How Romans 11 debunks OSAS

[Andre]

Jesus said no one could keep the Law.

I doubt that Jesus ever said anything like this.

Remember - the term "the Law" denotes the Law of Moses, not some general moral code.

He showed this with examples: anyone who calls his brother "fool" is a murderer; anyone who lusts after a woman has committed adultery. There is no one on earth who has never called anyone an idiot or fool and I am not a man, but I find it hard to believe that no man has never had lust for a woman not his wife.

I doubt you will be able to make a case that Jesus is actually explicating the Law of Moses. I suggest that He is instead, transcending it in these teachings. Remember the form of his teaching "it is written this, but I tell you that...."

Besides, Paul certainly claimed that He kept the Law of Moses:

...as to the (B)righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless

 

[Andre]

In Romans 7 Paul describes his battle with sin. He quotes from the Law (the Ten Commandments as we see in Rom 7) and he says that in his mind he fully agrees with it.

True, but this does not require us to conclude that Paul thinks the Law of Moses still applies in the form of a written code that functions to regulate behaviour. At several points in other letters (Colossians, Galatians 3, Ephesians 2), he unambiguously declares that the time of the Law of Moses is now over.

So that is the state of the saved saint - who struggles with sin (where sin as John points out in 1John 3 is the transgression of God's Law).

I disagree that Paul is describing the state of the saved saint in Romans 7 - he is instead, I suggest, reflecting on the past and the present state of the Jew who is under the dictates of the Law of Moses.

But in Romans 8 Paul shows (as in Romans 6) Paul shows how victory over sin is obtained by those who "walk" according to the Spirit. Thus the saved born-again saint is not left in the helpless Romans 7 state.

Are you being consistent? It appears to me that you have (above) described Romans 7 in terms of the struggle of the "saved saint". But now you seem to say that the saint leaves Romans 7 behind and is no longer hopelessly enslaved as the person in Romans 7 is. And I would agree with this - the Christian leaves Romans 7 behind and is in the position of the person described in Romans 8.

Now about Romans 2. While I will have to explain later, I believe that the "law" that the Gentile keeps in Romans 2 is not the Law of Moses, it is something else.

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus said no one could keep the Law. He showed this with examples: anyone who calls his brother "fool" is a murderer; anyone who lusts after a woman has committed adultery. There is no one on earth who has never called anyone an idiot or fool and I am not a man, but I find it hard to believe that no man has never had lust for a woman not his wife.

In Matt 5 Jesus said that anyone who taught people to disregard the law - to break it etc would be called "least" in the Kingdom of heaven.

Jesus did not say "you must call your brother a fool and thus be guilty of murder because you are a slave to sin and that is the way it is for the people of God -- they are stuck having in rebellion against God's Word until the 2nd coming".

He had no such instruction in Matt 5 or 6.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
But in Romans 8 Paul shows (as in Romans 6) Paul shows how victory over sin is obtained by those who "walk" according to the Spirit. Thus the saved born-again saint is not left in the helpless Romans 7 state.

Are you being consistent. It appears to me that you have (above) described Romans 7 in terms of the struggle of the "saved saint". But now you seem to say that the saint leaves Romans 7 behind and is no longer hopelessly enslaved as the person in Romans 7 is.

In 2Cor 5 Paul says "if anyone is in Christ he is a new creation".

That new creation "agrees with the Law of God" (as Paul says in Romans 7).

But then they are immediately confronted with "sin in me at WAR with the Law of my mind" - that which the New Creation agrees with -- is the Ten Commandments as quoted in Romans 7. (actually it is "scripture" because Paul quotes much more than the 10 commandments in his writings).

Thus in Romans 7 Paul points to "the problem" and in Romans 8 "the solution".

So while it is true that in Romans 6 - Paul predicts only victory for the saved saint - in Romans 7 he shows where struggle exists and in Romans 8 he shows how that struggle is won.

Thus even John can say "These things I write to you that you SIN NOT - but if anyone does sin we have an Advocate with the Father".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Now about Romans 2. While I will have to explain later, I believe that the "law" that the Gentile keeps in Romans 2 is not the Law of Moses, it is something else.

In Matt 22 Jesus is asked by Hebrew and scripture scholars of his day - about the greatest commandment.

Jesus said there are two -

Deut 6:5 Love God with all of your heart
Lev 19:18 Love your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus said that the entire Word of God was based on these two foundation pillars.

And everyone agreed.

