offered you anything else but explicit scriptures that you cannot possibly refute and so you are forced to this kind of rediculous response!




Tell that to Abraham! Tell that to Ruth! Tell that to Paul! Salvation is never a GROUP experience but an INDIVIDUAL experience. I know of many believers who converted to Christ out of a family devoted to ungodliness and false religion.






You can't be serious? The only salvation that is passed along genetically and socially is a WORKS salvation as that is of man. The new birth is required previous to the cross (Jn. 3) as well as after and the new birth by its very nature is INDIVIDUAL and personal and it is that same way today!




Here is the real truth- you cannot respond to the scriptures I presented and so your resort to the real authority for your faith and practice - YOU and UNINSPIRED traditions. You are blinded by traditions of men and willing to reject plain obvious Bibical statements that repudiate your bible of uninspired opinions.

Were there ever exceptions? Sure! But it was not the norm.

Abraham was the head of his household. When he converted, every man, woman and child converted, not only of his family, but of his servants and slaves! The OT states that over 300 men of his "household" were circumcised along with him and Ishmael.

It was a family conversion! A BIG family conversion!

Do you really think that Abraham just let everyone of those 300 men (not counting the women and older female children) think about it for awhile and individually decide if they were going to accept the new relegion and drop their drawers to be circumcised???

The head of the household made the decision for ALL of the household, and the entire household did as they were told. That is how middle easterners did it in Abraham's time, that is how they did it in Moses' time, AND that is how it was done in Christ's time. Historical and cultural evidence supports this.

I know that it is a waste of my time to discuss historical and cultural evidence with you, but I think it is only fair that other readers take this into accournt.

 

[Wittenberger]

I am not saying I have always been saved; I am saying I don't remember a specific moment when I accepted Jesus as my Savior. I don't remember a specific moment that I accepted my parents as my parents; I just always knew they were my parents and accepted them as such. That's kind of the way it was with me and God and Jesus. I was raised to believe and know Jesus from the very beginning. I always believed and accepted Him.

Unless you can quote the day and the hour of your born again experience, brother, to many Baptists and evangelicals you are just as lost as a Muslim, Jew or Hindu!

Not all feel this way, so no one should make a generalization.

The fundamental Baptists I grew up with went even further than that. Not only did you have to know the day and hour of being born again, you had to believe the "correct" doctrines or your salvation was questioned.

If you did not believe in "once saved, always saved", that it is impossible for a Christian to lose his/her salvation, then there was no way you could be a true Christian.

 

[Wittenberger]

Next passage of Scripture:

Mark 3:28-30 ESV

"Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the chilren of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin---30 for they had said, "He has an unclean spirit."

In the OP I stated I would include all passages speaking of the Holy Spirit. I have no idea what this verse means.

My guess is that anyone to whom God reveals the truth, as Christ preached to the Pharisees and scribes, but once presented with the truth, they knowingly, and mockingly, despise God's Word, can never be forgiven of that sin.

Anyone else have another interpretation?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Unless you can quote the day and the hour of your born again experience, brother, to many Baptists and evangelicals you are just as lost as a Muslim, Jew or Hindu!

Not all feel this way, so no one should make a generalization.

The fundamental Baptists I grew up with went even further than that. Not only did you have to know the day and hour of being born again, you had to believe the "correct" doctrines or your salvation was questioned.

If you did not believe in "once saved, always saved", that it is impossible for a Christian to lose his/her salvation, then there was no way you could be a true Christian.

I agree -- except that where you said "many", I would say "some".

 

[The Biblicist]

Were there ever exceptions? Sure! But it was not the norm.

Abraham was the head of his household. When he converted, every man, woman and child converted, not only of his family, but of his servants and slaves! The OT states that over 300 men of his "household" were circumcised along with him and Ishmael.

You are confusing salvation with circumcision. Every Israelite was circumcised but not every Israelite was born again.

You are confusing conversion to a religon with individual salvation.

Ruth and Paul don't fit the mold you are forcing upon the Scriptures.

 

[The Biblicist]

The scripture passages that you have quoted are very true. It IS God who decides who he will call to be saved.

Don't you ever carefully read anything? God determines not merely salvation but spiritual ability of saved people to understand and grasp truth.

 

[The Biblicist]

Were there ever exceptions? Sure!

First, you take your norm from among those naturally born into Judaism! Your cultural "norm" is precisely what the New Testament vehemently denies - "not born of blood" (Jn. 1:13). Not ALL JEWS are saved but all are circumcised. Not all Natural born Israel are Israelites by promise! Isaac was saved but Ishmale was not. Jacob was saved but Esau was not. Salvation is ALWAYS and individual experience because new birth is ALWAYS individual.

 

[The Biblicist]

The problem with Baptists and evangelicals is that you have convinced yourselves that your interpretation of Scripture IS the inspired Word of God, therefore anyone who disagrees with you has to be of Satan, and blind to the ways of God.

Read my lips and read them carefully. What you have said above is total fabrication and perversion of the actual truth.

Here is the truth - I have presented CONTEXTUAL EVIDENCE to support my interpretation. My convictions are based upon THAT EVIDENCE and it is THAT EVIDENCE you cannot respond to. So what do you do? You excuse your own inability and ignorance by fabricating the idea that it is not THAT EVIDENCE which supports my interpretation but it is merely MY FEELINGS that support my interpretation and that is a FACTUAL LIE!

Once again, you follow a circular argument. "I'm right, because God tells me in my heart that I'm right."

This another factual lie! Since it is not MY FEELINGS but CONTEXTUAL EVIDENCE that I base my interpetation upon, then I am not using circular reason except in one area. That one area is that I believe the Bible provides all the contextual data necessary for any exegete to arrive at the proper interpretation and so Bible is used to interpret Bible - that is the only area of circular reasoning I am guilty of.

