These
are "Christians" who view works not simply as a symptom of one's
salvation status, but a cause of it, whether "works" be reckoned
that of the religious ceremonial kind, or ethical works, or
simply the idea of working to maintain one's salvation status.
The term "Neo-Circumcision" is to indicate these are a
derivative of the Circumcision which the Apostle Paul dealt with
in many of his letters, and which are spoken of in Acts 15, who
viewed salvation as contingent upon being circumcised and
following the Law.
One could argue the majority of sects, denominations of
Institutional Christianity, and indeed the majority of alleged
"Christians" of these last two millenia have been of the
Neo-Circumcision variety, varying between one another only by
shades.
The
Gospel of Salvation
To distinguish the
gospel of the Neo-Circumcision, consider the scriptural Gospel
of salvation.
"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word
and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not
be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." John 5:24
The only condition
mentioned here is to hear the word and believe it. And notice
that upon doing so it is as if the judgement day has past for
that individual. (Implying Eternal Security)
"I am not ashamed of the gospel,
because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone
who believes." Rom 1:16
Belief in the gospel is
the only condition mentioned here.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his
one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not
perish but have eternal life." John 3:16
Belief is the only
condition mentioned.
But does the scriptures EXPLICITLY state that this salvation,
this justification, is by faith alone apart from works? Yes it
does.
"Now when a man works, his wages are not
credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to
the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies
the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says
the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to
whom God credits righteousness apart from works" Rom 4:4-6
And there are many
other such verses to support this point.
The
Gospel of the Neo-Circumcision
The biggest
Neo-Circumcision sect is Catholicism incorporating about half of
the "Christians" in the world.
One of the
Catholic Canons states, ""If
anyone
says that the justice received is not preserved and also not
increased
before God through good works, but that those works are merely
the
fruits
and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of
its increase,
LET HIM BE ANATHEMA"
Thus in Catholicism
good works are not simply a sign of one's justification, but a
cause of it and thus they are categorized as of the
Neo-Circumcision.
But not only the hyper-institutionalized Catholic and Orthodox
sects, there are Protestant sects who also hold to such a
gospel.
Some will make salvation contingent upon the ceremony of
baptism, just as the Circumcision viewed the necessity of
circumcision. And or there are those who distinguish initial
salvation, which is solely by faith, but then one must work to
maintain their salvation status the rest of their live to be
"finally" saved, which makes salvation contingent upon one's
ongoing performance, or in other words, salvation by works.
In all these cases one can boast of qualifying oneself by one's
working to be a "good Christian" in contrast to Paul's argument
against such boast in Rom 4:2,3 "If,
in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to
boast about— but not before God. What does the Scripture say?
Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as
righteousness." And in Eph 2:8,9 where Paul
characterized salvation as a free gift and not something one
works for. "For it is by grace you have
been saved, through faith— and this not from yourselves, it is
the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."
The
Fruit of the Neo-Circumcision
Firstly, they preach a
false gospel, being antithetical to the Gospel of Christ, as an
such the vast majority of "Christians" these last two millenia
have not been saved. The belief of the Neo-Circumcision is
disbelief in the Gospel of Christ.
Secondly is hopelessness and joylessness. Paul says to the
Galatians who were influence by the gospel of the Circumcision.
"What has happened to all your joy?"
Gal 4:15 There can be no hope or joy that comes from
their gospel because there is no guarantee of Eternal Security
within it. If one's salvation is contingent upon one's ongoing
performance then who is to say that how can they be sure they
will finally be saved? How can they even be certain whether or
not they are presently "saved".
In fact those of the Neo-Circumcision cannot logically use the
phrase "I have been saved", though the Bible uses such a phrase.
For salvation has to do with a future event, and being uncertain
whether or not that future event will come to past, they can
only say, "On the judgment day I may or may not be saved". Thus
it is without Biblical "hope", though they may have "hope" in
the sense of wishful thinking, but that is not Biblical hope,
which is the feeling of anticipation of that which we have
confidence will come to pass. Not does their doctrine produce
the joy of those who are confident in the promise of God, being
Eternally Secured.
