Yep. Right there in black and white; plain as day.
Great idea. Here it is again for your edification:
You're no different than someone who isn't circumcised. You might as well be a degenerate uncircumcised pagan if you're not going to keep the law.
True, except for the fact that the law of circumcision is one of the commandments.
The circumcision of Christ is what allows or enables one to keep God's commandments, including the commandment of circumcision.
Christ is the groom, and the church is his body. By your logic, why seek another spouse when you're already married to Christ? We have one father in heaven, why honor your biological father? Christ is our fortress, why bother building a home to live in when we have Christ? Are you familiar with the laws that command one to build a house that is safe to inhabit? By your logic, those are done away in Christ because "in him we live and move and have our being". Do you live in a house? If so, then by your logic, it can only be for the praise of men.
Strawman argument. Look at the argument again. Paul is addressing those who believe one is justified by the works of the law, in this case circumcision. His response is the same regardless of what law is in view. Look at what he says: "13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." The law says to perform circumcision.
They are boasting in their adherence to the law when they don't keep it themselves. "23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?"
Yep! There is no point in boasting of keeping the law when one is breaking it.
Yep, and the righteousness of the law is in those how carry it out, as he says, "the doers of the law shall be justified"
Yep. Quite true! Notice that he distinguishes between those who keep God's laws and those who don't. Which are the righteous?
Of course. I agree completely, but this doesn't mean the law is then left unfulfilled. Again, 'the doers of the law are justified'.
This doesn't negate Paul's point. Paul's point stands on its own. He's pointing out that those who keep the law benefit from keeping the law, including the law to circumcise. Why else would Paul take Timothy to be circumcised???
Being circumcised or circumcising your son doesn't establish one's own righteousness. Strawman argument.
No. That is your assumption. That only applies to those who are actually seeking to establish their righteousness by keeping the law. Those who are born again, do not seek their own righteousness by keeping the law. Their righteousness is established in, with, and through Christ, therefore they keep the law because of the righteousness of Christ. There is no sin in Christ. You're conflating keeping the law to establish one's own righteousness with those who fulfill the law because they are established by faith in Christ. One can keep the law without love, but one cannot love without keeping the law. Learn the difference, and you should see what Paul is actually saying.
Sure, but it doesn't stop with circumcision. There is no giving or taking in marriage in the kingdom either, but you don't see Christians refraining from marrying, do you? If Paul was being told that members of his church needed to marry to establish their righteousness, he would have argued the same way by pointing out that no one who marries is justified. Marrying does not establish one's righteousness. Would you then conclude that Christians are not to marry anymore? Would you then conclude that he is condoning fornication? Of course not. It's a non sequitur.
Notice that he also points out that anyone who is circumcised is bound to keep the whole law, and those who don't are lost because they are doing it to establish their righteousness. There are plenty of people today that were circumcised just after they were born because it was a standard procedure in hospitals years ago. They're obviously bound by the law, right? It doesn't matter what they believe, or why they were circumcised because if we pluck Paul's writings out of context like you're doing, they're all damned.
What God has joined together in the heart is of the Spirit, therefore there is no need to mingle the letter and actually follow through with a marriage ceremony. This is only for the praise of men, right?
This is your assertion, and it is baseless. Paul took Timothy, and had him circumcised.
Read it again. He's explicitly referring to the sacrificial system which was explicitly instituted to deal with those who VIOLATE the law. He lays down his life as a sacrifice for sin, not for those who keep God's commandments. There is all the difference in the world here. You're conflating the commandments that God gave for a holy, sanctified people, and the "law that was added because of transgressions",i.e. the sacrificial system. The sacrificial system points to Christ's sacrifice. The commandment of marriage points to the marriage between Christ and his bride, the church. See the difference?
Why add a marriage ceremony between a man and a woman when this will add the praise of men to the praise of God? Do you covet the things of God or the things of men? Do you have possessions that can be coveted by men, or by God?
Can you say, "double standard"?