So precross we have Hebrew scholars all in agreement on this point.

In James 2 - James quotes those same OT Laws calling them "the Royal Law".

Then in that same chapter James quotes from the Ten Commandments calling them "the Law of Liberty".

In Romans 2 Paul says that - all both Jew and Gentile must be found "doers of the Law" as Christ said in Matt 7 "not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but he who DOES the will of My Father".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Andre]

In That new creation "agrees with the Law of God" (as Paul says in Romans 7).

I disagree with this. I think that in Romans 7, Paul is saying the unregenerated Jew still agrees with the Law of God.

How can this person in Romans 7 possibly be a "new creation"?

Romans 7 does not deal with the experiences of the believer. It is Paul's reflection on the plight of the Jew under Torah, analyzed from his perspective as a Christian.

Would the Christian say this about his experience as a Christian:

Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death

Of course not - how is death brought to the new creation that is a Christian? Paul is looking back here to the time when the advent of the Law - the Torah - brought judgement and death. This is true of the Jew under Torah, not the Christian. Note the specific allusion to the delivery of the Torah at Sinai – “when the commandment came”. Clearly, Paul is describing the history of Israel, using himself (a Jew) as a representative.

Would the Christian say this about his experience as a Christian:

But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful

Sin produces death in the Christian? Sin becomes utterly sinful in the Christian? Of course not.

Please do not misunderstand Romans 7. It is not a transcript of Christian experience, for the alleged "elect" or otherwise. It is what Paul knows to be the case about the plight of the Jew under Torah, as seen from Paul's present state - that of a redeemed saint.

 

[BobRyan]

True, but this does not require us to conclude that Paul thinks the Law of Moses still applies in the form of a written code that functions to regulate behaviour. At several points in other letters (Colossians, Galatians 3, Ephesians 2), he unambiguously declares that the time of the Law of Moses is now over.


I disagree that Paul is describing the state of the saved saint in Romans 7 - he is instead, I suggest, reflecting on the past and the present state of the Jew who is under the dictates of the Law of Moses.

There is a modern idea of "Good Bible" vs "Bad Bible" as if the real secret is to "ignore the Bad Bible" and "obey the good Bible". Some call this "New Testament" vs "Old Testament".

But that is not what you see the NT authors doing. They affirm the Old Testament as "scripture".

The only thing that Paul "condemns" is the idea of having the lost try to earn their way to salvation by keeping the Law.

In Gal 3 Paul says that there is no such thing as a time when earning salvation by law-keeping used to "work".

In Gal 1 Paul says that in all of time there has only ever been ONE Gospel - and that is saved by Grace through faith not of works lest anyone should boast.

That was just as true in the Old Testament. Paul says in Heb 4:1 that "WE were preached the Gospel JUST as THEY also".

In Heb 8 Paul "reminds" us that in the Old Testament God gives the promise of the "New Covenant" which included "My LAWS written on their hearts". Since this is an Old Testament teaching from God's Word - an Old Testament concept - then the term "My Laws" is in the Old Testament context by definition.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I disagree with this. I think that in Romans 7, Paul is saying the unregenerated Jew still agrees with the Law of God.

How can this person in Romans 7 possibly be a "new creation"?

Romans 7 does not deal with the experiences of the believer. It is Paul's reflection on the plight of the Jew under Torah, analyzed from his perspective as a Christian.

In Romans 6, 7, and 8 there is no "Jew vs Gentile" context at all.

Romans 6 is not arguing that "just Jews" should not be a slave to sin - but Gentiles should go ahead and be enslaved to sin.

In Romans 7 the comparison is not "Jew vs Gentile" rather it is Lost vs Saved.

In Romans 7 the lost person is bound legally to the penalty that the Law demands. (true of BOTH Jew and Gentile). Paul says that once that person is saved - they are released from the condemnation of the law - the death sentence imposed by the Law. (True of both Jew and Gentile).

Paul says that IN HIS case - apart from salvation as a unrepentant Jew - he was "ALIVE" because he thought he was blameless (IN Phil 3 he says that in terms of the righteousness that comes through the Law - in his former way of life he was "blameless").

But at the conviction that comes through the Holy Spirit - and the New Birth - New Creation event - he suddenly saw that the Law of God "is Holy Just and Good" but that he himself was "sinful". It is just at that point - were he had turned from being an unbelieving Jew - that he suddenly saw his problem - because now he is fully in agreement with God's Law, yet is confronted by "SIN IN ME" at war with the Law of my mind.