He "set his seal of ownership on us, and put
his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what
is to come." 2Cor
1:22 "And you also were included
in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of
your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with
a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing
our inheritance" Eph 1:13,14
Eternal Security is an
essential part of the Gospel of Christ. Those who reject it show
themselves to be unbelievers and this rejection is
characteristic of the Neo-Circumcision.
The
Hostility of the Neo-Circumcision
"This
matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our
ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus
and to make us slaves." Gal 2:4
The Neo-Circumcision
are jealous of the Joy and Hope of those who believe they are
Eternally Secure, having embraced the promise of God. And as
such, like in the case of the Galatians mentioned above, they
try to deceived the believers to take away their joy and make
them slaves to their denominational regulations.
"It
is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand
firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a
yoke of slavery." Gal 5:1
And they typically
slander and bear false witness against believers, claiming
that the gospel we believe is a license to sin. And so they
tinker with the gospel in utilitarian fashion, making it a
gospel of law to try and control the behavior of their people
through the fear of condemnation. It's the curse of the law.
All
who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is
written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do
everything written in the Book of the Law." Gal 3:10
And they should have
learned from the Bible that the Law doesn't work when it comes
to make substantive changes to a person with regards to sinful
behavior. Consider Jesus worse enemies - those who had him
crucified were the most legalistically religious.
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the
leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are
accustomed to do evil." Jer 13:23
What is needed a a new
creation, which is only available to those who believe the
gospel.
"Yet to all who received him, to those who
believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of
God" John
1:12
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a
new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" 2Cor 5:17
And when is one
included in Christ?
"And you also were included in Christ when
you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.
Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the
promised Holy Spirit" Eph 1:13
But the
Neo-Circumcision don't believe and as such are not qualified to
be born of God, being still dead in their trespasses and sins in
which they walk, though reckoning themselves to be religiously
superior as did their Pharisaical forefathers.
"At that time the son born in the ordinary way
persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the
same now." Gal 4:29
The
Origin of the Neo-Circumcision
The Neo-Circumcision
had its origin in Acts 15 as a compromise James imposed in
dealing with the Circumcision. For "Some
men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the
brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom
taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." Acts l5:1
And we learn these men were not only from his church in
Jerusalem but even on his leadership team there. (Gal 2:2;
Acts 15:5,24)
Paul came and presented his gospel of faith apart from works to
the leadership in Jerusalem and Peter agreed with him. Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and
brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us,
that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the
gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart,
acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He
did to us, and made no distinction between us and them,
purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do
you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the
disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."
Acts 15:7-11
Peter first alluded to his calling to preach to Cornelius, the
first Gentile convert. The angel told Cornelius, "‘Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose
surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all
your household will be saved." Acts 11:13,14
Indeed people are saved by words, by in faith in words, not by
deeds. "He saved us, not because of
righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy" Titus
3:5 Despite the fact that God commended him for his deeds,
he was unsaved until he heard and believed the gospel. No deeds,
not even water baptism, were necessary to save Cornelius. For he
was saved simply by hearing and believing the gospel prior to
his water baptism. (Thus those who are saved get baptized rather
than getting baptized to be saved.) And certainly this stands in
stark contrast with the idea that one has to be circumcised and
follow the law of Moses to be saved.
However, James disagreed with Paul and Peter. He picked up on
what Peter said of the futility of trying to be justified by the
law in Peter's phrase, "why do you test
God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which
neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" And
with just two verse James became the forefather of the
Neo-Circumcision saying, "It is my
judgment, therefore, that we should not make it
difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.
Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from
food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat
of strangled animals and from blood." Acts
15:18,19
Consider
James' command forbidding Christians to eat the meat of
strangled animals as a condition for salvation. Paul
says, "The Spirit clearly says that in
later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving
spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings
come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been
seared as
with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order
them to abstain from certain foods, which God
created to be received with thanksgiving by those who
believe and who know the truth." 1Tim 4:1-3
Paul is classifying James' decree as a doctrine of demons.
He's
speaking of James being a hypocritical liar whose conscience
is seared.
