Circumcision and OSAS

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.

 

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.

 

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, 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"

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.

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

 

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

Very tiny, but not a minority of one.

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).

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Who said that?

 

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.