I am familar with the midActs

[Manuel San Fernando]

I am familiar with the midActs, I know of it have read things. Am I wrong, it says no works have a part in the saving anyone for salvation today and says baptized in water is a work. So is tithing if required by a church. And other things like keeping confessed all sins to God.

If that is true then few today are saved, actually because most Christians everywhere are always told to do something helping Jesus to save you and keep you. Midacts is the only people I ever hear saying this, which Paul did say.

 

[Clete]

I am familiar with the midActs, I know of it have read things. Am I wrong, it says no works have a part in the saving anyone for salvation today and says baptized in water is a work. So is tithing if required by a church. And other things like keeping confessed all sins to God.

If that is true then few today are saved, actually because most Christians everywhere are always told to do something helping Jesus to save you and keep you. Midacts is the only people I ever hear saying this, which Paul did say.

Yes, you are wrong but not in the way implied by the way you asked the question. It's clear that your exposure to Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is somewhat superficial. You've come to the right place to fix that!

It would be basically impossible for Paul to have stated it any more bluntly....

Romans 3:28 (NKJV) – “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.”​

​

Romans 10:4 (NKJV) – “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”​

​

Titus 3:5 (NKJV) – “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.”​

​

Ephesians 2:8-9 (NKJV) – “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”​

​

Romans 4:5 (NKJV) – “But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.”​

It is true that most Mid-Acts folks do not practice baptisms and they certainly do not tithe but none of them - NONE - teach that such practices will prevent you from being saved. That would just be replacing the law with another law.

As for "keeping confessed all sins to God", no, Mid-Acts people do not teach that either, but again, we do not teach that doing it is going to keep you from being saved. What we teach is that you're cutting your Christian walk off at the knees by holding on to a mindset that implies that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. There are three main points here....

1. Jesus’ Death Fully Paid for Sin: Christ's death was a once-for-all sacrifice that completely dealt with sin (Romans 6:10, Colossians 2:13-14). If one must keep confessing sins to stay forgiven, it implies that Christ’s work was not sufficient.​

​

2. Believers Are Already Forgiven: Paul never commands believers to continually confess sins for forgiveness. Instead, he teaches that all sins past, present, and future have already been forgiven through Christ’s work (Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 2:13). Mid-Acts Dispensationalists argue that confession for forgiveness keeps a person focused on the flesh rather than on Christ and their identity in Him.​

​

3. Resurrection Life, Not Perpetual Guilt: Christ’s resurrection means believers are now identified with Him in His risen life (Romans 6:4-5, Galatians 2:20). If one believes they must keep confessing sins (or perform rituals or pay tithes or whatever) to remain in good standing with God, it suggests they are still operating under the mindset of needing continual atonement, as if Christ did not rise and provide complete victory over sin.​

John declares, in 1 John 1:9 that, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins”. John's audience, however, is believing Israel, not the Body of Christ. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, never teaches ongoing confession for forgiveness but instead speaks of walking in grace and reckoning oneself dead to sin (Romans 6:11). If we are identified in Christ, meaning that we have been crucified with Christ (Galatians 2:20) then the law has nothing more to say to us. The most the law can do is to kill you and then you are no longer under the law. However, we have not merely died in Christ, we have also been raised with Him to new life. We are a new creature, in Him! It is no longer we who live but Christ lives His life through us - by faith!

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”​

What then do we do when we sin? Well, Paul directly addresses that exact thing...

Romans 7:20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.​

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!​

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.​

So, in short, Mid-Acts dispensationalism teaches that we ought not resurrect our flesh by doing this or that ritual nor should we focus on the fleshly sin that dwells within us by constantly confessing to God that which He already knows and has already dealt with, but rather we are to learn to reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive to God and to rest in the finished work of Christ. This is the only path to good spiritual fruit as Paul goes on from Galatians 2 to say in Galatians 3...

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?​

​

The answer there is, of course, NO! You cannot be made perfect by the flesh and so stop trying! Instead, as Paul says to the Colossians...

​

Colossians 2:6 As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him.​

 

[Clete]

Well, Manuel seems to have not stuck around. I was hoping the the above would prompt at least a question or two but it didn't and so I thought I'd just take the next logical step myself, ask the question that my post above should have prompted and then answer it. Perhaps Manuel will come back and see this and we can take up the discussion at that time....

The question that I was hoping Manuel would ask me....

"Why do you say that John's audience is believing Israel and not the Body of Christ? John was a Christian and he wrote to Christians, didn't he?"​

My response...

What an amazingly brilliant question to ask! It's almost like you're reading my mind!

