IS THERE A CONTRADICTION REGARDING CIRCUMCISION BETWEEN ACTS 16:3 and 1 CORINTHIANS 7:18?

 Why did Paul circumcise Timothy if an uncircumcised should not be circumcised? Why did he not circumcise Titus?

Let's take a look at the contradicting ideas between Acts 16:3 and 1 Corinthians 7:18?

Acts16:1-4: Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek. And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.

1 Corinthians 7:18" Is any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

Paul wanted to take Timothy with him on his missionary journey. He circumcised him because his mother was a Jew which means he should have been circumcised on the 8th day after his birth. Why did Paul circumcise him before taking him with him? Because as you know it was Paul habit to enter into Jewish places of worship first on entering into a new city and Timothy would be able to enter into those places of Jewish worship being a circumcised Jew. 

Note what Paul says about circumcision: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God [is everything].

Notice also what happened when Paul went up to Jerusalem with a Gentile believer....

Galatians 2:1-5: Then, after fourteen years again I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, having taken with me also Titus; and I went up by revelation, and did submit to them the good news that I preach among the nations, and privately to those esteemed, lest in vain I might run or did run; but not even Titus, who is with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, and that because of the false brethren brought in unawares, who came in secretivly to spy out our liberty that we have in the Messiah Jesus, that us they might bring under bondage, to whom not even for an hour we gave place by subjection, that the truth of the good news might remain to you.

So Paul did not circumcise Titus who was a Gentile. He explains why he did not do so in spite of the pressure from false brethren who insisted that Gentiles had to be circumcised in order to be saved. Paul says he didn't give place to such subjection required by these false brethren.

Timothy was circumcised in order that he could enter into a Jewish place of worship as a Jew and be a witness to the message of the lord Jesus to those Jews present. He did did not submit to circumcision in order to be saved but to be a witness for the good news of the kingdom.