Romans 2:26 : therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? Paul had just stated the doctrine that circumcision was of no value to the per-son who did not live right. But what of the Gentile who lived in harmony with the moral requirements of the law, though he had not been circumcised? In not being circumcised the Gentile violated no law, for the law did not require the Gentile to be circumcised. Hence, the Gentile could neglect circumcision without sin; and if he lived a moral upright life, he would be considered as if he had been circumcised. But Paul's reasoning on this point does not warrant any one to neglect anything God has commanded him to do. It is singular that, in their anxiety to get rid of the necessity of baptism, some have argued that Paul's reasoning on circumcision could be applied to baptism. They ask: "If an unbaptized person lives right, shall he not be considered as if he had been baptized?" But their effort at running that sort of parallel fails. Gentiles had not been commanded to be circumcised, and therefore violated no law, committed no sin, in not being circumcised; whereas gospel obedience, including baptism, is required of all people. And here is another point their theory fails to consider. Every one to whom the command to be circumcised extended had to be circumcised or be cut off from his people; he had broken the covenant, and was no longer considered one of God's people. If, therefore, these theologians could establish a parallel between circumcision and baptism, they would thereby prove that everyone to whom the command to be baptized extended would have to be baptized or be cut off. But Paul does not affirm that any Gentile had so kept the ordinances of the law as to be sinless. In fact, his purpose was to make all men see themselves as condemned sinners and to cause them to realize their need of salvation through Christ.