Yes, John was a Christian and yes, he was writing to Christians but that's not the whole story. At the time there were two separate groups of believers. Both are rightly called "Christian" because they're followers of Christ but they are still distinct groups. One group was made up of believing Jews who were still Jews and were still under the law. Paul refers to these believers as "the Circumcision". The other group were all of those who came to believe after Israel's program was cut off and believed Paul's gospel of grace, regardless of whether they were Jews or not. These are referred to as "The Body of Christ".

The two groups are clearly seen in Galatians chapter 2 when Paul is sent, by revelation to Israel in order to communicate to the leaders in Jerusalem, the gospel which he had received, again by revelation, from the risen Christ. At this meeting, the Twelve understood Paul's gospel, endorsed it and agreed with Paul that they would remain in Israel and minister to the Circumcision while Paul would go to the uncircumcised.

Galatians 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.​

Once this is seen, it is easy to notice it throughout the New Testament, including I John...

In I John 2:2, John says, "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." The distinction implies a primary audience with a Jewish identity, which is reinforced by the legalistic tone of the book which is encapsulated in the following two sentences...

I John 2:3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.​

​

This message is in keeping with James, who was also present at that Jerusalem council...

James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?​

And John's audience can be even more clearly seen right off the bat in II John...

II John 1:1 The Elder,​

​

To the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all those who have known the truth, 2 because of the truth which abides in us and will be with us forever:​

3 Grace, mercy, and peace will be with you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.​

4 I rejoiced greatly that I have found some of your children walking in truth, as we received commandment from the Father. 5 And now I plead with you, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment to you, but that which we have had from the beginning: that we love one another. 6 This is love, that we walk according to His commandments.​

​

So, two groups of books in the New Testament written to two groups of believers. Peter, James and John ministering through writing, as they agreed to do, to their fellow Jewish followers of Christ who remained under the covenant of Law (Romans 11:29), while Paul wrote to those who came to Christ under Paul's gospel of grace. The line of demarcation being when God cut off of Israel and turned to the Gentiles which happened at the stoning of Stephen in Acts 9 - thus the term "Mid-Acts Dispensationalism".

 

[Derf]

The question that I was hoping Manuel would ask me....

"Why do you say that John's audience is believing Israel and not the Body of Christ? John was a Christian and he wrote to Christians, didn't he?"
My response...

What an amazingly brilliant question to ask! It's almost like you're reading my mind!

 

[Derf]

Well, Manuel seems to have not stuck around. I was hoping the the above would prompt at least a question or two but it didn't and so I thought I'd just take the next logical step myself, ask the question that my post above should have prompted and then answer it. Perhaps Manuel will come back and see this and we can take up the discussion at that time....

The question that I was hoping Manuel would ask me....

"Why do you say that John's audience is believing Israel and not the Body of Christ? John was a Christian and he wrote to Christians, didn't he?"​

My response...

What an amazingly brilliant question to ask! It's almost like you're reading my mind!

Yes, John was a Christian and yes, he was writing to Christians but that's not the whole story. At the time there were two separate groups of believers. Both are rightly called "Christian" because they're followers of Christ but they are still distinct groups. One group was made up of believing Jews who were still Jews and were still under the law. Paul refers to these believers as "the Circumcision". The other group were all of those who came to believe after Israel's program was cut off and believed Paul's gospel of grace, regardless of whether they were Jews or not. These are referred to as "The Body of Christ".

The two groups are clearly seen

Two groups might be clearly seen, but they aren't "the Body of Christ" and "the Circumcision". They are those who once thought works would save them and those who were assured works can't save them. As the first comes to the correct understanding, they begin to acknowledge that the second is just as saved as they and without the works they were clinging to, showing that the works weren't bringing the salvific force.

in Galatians chapter 2 when Paul is sent, by revelation to Israel in order to communicate to the leaders in Jerusalem, the gospel which he had received, again by revelation, from the risen Christ. At this meeting, the Twelve understood Paul's gospel, endorsed it and agreed with Paul that they would remain in Israel and minister to the Circumcision while Paul would go to the uncircumcised.

Galatians 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.​

That "we" should go with what message? One that was antithetical to the others'? No, the message was still the gospel. But the understanding of what the gospel entailed, even for the "pillars", was becoming less murky through Paul's ministry, which was to Jews (circumcised) and Gentiles.

Once this is seen, it is easy to notice it throughout the New Testament, including I John...

In I John 2:2, John says, "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." The distinction implies a primary audience with a Jewish identity, which is reinforced by the legalistic tone of the book which is encapsulated in the following two sentences...

Except that "not for ours only but also for the whole world" tells us that the way of salvation John is speaking of is the same one the Gentiles can rely on for salvation, not that there is a different way of salvation for the two groups.

I John 2:3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.​

​

This message is in keeping with James, who was also present at that Jerusalem council...

James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?​

And John's audience can be even more clearly seen right off the bat in II John...

