Romans 4:10

[kyredneck]

How then was it reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision: Ro 4:10

What is the significance of this statement? What is the point that Paul is making?

.......and please, don't be bashful. I'm not setting up a 'staw man', but I do have a point to make.

 

[swaimj]

The point is that Abraham is the prototype of all who are saved. He was saved, not by keeping the law, for the law had not been given. He was saved, not by circumcision, for circumcision had not yet been commanded. He was saved by faith in the promise that God made him.

 

[kyredneck]

..... He was saved, not by keeping the law, for the law had not been given. He was saved, not by circumcision, for circumcision had not yet been commanded......

Swaimji, are you implying that, after the law was given, it was by the keeping of the law that folks were saved? It sounds that way. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[swaimj]

Pray tell, how do you conclude that from what I said?

Just say what you want to say and be done with it. I don't think I want to play your game.

 

[kyredneck]

Pray tell, how do you conclude that from what I said?

By this:

Originally Posted by swaimj
..... He was saved, not by keeping the law, for the law had not been given. He was saved, not by circumcision, for circumcision had not yet been commanded......

Just say what you want to say and be done with it. I don't think I want to play your game.

I asked you a simple yes or no question.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

How then was it reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision: Ro 4:10

What is the significance of this statement? What is the point that Paul is making?

.......and please, don't be bashful. I'm not setting up a 'staw man', but I do have a point to make.

Without reading other comments, that God has justified both Jew and Gentile apart from the works of the Law in Christ Jesus on the basis of faith alone.

 

[swaimj]

But here is my conclusion, which you apparently did not read.

He was saved by faith in the promise that God made him.

So I conclude that we are saved today, not by the law, and not by circumcision, but by faith, just as Abraham was. That is the point of Romans 4:10.

 

[kyredneck]

Originally Posted by swaimj
..... He was saved, not by keeping the law, for the law had not been given. He was saved, not by circumcision, for circumcision had not yet been commanded......

..... I conclude that we are saved today, not by the law, and not by circumcision,......

........you should be a politician (maybe you are). Again I ask:

.....are you implying that, after the law was given, it was by the keeping of the law that folks were saved?......

Yes..........or.............no.

 

[swaimj]

So I conclude that we are saved today, not by the law, and not by circumcision, but by faith, just as Abraham was.

Once again, you edited out the last part of what I said. If you read it, the answer is clear. I have clarified my statement and a "yes or no" answer is not necessary. I think everyone on the BB who reads it can understand it. If you cannot, then for you, it will have to remain a mystery.

 

[kyredneck]

Once again, you edited out the last part of what I said. If you read it, the answer is clear. I have clarified my statement and a "yes or no" answer is not necessary. I think everyone on the BB who reads it can understand it. If you cannot, then for you, it will have to remain a mystery.

No, once again, you avoided giving a direct answer to a direct question.

You won't give a direct answer, therefore I have to conclude that swaimji believes that while the old covenant was in effect, it was by the observance of the law that folks got saved. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Just so there's no doubt about my stance on this issue:

because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin. Ro 3:20

yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Gal 2:16

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Once again, you edited out the last part of what I said. If you read it, the answer is clear. I have clarified my statement and a "yes or no" answer is not necessary. I think everyone on the BB who reads it can understand it. If you cannot, then for you, it will have to remain a mystery.

I don't understand it. Do you believe that under the adminstration of the Law of Moses that people were saved by keeping that Law?

 

[kyredneck]

I don't understand it. Do you believe that under the adminstration of the Law of Moses that people were saved by keeping that Law?

Heheh, so far he hasn't given a yes or no answer to that, and I don't expect him to.

..........and I have to wonder........how many other 'dispies' out there believe that?

 

[swaimj]

I don't understand it. Do you believe that under the adminstration of the Law of Moses that people were saved by keeping that Law?

I have spoken about Abraham who lived prior to the law and I have spoken about believers today, who live after the law. In both cases, people are saved by faith, apart from the law. I don't see what you don't understand about that. Please clarify. As for people who were under the law and how they were saved, I have not addressed that, so I don't see why that is relevant to what I have said nor why that topic, which is unaddressed in the thread should cause you to not understand my clear statements about how Abraham was saved and how people are saved today.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I have spoken about Abraham who lived prior to the law and I have spoken about believers today, who live after the law. In both cases, people are saved by faith, apart from the law. I don't see what you don't understand about that. Please clarify. As for people who were under the law and how they were saved, I have not addressed that, so I don't see why that is relevant to what I have said nor why that topic, which is unaddressed in the thread should cause you to not understand my clear statements about how Abraham was saved and how people are saved today.

My question to you was about how people were saved under the adminstration of the Law of Moses. I want to know what you believe about that. Were they saved by the Law, hence, the works of the Law, or were they saved by faith alone?

 

[kyredneck]

I have spoken about Abraham who lived prior to the law and I have spoken about believers today, who live after the law. In both cases, people are saved by faith, apart from the law. I don't see what you don't understand about that. Please clarify. As for people who were under the law and how they were saved, I have not addressed that, so I don't see why that is relevant to what I have said nor why that topic, which is unaddressed in the thread should cause you to not understand my clear statements about how Abraham was saved and how people are saved today.

Swaimji believes that the physical seed of Abraham was saved by observing the law, WHILE THE LAW WAS IN EFFECT.

true

false

 

[swaimj]

..........and I have to wonder........how many other 'dispies' out there believe that?

Is that what you wonder? Tell you what, Kyredneck, run a poll on the BB and see how many dispys will say that they hold the position that people under the law were saved by keeping the law. You will not find one, because that is not a tenant of dispensationalism and never has been. I don't feel the need to defend myself on this point because the system I espouse does not hold such a thing and I have never said anything on this board that would indicate that I hold such a thing. The issue is not a real issue. It is a contrived issue that springs out of your own confusion.

 

[swaimj]

So swaimji, you believe that the physical seed of Abraham was saved by observing the law, WHILE THE LAW WAS IN EFFECT.

There is no reason for you to ask me this question. I have never said anything on this board (member since June 2000) that even hints that I believe such a thing. I consider this question an insult. If you hung me upside-down by my ears and pulled my toe-nails out one by one, I would not give you the pleasure of hearing a yes or no answer to this question.

 

[kyredneck]

.... It is a contrived issue that springs out of your own confusion.

No, the confusion springs for your refusal to give a simple yes or no answer. A six year old could read this thread and come to that conclusion.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

There is no reason for you to ask me this question. I have never said anything on this board (member since June 2000) that even hints that I believe such a thing. I consider this question an insult. If you hung me upside-down by my ears and pulled my toe-nails out one by one, I would not give you the pleasure of hearing a yes or no answer to this question.

Ok, so you don't believe people under the Law were saved by the works of the Law while the Mosaic Covenant was in effect.

That wasn't too hard now was it? lol

 

[swaimj]

No, the confusion springs for your refusal to give a simple yes or no answer. A six year old could read this thread and come to that conclusion.

Kyredneck, here is the opening sentence of this thread:

How then was it reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision: Ro 4:10

I seriously doubt that the average 6-year-old would comprehend this question or the concept of circumcision, especially if the 6-year-old was female. I think theology has a depth that apparently has not occurred to you.