However, YOU are the one guilty of circular reasoning! You come to the Bible with a TRADITION BASED theology and when you cannot deal with the BIBLICAL CONTEXT EVIDENCE you then resort to TRADITIONAL BASED THEOLOGY to prove your TRADITIONAL BASED THEOLOGY. That my friend is circular reasoning and you are guilty of it.

Let's keep looking at Scripture, brother.

How can you tell me to do what YOU ARE NOT DOING? In every case thus far I have used BIBLICAL DATA from the BIBLICAL CONTEXT to prove your TRADITIONS are wrong and when that EVIDENCE backs you into a corner where do you go? Not to the Bible but to YOUR TRADITIONS to prove YOUR TRADITIONS.

This is kind of circular reasoning is exactly where all paedobaptists and Sacramentalists will ALWAYS follow as the Bible can NEVER be their final authority and you prove this to be true in every instance thus far. In every instance thus far you have been unable to deal with THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE (not my feelings) and in every instance you have sought TRADITION as your FINAL authority - every single time.

 

[The Biblicist]

I have no idea what this verse means.

What does your final authority tell you - traditions of men?

I will tell you what the CONTEXTUAL BASED EVIDENCE provides to interpret this text.

In the preceding context (Mt. 9-11) the scribes and Pharisees had been presented with overwhelming evidence by the power of the Holy Spirit working through Jesus that he was that promised Messiah that John the Baptist heralded.

In the immediate context those guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirit know the truth but not merely reject it but intentionally attribute the confirming work of the Holy Spirit that Jesus is the Christ to the work of the Devil. Hence, those who are guilty have two characteristics thus far:

1. Light in the mind
2. Hate in the heart

Hence, they are not believers but lost unregenerate religious people. Proof?

Mt. 12:14 ¶ Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.

Second, the nature of this work of the Holy Spirit is to confirm among men that Jesus is the promised Messiah:

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Third, this sin is attributing this confirming work to be of the Devil.

Fourth, it seems to be a sin restricted to the earthly ministry of Jesus whereby the Holy Spirit is confirming his Messiahship.

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world [Gr. aeon = age], neither in the world [Gr. aeon = age] to come.

However, there are at least three contextual factors that cannot be disputed:

1. This is a sin committed by those who have light in the mind - they know
2. This is a sin committed by those who have hate in the heart - They seek his destruction
3. This is a sin that attributes the confirmation work of the Holy Spirit that Jesus is the Christ to the devil.

This is a sin committed by UNREGENERATED RELIGIOUS non-believers who attribute the confirming work that Jesus is the Christ to the devil.

Now, learn a lesson here! Did I present MY FEELINGS or did I present contextual data? My interpretation is based upon the contextual data not my feelings. Can you deal with the contextual data I presented? Can you show that THE EVIDENCE upon which I based my convictions is false? If so, I will change my interpretation because my interpretation depends upon correctly identifying the contextual data NOT MY FEELINGS. However, if you cannot overturn the CONTEXTUAL EVIDENCE then according to what is your final authority for your interpretation??? Your feelings? Traditions of men? What?

 

[Wittenberger]

You are confusing salvation with circumcision. Every Israelite was circumcised but not every Israelite was born again.

You are confusing conversion to a religon with individual salvation.

Ruth and Paul don't fit the mold you are forcing upon the Scriptures.

Circumcision did not save anyone. Faith and repentance have always been what save the sinner. However, in circumcision the Jewish child received the promise given to Abraham. Any child or convert who refused the sign could not receive the promise.

Ruth was not the head of a household.

Paul was single. He did not have a wife and children, therefore he was not the head of a household. There are always exceptions to any rule.

The examples are: Abraham, the Philippian jailer, Lydia, Stephen and others.

 

[The Biblicist]

Circumcision did not save anyone. Faith and repentance have always been what save the sinner.

Individually not corporately!

However, in circumcision the Jewish child received the promise given to Abraham.

That is absolutely false! Circumcision was instituted by God and given to already JUSTIFIED man as a "sign" or external witness of the gospel not a promise of salvation to the lost (Rom. 4:11).

It was given to PHSYCIALLY separate His children from the rest of the world and as a "sign" (Rom. 4:11) of what salvation is and where it really occurs - the circumcision of the heart. It was a "sign" or external WITNESS of salvation but never the promise of salvation as most Jews died in a lost condition but circumcised. That is precisely Paul's point in Romans 2:24-27 and in Romans 9:6-7 that circumcision AVAILETH NOTHING in regard to literal salvation:

Gal. 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Any child or convert who refused the sign could not receive the promise.

That is the same false doctrine repudiated by Paul and the church at Jerusalem:

Acts 15:1 ¶ And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

The premise of these false teachers is based upon exactly the same interpretation you have that God instituted it as inseparable from the promise of salvation. Hence, no circumcision, no promise of salvation. This is a false interpretation of the design of circumcision and it was condemned.

The Uncircumcised were SPATIALLY "cut off" from Israel as were the Gentiles who were uncircumcised but not SPIRITUALLY cut off. When Ruth, Rahab were justified by faith they then submitted to the external "sign" designed to be an external GOSPEL WITNESS. When infants were circumcised at eight days old it was an external GOSPEL WITNESS as were the sacrificial system but were PERSONALLY MEANINGLESS until the external became the internal reality. Hence, infant circumcison was a GOSPEL TYPE not a means to an end.

The examples are: Abraham, the Philippian jailer, Lydia, Stephen and others.

Just becaused there are examples in ONE CHAPTER in the Bible where households were converted does not mean that is the RULE. If it were the RULE of God's method of conversion then it would be today as well. Has God forsaken HIS RULE? Does culture determine God's plan of salvation and therefore when culture changes God's rule changes??????????