II John 1:1 The Elder,​

​

To the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all those who have known the truth, 2 because of the truth which abides in us and will be with us forever:​

3 Grace, mercy, and peace will be with you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.​

4 I rejoiced greatly that I have found some of your children walking in truth, as we received commandment from the Father. 5 And now I plead with you, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment to you, but that which we have had from the beginning: that we love one another. 6 This is love, that we walk according to His commandments.​

"Walk" implies what happens AFTER justification, not to bring about justification. As Paul said regularly:
[Rom 6:4 KJV] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
[Rom 8:4 KJV] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
[1Co 7:17 KJV] But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
[Gal 5:16 KJV] [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
[Eph 5:2 KJV] And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

​

So, two groups of books in the New Testament written to two groups of believers.

Believers in what? If the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, then shouldn't they both be saved by the same gospel instead of antithetical gospels (1 where no works are required and 2 where works are required)? It can't be merely believing in Jesus, as the demons also believe and tremble. But if the DBR of Christ is effective for salvation, surely it is effective for salvation for all who believe it.

Peter, James and John ministering through writing, as they agreed to do, to their fellow Jewish followers of Christ who remained under the covenant of Law (Romans 11:29), while Paul wrote to those who came to Christ under Paul's gospel of grace. The line of demarcation being when God cut off of Israel and turned to the Gentiles which happened at the stoning of Stephen in Acts 9 - thus the term "Mid-Acts Dispensationalism".

Peter, James, and John also were still seeking to convert Jews to "the way", were they not? From the circumcision to...what, exactly? Were they not all becoming "brethren"? How, if they were of two different ways of salvation?
[Act 15:23 NKJV] They wrote this [letter] by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings.

From "brethren" to "brethren".

 

[Clete]

Most of this can be responded to with...

Saying it doesn't make it so!

I mean, my position is what Galatians 2 explicitly states and you just ignore it as though it doesn't exist and just state your own doctrine as though the fact that it's different than mine somehow counts as a rebuttal argument. It doesn't, Derf! That isn't how arguments work.

Having said that, however, I will respond point for point....

Two groups might be clearly seen, but they aren't "the Body of Christ" and "the Circumcision".

The explicit language used in Galatians is "the Circumcision" and the "Uncircumcised", which was just a way of saying "Jews" and "gentiles".

They are those who once thought works would save them and those who were assured works can't save them.

There is no "thought" about it! Works were 100% required as James believed and explicitly states in his epistle, which he addressed specifically "To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" (James 1:1)...

James 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.​

As the first comes to the correct understanding, they begin to acknowledge that the second is just as saved as they and without the works they were clinging to, showing that the works weren't bringing the salvific force.

That "we" should go with what message? One that was antithetical to the others'? No, the message was still the gospel. But the understanding of what the gospel entailed, even for the "pillars", was becoming less murky through Paul's ministry, which was to Jews (circumcised) and Gentiles.

This directly contradicts scripture and is not just false, it's heresy!

Jesus was such an ineffective teacher that not a single one of His apostles understood the gospel until Paul came around to explain it to them. Utterly ridiculous nonsense!

Except that "not for ours only but also for the whole world" tells us that the way of salvation John is speaking of is the same one the Gentiles can rely on for salvation, not that there is a different way of salvation for the two groups.

The idea at the time was for John's gospel to go out to the entire world! It wasn't until Israel was cut off and their prophesied program was put into abeyance that God turned instead to the Gentiles through Paul with a modified (i.e. not a COMPLETELY different) gospel where works no longer plays a part in salvation.

"Walk" implies what happens AFTER justification, not to bring about justification. As Paul said regularly:
[Rom 6:4 KJV] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
[Rom 8:4 KJV] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
[1Co 7:17 KJV] But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
[Gal 5:16 KJV] [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
[Eph 5:2 KJV] And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

And ONLY PAUL!!!

James teaches the opposite!

James 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.​

Believers in what? If the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, then shouldn't they both be saved by the same gospel instead of antithetical gospels (1 where no works are required and 2 where works are required)? It can't be merely believing in Jesus, as the demons also believe and tremble. But if the DBR of Christ is effective for salvation, surely it is effective for salvation for all who believe it.

If it weren't for Paul no one would think that belief in the death, burial and resurrection was the gospel, Derf! Jesus didn't preach that, Peter, James and John didn't preach that. No one preached that other than Paul!

Peter, James, and John also were still seeking to convert Jews to "the way", were they not?

No.

That is, it depends on just when you mean. Once they agreed with Paul to remain in Jerusalem then their roll switched from being evangelical to ministerial.

From the circumcision to...what, exactly?

To non-circumcision!

Galatians 5:2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.​

​

Show me the parallel teaching in any passage written by a soul other than Paul, Derf! It doesn't exist!