First of all notice the
phrase "It is my judgment". Who
the hell does James thinks he is that he could simply tinker
with the gospel to make it into whatever he wants? Paul brings
up this point in Galatians 1,2. For in Gal 1 Paul makes the
point that "the gospel I preached is not
something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man,
nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from
Jesus Christ." Gal 1:11,12 This in contrast to
James' man-made gospel. And Paul insisted that not only was his
gospel not to be tinkered with. "If
anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you
accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" Gal 1:9
Paul rejected James' attempt to tinker with his gospel as he
said, "As for those who seemed to be
important— whatever they were makes no difference to me;
God does not judge by external appearance— those men added
nothing to my message." Gal 2:6 Now if it
didn't make any different to Paul who James was, should it make
any difference to us?
Secondly, while he gave deference to Peter's position that the
law was too
difficult to keep, rather than abandoning the law as a means for
justification, which is what Paul was saying, instead he
suggested tinkering
with the law to make it easier on the Gentiles to keep. That is,
to be
justified not by the Law of Moses, but rather to be justified by
James'
cherry picked tinkered with law. Note the "law" James imposed on
the Gentiles. Three out of four of the laws had to do with
ceremonial matters, eating and uncleanness, which is consistent
with a Pharisaical view of the gospel so typical of the
Neo-Circumcision. While James made the kingdom of God a matter
of eating and drinking, Paul wrote, "the
kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of
righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."
Rom 14:7
Furthermore while Peter said, "He made no
distinction between us (Jewish believers) and them (Gentile
believers)" Acts 15:9 and Paul also affirmed
this same point, James makes a distinction between Jew and
Gentile.
Catholicism is the first major sect of the Neo-Circumcision.
I've heard Catholics argue that since James could tinker with
the gospel, as they acknowledge he does in Acts 15, so can
Catholicism through their Councils. And such is the origin of
Catholic Canon Law, imposing a justification by law upon
Christianity.
The
Mishandling of Scripture by the Neo-Circumcision
Catholicism's
mishandling of Acts 15 is typical of the mishandling of
scripture by the various Neo-Circumcision sects for the last two
Millenia. Much as it didn't matter to Paul who James was,
Catholicism's justification of inflating James' "authority" to
speak on such matters, along with other things, was based on
Nepotism, just as they had done so with Mary.
Catholic
Nepotism
The concept of Nepotism is the reason why Mary is viewed
as being the
"Queen of Heaven" in Catholicism. I think it's the
reason why James was
treated as if the head of the Church, who could
arbitrarily impose
regulations upon it. Interesting fact Eusebius, the
Christian historian
writing in the early 4th century, notes that the Roman
Emperor Domitian
presumed the Church to be a monarchy, and wanting to rid
the empire of
it located the descendants of the Lord's family, namely
descendants of
Jude, who along with James, were two of the half
brothers of Jesus.
Eusebius says, "Treating them with contempt, seeing
them as
simpletons, commanded them to be dismissed, and by a
decree ordered the
persecution to cease." But what is of particular
note is what Eusebius writes next, "Thus
delivered, they ruled the churches,
both as witnesses and relatives of the Lord."
They ruled simply because they were relatives. That's
nepotism.
Catholicism started off as a monarchy ruled by Jesus'
relatives. It is
not what Jesus endorsed. Just as James arbitrarily added
man made
regulations to the Church, so also the Catholic Church.
They corrupted
the gospel consequently leading to "church" filled with
false brethren,
both in leadership an among the assembly.
James started it. Paul failed to sufficiently stand
against it. The
result being thousands of years of the gospel largely
being lost and
marginalized. The "rulers" not being allowed to be
scrutinized on any
basis but one's pedigree.
Nepotism led to Cronyism. And again Bereans were
disallowed from
scrutinizing leadership, simply due to "office" and
church politics.
Church leaders became insulated from scrutiny until the
Reformation. Ye Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity
stand and continue today as
illustrations of the errors of James and the sect of the
circumcision.
The
Epistle of James
The greatest
mishandling of scripture by Catholicism was to include the
Epistle of James in the Bible as if it were scripture.
James'
View of Justification
First regarding
Justification, Martin Luther starting his introduction to this
epistle saying, "this epistle of St.
James was rejected by the ancients" Martin
Luther and "I do
not regard it as the writing of an apostle,
and my reasons follow. In the
first place it is
flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of
Scripture in ascribing justification to works 2:24).
