Circumcision and OSAS

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

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?

 

[Zenas]

Your proposition is that circumcision is to the Jews what salvation is to Christians. Therefore both are permanent states. I disagree and so does the Bible.

The correct Biblical position is that circumcision is to the Jews what baptism is to Christians. Circumcision is the mark of being a Jew; baptism is the mark of being a Christian. Paul made this very clear in Colossians 2:11-12:

11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Although both baptism and circumcision are permanent states, baptism has nothing to do with OSAS. Just as a Jew can renounce his heritage and them return to it without being circumcised again, a Christian can renounce Christ and then return without being rebaptized. 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.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Zenas: Your proposition is that circumcision is to the Jews what salvation is to Christians. Therefore both are permanent states. I disagree and so does the Bible.

HP: It was not my proposition, but the proposition of another poster(s) and I believe I failed to make myself clear on their position as origianlly stated. I will try and explain.

Zenas: The correct Biblical position is that circumcision is to the Jews what baptism is to Christians. Circumcision is the mark of being a Jew; baptism is the mark of being a Christian. Paul made this very clear in Colossians 2:11-12:
Quote:
11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

HP: I well may have misrepresented the argument to some degree. I think the argument posed was simply trying to express that both circumcision and salvation are alike in that they are both permanent and cannot be altered. If I am not mistaken the argument was simply trying to establish OSAS as permanent in duration just as circumcision in a permanent rite, at least in accordance to their idea. Hopefully the one(s) that were making the connection will come on board and restate their position for us to resolve any misrepresentations.

Zenas: Although both baptism and circumcision are permanent states, baptism has nothing to do with OSAS. Just as a Jew can renounce his heritage and them return to it without being circumcised again, a Christian can renounce Christ and then return without being rebaptized. 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.

HP: I believe I follow you and agree as I understand you. Am I making any clearer the position that I felt was taken? Again it was not that they were trying to correlate salvation to circumcision or baptism, but rather was only addressing the 'permanency' issues as they felt were appliable between circumcision and salvation.
Make sense?

 

[DHK]

However, salvation is not a permanent state inasmuch as an individual can move into and out of a state of grace.

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!!

 

[Zenas]

Yes, I understand but to address the permanency issues you must have corresponding concepts. Comparing circumcision to baptism as both being permanent is comparing apples to oranges.

 

[DHK]

Yes, I understand but to address the permanency issues you must have corresponding concepts. Comparing circumcision to baptism as both being permanent is comparing apples to oranges.

I agree with that. There are some (covenant theologians) that will try to force the analogy, but I don't believe it is there.

 

[Zenas]

Yes, I understand but to address the permanency issues you must have corresponding concepts. Comparing circumcision to baptism as both being permanent is comparing apples to oranges.

OOPS! I need to do more proof reading before posting. What I meant to say was: COMPARING CIRCUMCISION TO SALVATION AS BOTH BEING PERMANENT IS COMPARING APPLES TRANGES. That would be an easy error for me to make because I equate baptism with the initial salvation experience.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Zenas: Yes, I understand but to address the permanency issues you must have corresponding concepts

HP: I would agree but there is a connection between circumcision and salvation. Circumcision was a necessitated sign of the covenant, without which no male could entertain a hope of eternal life. It was a mandated condition without which no covenant existed between God and man. There is a clear corresonding concept between gaining salvation and circumcision for every Jewish male. NOT in the sense of meriting salvation neither was it the only condition mandated, but just the same it was a stated condition, without which no salvation was possible. It also was a shadow of the type, the circucision of the heart, that indeed applies to us as well, without which no salvation is possible.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: There are some (covenant theologians) that will try to force the analogy, but I don't believe it is there.

HP: If a covenant relationship could not exist for a Jewish male apart from circumcision, there is in fact a connection between circumcision and salvation, again for the Jew, would you not agree?

 

[DHK]

HP: If a covenant relationship could not exist for a Jewish male apart from circumcision, there is in fact a connection between circumcision and salvation, again for the Jew, would you not agree?

It was for the Jew alone and cannot be carried over to the NT. Otherwise there would be no salvation for women.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: It was for the Jew alone and cannot be carried over to the NT. Otherwise there would be no salvation for women.

HP: We agree then that circumcision was at least one condition of salvation for the Jewish male in the OT, correct?

 

[DHK]

HP: We agree then that circumcision was at least one condition of salvation for the Jewish male in the OT, correct?

It was a condition to be an Israelite. I prefer not to get into the salvation of the nation of Israel. Salvation in Israel was the same as it is today--by faith. Not all Israel was saved.

 

[billwald]

DHK is correct. In the same way, every person baptized as an adult is not saved. There is no objective test for regeneration. If there was, church membership would be much smaller.

But the Church Militant is NOT a meeting for regenerate people. It is a hospital for sinners. In the same way, the OT Jewish community was a hospital for sinners.

The CHURCH Triumphant is the sum of all regenerate people - going back to Adam - whomever they are - the people with whom we will associate in the next life.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: It was a condition to be an Israelite. I prefer not to get into the salvation of the nation of Israel. Salvation in Israel was the same as it is today--by faith. Not all Israel was saved.

HP: I asked nothing about the nation Israel as a whole, just male Israelites. Why would you now seem to desire to overlook or avoid the fact that God did in fact set forth several conditions for their salvation, one of which was circumcision? Circumcision was as important as any sacrifice they could have made. Without circumcision they could not even enter into the temple period. Without circumcision no salvation was afforded them once God required it.

 

[DHK]

HP: I asked nothing about the nation Israel as a whole, just male Israelites. Why would you now seem to desire to overlook or avoid the fact that God did in fact set forth several conditions for their salvation, one of which was circumcision? Circumcision was as important as any sacrifice they could have made. Without circumcision they could not even enter into the temple period. Without circumcision no salvation was afforded them once God required it.

There were many things that were important. They lived under the Law. If you did not keep the Sabbath you were taken out and stoned to death. The Sabbath also was a sign of the covenant. But keeping the Law, or the Sabbath, or circumcision, did not save.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: There were many things that were important. They lived under the Law. If you did not keep the Sabbath you were taken out and stoned to death. The Sabbath also was a sign of the covenant. But keeping the Law, or the Sabbath, or circumcision, did not save.

HP: I agree with everything you say here, but my question is could you be saved 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?

 

[RAdam]

Circumcision was given to Abraham as a "seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed to them also: and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised."

Circumcision was a sign (or token) of God's covenant.

 

[DHK]

HP: I agree with everything you say here, but my question is could you be saved 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?

Study the Scriptures and find out your own answers. Why shoud I do your homework for you?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

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

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Here is the original quote by Eightball that sparked this thread. I did not have it in front of me when I opened the thread. Sorry.

Eightball: The person that mentioned cirmcumcision used a great metaphor. Circumcision was used by God in His scripture to show, "permanance". One cannot be uncircumcised. When God seals the deal, it's done.