| |
|
|
The Circumcision Argument (p. 14)
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision MADE WITHOUT HANDS, in
putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: BURIED WITH him in baptism,
wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the OPERATION OF GOD, who hath raised him from the
dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he QUICKENED together WITH
him, having FORGIVEN you all trespasses; -- Col. 2:10-13
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and CIRCUMCISION is that OF THE HEART, in
the SPIRIT, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. -- Rom.
2:29
And he received the SIGN of circumcision, 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 . . . -- Rom. 4:11
And the LORD thy God will CIRCUMCISE thine HEART, and the heart of thy seed, to
love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. --
Deut. 30:6
CIRCUMCISE yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your HEART . .
. -- Jer. 4:4
Most of O'Neal's booklet is an denial of his Baptist Protagonists' doctrines. He
does very little establishing of his own position. (You see, the more you write and expose yourself, the easier
it is to get caught.) Still, Brother O'Neal advances the "Testator" argument and the "circumcision" argument,
both of which we have saved to address last.
There are no "mystical" circumcisions in the Old or New Testaments. Yet, the
spiritual application of circumcision is discussed there. Physical circumcision was a token and a sign and a
seal; it was never designed to save anyone. That spiritual circumcision of the heart happens, when a person is
quickened or made spiritually alive (O.T. or N.T.) Then one becomes, inwardly, a Jew IN THE SPIRIT!
O'Neal does a little better than the Presbyterians, who are not able to get their
women into their covenant argument ("O.T. circumcision has become N.T. baptism or sprinkling"). Mike makes the
"operation of God," the "circumcision made without hands," to be the "Holy Spirit baptism made without
hands." Now to do this, according to Mike's thinking, the believer must be risen with him (Christ)
through faith in the operation of God that is an invisible, Holy Spirit baptism.
Now, since we have no faith in O'Neal's operation of God, in which the Holy
Spirit invisibly baptizes individuals into Christ, we cannot be risen with Him, according to Brother Mike. Now,
we do have faith in the operation of God, which puts off the sins of the flesh, which raised Christ from the
dead, which has quickened us and forgiven us. O'Neal, unfortunately, won't accept this as the operation of God
in view.
The problem, here, is that invisible churchers fail to discern the imagery that
is being explained in either Testament. The spiritual application of physical circumcision (a TOKEN (Gen. 17:2)
and a SIGN (Jer. 4:4) and a SEAL (Rom 4:11) is explained in Colossians. You cannot separate the physical figure
from its spiritual application in either Testament. The putting off of one's sins of the flesh is an "operation
of God, made without hands." The operation of God is a spiritual operation and not a "mystical" operation. It's
spiritual application is washing away our sins in water baptism (also a token and a sign and a seal) and is
also explained in Col. 2:10-13. You cannot separate the symbol from its spiritual application. Note that we are
not baptized into Him (Christ) here, we are baptized "WITH" Him. We are also risen "WITH" Christ. The
quickening WITH CHRIST is also an operation of God, made without hands. It is a spiritual operation but not a
mystical operation.
The Testator Argument (p. 8)
And for this cause he is the MEDIATOR of the NEW Testament, that by means of
death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were UNDER THE "FIRST" TESTAMENT, they which are called
might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the
death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all
while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses
had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with
water . . . and sprinkled both the book, and all the people . . . -- Heb. 9:15-19
Brother O'Neal refers to Heb. 9:16,17 to prove that the New Testament was not in
force until Jesus died. In order to prove the N.T. was "not in force" during the four gospels (p. 8), he
emphasizes the phrase "there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force
after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator (Christ) liveth."
It really sounds pretty good, until you closely examine the part about the
testator's death being for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the FIRST TESTAMENT!!! He was a
"Testator" for those under the "FIRST TESTAMENT" (Old Testament). Christ is the living "MEDIATOR" of the New
Testament! You don't mediate anything by dying. You testate by dying! The LIVING Christ is still the mediator
of the New Testament. O'Neal makes a number one interpretive blunder and dispensational BOO-BOO of his
own.
|
Last updated:
|
|
|