It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he
offered his son Isaac (2:20); Though in Romans 4:22-22
St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was
justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before
he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in
Genesis 15:6.
Although it would be possible to "save" the epistle by a
gloss
giving a correct explanation of justification here
ascribed to works, i is impossible to deny that it does
refer to Moses' words in Genesis 15
(which speaks not of Abraham's works but of his faith,
just as Paul
makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham's works. This
fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any
apostle."
Martin Luther
This particularly becomes an issue in the second part of chapter
2 where James' ACTUAL statements are in contradiction to Paul's
writings,
particularly Romans 4. In both cases they apply Gen 15:6
to their argument which says, "Abraham
believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
In Romans 4 Paul uses this verse as proof that justification is
by
faith alone apart from works, interpreting the Gen 15:6 as being
fulfilled right then in Gen 15:6 prior to Abraham doing any
works.
Whereas James views Gen 15:6 as a prediction, a prophecy not
being
fulfilled until Gen 22, when Abraham did a work of
faith. For to James, justification is not attained until one has
both faith and works.
Note how James phrases James 2:23 And the Scripture
was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God,
and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
Every time in the Bible when this kind of phrase is used it's
ALWAYS
referring to the scripture as being a prophecy, a prediction
of a future event.
Thus James views Abraham as either not believing
God in Gen 15, or believing God, but not being reckoned
righteous until Gen 22, prior to which Abraham had faith
but no
works, of which James refers to as dead faith and not able to
save. Thus James views Abraham as not saved until Gen 22 when he
offered Isaac as a work.
If James interpretation is correct concerning Gen 15:6, then
Paul can'
use it to prove his point in Romans 4. Conversely if Paul's
interpretation of Gen 15:6 is correct and thus Abraham was
justified by
faith alone apart from works, then James is wrong. And thus
Luther said
and I agree concerning James, "it is
flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of
Scripture in ascribing justification to works"
In fact why would James bring up Gen 15:6 to begin with? It
doesn't lend support to his argument. Unlike Paul he's not using
it as "proof"
validating his point, rather he's simply imposing an
interpretation of
Gen 15:6 which is explicitly and intentionally contrary to
Paul's
gospel.
Furthermore consider the phrasing James chose in direct
contradiction to Paul:
Paul in Romans 4:2-6
"if Abraham was justified by works,
he has
something to boast about, but not before God. For what does
the
Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to
him for
righteousness." Now to him who works, the wages are not
counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but
believes on Him who
justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for
righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of
the man to whom God imputes
righteousness apart from works"
James 2:20,21
"But do
you want to know, O foolish man, tha
faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father
justified by
works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?"
James 2:24
"You
see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith
only."
And regarding the law, while Paul says in Gal 3:10
"All who rely on observing the law are
under a curse, for it is written:
'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything
written in
the Book of the Law.'" and being under the law he
refers to as bondage. yet James again contradicts Paul by
saying, "speak and so do as those who will
be judged by the law of liberty." James 2:12.
And yes he is talking about the law of Moses as he quotes Deut
and Exodus referencing the Law of Moses.
It appears on all
these points that James is writing to intentionally oppose
Paul.
Gloss Readings
of James
Typically Catholics interpret Paul in light of James. James is
the
underpinning of the soteriology of Catholic and anti-OSAS
non-Catholic
Christians who view salvation as contingent not upon faith apart
from
works, but upon FAITH + WORKS.
In fact James was included in the Bible because of Catholicism,
though
rejected as scripture by the earlier Christians. It was included
as the
foundation of their soteriology. Go and argue Paul's points
concerning
the gospel and the Catholic will typically defend Catholicism
with the
book of James. It's the leaven of the Bible.
Though Martin Luther is credited as the forefather the
Reformation, ye
his views concerning James have largely been ignored. Yet he
makes valid points. Consequently non-Catholic Christians misread
James in such a
way to make him agree with Paul.
To elaborate see my page on A View of
Church History to view the particulars of gloss readings
of James.
Other
Evidence from the Epistle of James
Is the Curse of
the Law Freedom?
James 2:10-13 "For whoever shall keep the
whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.