Were they not all becoming "brethren"? How, if they were of two different ways of salvation?
[Act 15:23 NKJV] They wrote this [letter] by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings.

From "brethren" to "brethren".

Everyone in the household of faith are brethren! Just because they came to Christ through a different gospel doesn't mean they didn't come to Christ. While we are not Jews per se, we are in Him and He is a Jew! We are all sons of Abraham! Indeed, this is what the entire fourth chapter of Romans is specifically about....

Romans 4:9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.​

​

13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.​

​

16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all...​

​

And thus are were this post started! Abraham is the father of two groups! The circumcision who are "justified by work and not by faith only" and the uncircumcision who are justified by faith alone, apart from works.

 

[Right Divider]

@Clete I've been trying to teach Derf these things for years. He is impervious to Bible facts and straightforward logical reasoning. He's on my ignore list.

 

[Derf]

Most of this can be responded to with...

Saying it doesn't make it so!

Fortunately we both realize that is not much of an answer, so thanks for continuing.

I mean, my position is what Galatians 2 explicitly states and you just ignore it as though it doesn't exist and just state your own doctrine as though the fact that it's different than mine somehow counts as a rebuttal argument. It doesn't, Derf! That isn't how arguments work.

Part of a good argument is how well it comport with the whole of scripture. Let's see how we do.

Having said that, however, I will respond point for point....


The explicit language used in Galatians is "the Circumcision" and the "Uncircumcised", which was just a way of saying "Jews" and "gentiles".

Thanks for that clarification. We will use that distinction more.

There is no "thought" about it! Works were 100% required as James believed and explicitly states in his epistle, which he addressed specifically "To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" (James 1:1)...

James 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.​

"You see then," is a phrase that means, "the preceding shows". The preceding is about Abraham, and what he did to be saved, right? So was Abraham not saved prior to almost sacrificing Isaac?

This directly contradicts scripture and is not just false, it's heresy!

Jesus was such an ineffective teacher that not a single one of His apostles understood the gospel until Paul came around to explain it to them. Utterly ridiculous nonsense!

Jess was so ineffective in His teaching that even though He told the 12 that He would be killed and rise again in 3 days, they didn't understand it until it happened.

The idea at the time was for John's gospel to go out to the entire world! It wasn't until Israel was cut off and their prophesied program was put into abeyance that God turned instead to the Gentiles through Paul with a modified (i.e. not a COMPLETELY different) gospel where works no longer plays a part in salvation.


And ONLY PAUL!!!

James teaches the opposite!

James 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.​

If it weren't for Paul no one would think that belief in the death, burial and resurrection was the gospel, Derf!

Saying it doesn't make it so. You have absolutely no idea what would have happened without Paul, especially as a open theist.

Jesus didn't preach that, Peter, James and John didn't preach that. No one preached that other than Paul!

Jesus tried, but they wouldn't listen.

No.

That is, it depends on just when you mean. Once they agreed with Paul to remain in Jerusalem then their roll switched from being evangelical to ministerial.

They didn't agree to remain in Jerusalem, unless you are incorrect about what "circumcision" and "the uncircumcised" mean, above. If Jewish vs Gentile, then the 12 were under obligation to spread their message beyond Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria to the uttermost parts of the earth, where Jews were.

To non-circumcision!

Galatians 5:2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.​

​

Show me the parallel teaching in any passage written by a soul other than Paul, Derf! It doesn't exist!

Because Paul was the one who dealt with Gentiles. It has no meaning to Jews.

Everyone in the household of faith are brethren! Just because they came to Christ through a different gospel doesn't mean they didn't come to Christ.

Is "coming to Christ" part of both gospels? And isn't Christ's death burial and resurrection part of Peter's sermons in early Acts?

While we are not Jews per se, we are in Him and He is a Jew! We are all sons of Abraham! Indeed, this is what the entire fourth chapter of Romans is specifically about....

Romans 4:9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe,​

Believe what? What is the gospel that ALL are supposed to believe?

though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.​

So then you agree that ALL must walk in the steps of the faith Abraham walked in?

​

13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.​

Applicable to ALL...

14 For if those who are of the law are heirs,​

The circumcised

faith is made void and the promise made of no effect,​

The promise of Abraham is made void if they are heirs by the law...

15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.​

​

16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all​

ALL..

the seed, not only to those who are of the law,​

The circumcised...

but also to those who are of the faith​

The uncircumcised...

of Abraham, who is the father of us all..​

ALL

​

And thus are were this post started! Abraham is the father of two groups! The circumcision who are "justified by work and not by faith only"

Or, as has been pointed out before, they are justified by faith that brings forth works, which applies to all.

and the uncircumcision who are justified by faith alone, apart from works.

But that brings forth works!

This was written quickly. I might look through it again later, but not necessarily soon.