Now let's suppose your scenario above -- that the "Law of his Mind" is the "Bad Bible". (whatever part of the OT you care to pick). That means that "SIN IN HIM" was actually "at WAR" with "the BAD Bible" that some would say we are not supposed to pay attention to.

How is it that SIN is then in agreement with those who suppose there is a "Bad Bible" that must be ignored according to Romans 7?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Would the Christian say this about his experience as a Christian:

Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death

Of course not - how is death brought to the new creation that is a Christian?

"I once was alive apart from the Law" is Paul referring to his old pre-saved condition -- the one where in Phil 3 he says "As for the righteousness which is in the law - found blameless".

But as Paul points out in Gal 3 and in Romans 3 - the Law reveals all mankind to be under the sentence of death. (Here again we see reference to the Law of God that is actual scripture).

Thus Paul affirms that under the illumination of the Holy Spirit he was "convicted of sin and righteousness and judgment" (John 16) and saw that the Law condemned him as a sinner before God.

The unrepentant unbelieving Jews did not see that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Would the Christian say this about his experience as a Christian:

But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful

Sin produces death in the Christian? Sin becomes utterly sinful in the Christian? Of course not.

In Romans 7 "I once WAS alive apart from the Law" references Paul's pre-converted condition as an unbelieving Jew who did not fully realize the full scope of the Law of God.

The LAW when fully understood revealed to Paul that his pre-converted view of himself "as for the righteousness which comes from the Law - found blameless" (Phil 3) was totally false. That in fact the Law when rightly understood placed him in the Romans 3 and Gal 3 condition of "All the world held accountable" before God and so condemned - held as guilty.

Paul argues in Romans 7 that the Law is "Holy Just and Good" and elsewhere that it is "spiritually discerned".

The question Paul asks in Romans 7 is how could something that is Holy and Good bring about death -- and the answer is that under the illumination of conviction by the Holy Spirit (the AUTHOR of that Law) the sinner sees his true condition before a Holy Just and perfect God.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Andre]

In Matt 22 Jesus is asked by Hebrew and scripture scholars of his day - about the greatest commandment.

Jesus said there are two -

Deut 6:5 Love God with all of your heart
Lev 19:18 Love your neighbor as yourself.

True enough, but just because these principles are asserted to be the underpinning of the Law of Moses, and just because we are to still live by these principles, it simply does not logically follow that the Law of Moses is still in force.

And if it is, then Paul was not writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when he declares its abolition here in Ephesians 2:

by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

I will get back to you on Romans 2.

 

[DHK]

Indeed - that method is getting used used and overused here.

Indeed exegesis is getting tossed under the bus by those who promote OSAS while ignoring Romans 11.

in Christ,

Bob

It's there Bob, and it isn't difficult for those who read Romans 11 with any amount of objectivity.
One fact remains for me personally, and perhaps for others here, I just don't have the time to painstakingly exegete every verse in Romans 11 just to show you what you need to know, when you could really do it yourself. But you don't want to take that time either.

 

[Andre]

There is a modern idea of "Good Bible" vs "Bad Bible" as if the real secret is to "ignore the Bad Bible" and "obey the good Bible". Some call this "New Testament" vs "Old Testament".

But that is not what you see the NT authors doing. They affirm the Old Testament as "scripture".

That may be so, but this is hardly an argument that the Law of Moses still applies.

You seem to be arguing as if you discount the possibilty that the plan of redemption that God is working out in the world never has transition points and that what is true in the Old Testament is true this side of the cross.

You are really constructing a strawman here, implicitly setting me in the role of someone with the "Good Bible" vs "Bad Bible" mindset. However, that claim cannot stick - I am in no way saying the Law of Moses is a bad thing. It is a good thing whose time came to an end at the cross:

Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

I suggest a picture where the Law of Moses served a particular goal in the plan of God and that goal was fulfilled at the cross. So the Law is now retired, having done its job. I am not sure how you can avoid the implications of several clear statements by Paul that the Law of Moses has been abolished, not least the one from Ephesians 2 as per my last post.

 

[Andre]

It's there Bob, and it isn't difficult for those who read Romans 11 with any amount of objectivity.
One fact remains for me personally, and perhaps for others here, I just don't have the time to painstakingly exegete every verse in Romans 11 just to show you what you need to know, when you could really do it yourself. But you don't want to take that time either.