For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not
murder." Now if you
do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a
transgressor of the law. So speak and so do as those who
will be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment
is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy
triumphs over judgment."
James advocates the idea that we will be judged by the law, and
tha
such law brings freedom (that is, if you follow it perfectly) In
contrast Paul views the law as a curse. "For
as
many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for
it is
written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all
things which
are written in the book of the law, to do them." But that
no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is
evident, for "the just shall live by faith." Ye the law is not
of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by
them." Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law." Gal
3:10-13
According to James justification is by works, and yes, the works
of the law, and that in opposition to Paul.
James' Hypocrisy
and Prejudice
James 2:1 "My brethren, do not hold the faith of our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality."
He goes on to speak of not treating the rich with partiality
over the
poor. But if you were to replace "rich" with "Jew" and
"poor" with Gentile, James is guilty of that very thing.
But let's consider even in his epistle, does James treat the
rich impartially? No.
"Come
now, you rich, weep and howl for your
miseries that are coming upon you! Your riches are corrupted,
and your
garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver are corroded, and
their
corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh
like
fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days. Indeed the
wages of
the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by
fraud, cry
out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the
Lord of
Sabaoth. You have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you
have
fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter. You have
condemned, you
have murdered the just; he does not resist you." James 5:1-6
He categorically condemns the rich. While he commands "Do not grumble against one another, brethren,
lest you be condemned." James 5:9, yet he
grumbles against the rich. In James 4:12 he asks
rhetorically "Who are you to judge
another?" Well who are you James to judge another? Who
do you think you are? He says, "Do not
speak evil of one another" James
4:11 Yet he speaks evil of the rich.
James is partial to the poor, and how conveniently being one of
them.
And this is how James responds to the generosity shown him by
rich
Gentile Christians whom he would never have welcomed into his
church
without them first getting circumcised (see Gal 2:3) who had sen
donations to the poor saints in Jerusalem.
Where do you suppose Cornelius - a Gentile convert who was
generous to
the Jews - went to church? Certainly not in James' church. He
would have never been welcomed there despite being converted by
Peter himself.
James shows himself partial, ungrateful, proud and demeaning
towards
Gentile Christians, of whom he imposes his own personal cherry
picked
regulations upon while washing his hands of them with regards to
ministry. (See Gal 2 an Acts 15)
The Most
Important Thing
What is the most important thing to James? "Bu
above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by
earth or
with any other oath. But let your "Yes," be "Yes," and your
"No," "No," lest you fall into judgment." James
5:12 The most important thing to James is to not swear an
oath. Compare that with Paul. Col 3:14 But above all these things put on love, which
is the bond of perfection.
James obsesses about the external - words, works. But Paul
emphasizes attitude. James obsesses over condemnation and
judgement. "Do not grumble against one
another, brethren, lest you be condemned." James 5:9
While Paul emphasizes attitude, grace, hope, love, one's
security in Christ.
The
Spirit and the Body
James' backwards theology is further illustrated in his saying, "For as the body without the spirit is dead,
so faith without works is dead also." James 2:26
Here James associates the body with one's faith, and the spirit
with
one's works. That's backwards. A person's faith is internal.
One's
works, like one's body is an expression of that which is
internal. And
faith should be associated with one's spirit in this analogy,
and works
with one's body. And seeing as the spiritual man is alive even
though
his body may be dead, yes you can say that a man is justified by
faith
apart from works, just as Paul declared Abraham justified (alive
to God) in Gen 15:6, whereas James considered him dead until Gen
22. Paul says, "if Christ is in you, the
body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of
righteousness." Rom 8:10 The body is dead in
that one's works (the body) are not taken into
account with regards to one's justification, unlike the gospel
of James. So while James could have said "For as the body
without the spirit is dead, so works without faith is dead"
or "For as the spirit can be alive apart from the body (2Cor
5:6), so also one's faith may be a living faith without works",
but he couldn't say what he did say.
|
Paul
|
James
|
Body
|
Works
|
Faith
|
Spirit
|
Faith
|
Works
|
The
Neo-Circumcision's Misinterpretation of Scripture
To get around Paul's
opposition, the Neo-Circumcision interpret Paul not in light of
Paul, but in light of James and in light of their own particular
Neo-Circumcision Soteriology.