I do not believe that you have answered this question, now posed to you for the fourth time:

Please explain to us all whether this statement can be describing a non-believing person:

....and you stand by faith

I will be very interested to see how you engage this text and make any kind of argument that it can be taken as referring to a group that includes unbelievers. Let's remember, the "you" in this statement is clearly the same person(s) who is warned not to fall away.

 

[DHK]

No. Paul never says that it is impossible to keep the Law anywhere in this text.[/quoe]
Paul says that it is impossible to keep the law many times throughout Scripture, and if it is not Paul it is written elsewhere by the Holy Spirit, the author of all Scripture.

Paul says a number of things such as:

1. The scriptures say that everyone who does not keep the law is cursed. Let's be clear: This is not a statement that it is impossible to keep the law, it is a statement about what is true about those who don't keep the law.

When is the last time that you have lied, transgressed any law at any time, thought an evil thought, or sinned through a sin of omission--not read your Bible, not prayed, not witnessed (Mat.28:19,20). This also is sin. Sin is a transgression of the law (1John 3:4). It is missing the mark (Romans 3:23), which means missing the mark of God's holiness or glory. Are you as holy as God is holy? You have missed the mark. You have sinned. You are not perfect. You have fallen short. That is the purpose of the law--to show how exceeding sinful we really are. No man can keep the law.

2. Even those who keep the law - like Paul did - are not justified by doing so.

Paul didn't keep the law, and never said he did.

Where does Paul say that it is impossible to keep the Law of Moses?

Many times Paul, Jesus, James, say that it is impossible to keep the law. Where do any of these say it is possible to keep the law?

Here in Phillipians 3, Paul asserts that, in fact, he did keep the Law of Moses:

as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless

You are wrong here. Paul does not assert that he kept the law. Look again.

Philippians 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
--He kept the "righteousness" which was in the law, not the law itself.
He was a "righteous" person as far as he was concerned.

Remember what Jesus said about this.
"Unless your righteous exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees you can in no wise be saved."

Paul did not say he kept the law.

 

[DHK]

I do not believe that you have answered this question, now posed to you for the fourth time:

Please explain to us all whether this statement can be describing a non-believing person:

....and you stand by faith

I will be very interested to see how you engage this text and make any kind of argument that it can be taken as referring to a group that includes unbelievers. Let's remember, the "you" in this statement is clearly the same person(s) who is warned not to fall away.

Those who stand by faith do not fall away. It is that simple. But like I said previously I don't have the time to exegete the entire passage for you so that you can understand that wonderful truth of OSAS being taught here. You can actually do that for yourself if you approach the passage without bias.

 

[Andre]

Deleted own post

 

[Andre]

Those who stand by faith do not fall away.

This cannot work with the construction that Paul gives us.

You appear to simply deny the logic of text. Here it is again:

I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

Now I am not going to spend the time going through this line by line and show that the structure of the argument is such that this is a warning to those who stand in faith against the possibility of their falling away.

But it is clear that a reading of this text that honours nominal language conventions will simply not sustain a reading where "those who stand in faith" are set aside as a special sub-set of Gentiles who are not under the threat of falling away.

In short, the "you" who stands in faith is clearly the same "you" is being warned about being cut off. There really is no dispute about this.

So I suspect we are at an impasse. If you do not read this text as embracing the possibliity that those who "stand in faith" can indeed be cut off, then you and I have entirely different understandings about the nature of the English language.

And we are certainly not to settle such fundamental differences here.

 

[BobRyan]

True enough, but just because these principles are asserted to be the underpinning of the Law of Moses, and just because we are to still live by these principles, it simply does not logically follow that the Law of Moses is still in force.

And if it is, then Paul was not writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when he declares its abolition here in Ephesians 2:

by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

I will get back to you on Romans 2.

I will start a dedicated thread for the Law of God in the NT (Romans 2 etc) - that way we can stay focused on both of these topics.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Andre]

No. Paul never says that it is impossible to keep the Law anywhere in this text.

Paul says that it is impossible to keep the law many times throughout Scripture, and if it is not Paul it is written elsewhere by the Holy Spirit, the author of all Scripture.

Please give us any one such reference - chapter and verse where Paul, or any other writer says that it is impossible to keep the Law of Moses.

I have done my part - I have provided a text from Phillipians 3 where Paul declares he was, yes, blameless, in respect to keeping the Law.

It will be interesting, and disturbing for we "in-errantness" types, if you can find a text that will force us to accept internal inconsistency in the Bible.