Roman 2:6,7 God will give to
each person according to what he has done. To those who by
persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality,
he will give eternal life.
Taken out of context the Neo-Circumcision typically use these
verses to claim that Paul's gospel is salvation by works. What
they fail to point out or notice for themselves that in the
first two and half chapters of Romans Paul was showing the
futility of trying to be justified by works, concluding Romans
3:20 and then Rom 3:21 with the biggest "but" in the Bible,
contrasting justification by works with justification by faith.
Romans 3:
20 Therefore no one will be
declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather,
through the law we become conscious of sin.
21 But now a
righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known,
to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
22 This righteousness
from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who
believe. There is no difference,
23 for all have sinned
and fall short of the glory of God,
24 and are
justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came
by Christ Jesus.
As for the Neo-Circumcision, "I bear them
witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to
knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and
seeking to establish their own righteousness,
have not submitted to the righteousness of God. For Christ is
the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who
believes." Rom 10:2-4
And so they read their own way of righteousness into Paul's
writings. They read into Scripture rather than reading out of
it.
1Cor 6:9,10; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5; Rev 21:8 These verses
speak of categories of people who go to hell. Because the verses
make a correlation between a person's behavior and their
salvation status, the Neo-Circumcision jump to the conclusion
that salvation is by works, rather than the idea that those who
have been saved don't subsequently behave characteristically in
those manners. Note 1John 3:9 "No
one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s
seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has
been born of God." Thus, contrary to the
Neo-Circumcision, righteous behavior is an effect rather than a
cause of one's justification.
Rom 4:4-6 "Now when a man works,
his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an
obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts
God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as
righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the
blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart
from works"
In my debates with Neo-Circumcision types I've heard two
arguments to get around what Paul says here. One is to claim
that by "works" Paul is only referring to the ceremonial
regulations in the Law of Moses, not the 10 commandments or
other moral laws in the Law of Moses. What they fail to deal
with is that first of all note how he's characterizing "work" in
these verses. He's not even speaking of particular regulations
versus other regulations. He's speaking of the concept of
working to earn salvation versus that of obtaining salvation
(righteousness, forgiveness of sins) apart from one's efforts.
And also they fail to deal with the fact that all the way up to
this point in Romans Paul was not dealing simply with the
futility of the ceremonial laws to justify, but rather the fact
that people fall short of the glory of God in all their
behavior, characteristically.
Secondly are those who claim that Paul's gospel includes a
distinction between what they refer to as "INITIAL SALVATION"
versus "FINAL SALVATION". And that here, yes salvation is by
faith alone, but only initial salvation. The moment one is
initially saved, from then on it's by works that one maintains
their salvation status. It's a fantasy, but people fall for it.
First is the ignoring of what Paul already established in Romans
and which he repeats and emphasizes throughout his writings,
that justification by works is futile and not part of his
gospel. But also is the fact their "initial salvation" has no
relevance. If salvation from hell, that is, justification, the
forgiveness of sins, is not determined until after one dies,
then one cannot use the rhetoric the Scriptures use of
believers, "it is by grace you have
been saved, through faith— and this not from yourselves,
it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can
boast." Eph 2:8,9, speaking of salvation as
already having occurred, if in fact the end is indeterminate.
Likewise Jesus said, "I tell you the
truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has
eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over
from death to life." John 5:24
But the Neo-Circumcision take away the joy and hopeful
anticipation of this certainty by their salvation by works
doctrine, just as the Circumcision did to the Galatians, "What has happened to all your joy?" Gal
4:15 For the Neo-Circumcision can only say, "You might
be saved in the end if you behave well enough." And that's
the curse of the law, "All who rely on
observing the law are under a curse, for it is written:
"Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything
written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is
justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will
live by faith."The law is not based on faith; on the contrary,
"The man who does these things will live by them." Gal
3:10-12 They simply replace the law of Moses with their
law, just as James, their forefather, did.
And as I dealt with the various verses above, pretty much every
other verse the Neo-Circumcision reads their theology into, can
be dealt with using the arguments given above.