How Romans 11 debunks OSAS

[BobRyan]

Now wait a minute, you are the one who insisted that these two were "sinless". Sinless means "without sin".

1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Two seemingly opposing statements yet the same author written within the same letter.

Can you harmonize the two?

John says;

1Jo 2:1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:


First John says if you say you know Jesus and do not keep God's commandments you are a liar and the truth is not in you.

Then John says "if you do sin". Sin is the transgression of the Commandments or in other words the NOT keeping thereof.

Can you explain so that both are true?

:godisgood:

When John says that all men are sinners - he is speaking in the Romans 3 and Gal 3 context - where the continued - authorotative Law of God - continues to point out that all mankind have sinned. Have fallen short of God's perfect standard.

That is the problem faced by the lost sinner.

But to the saved saint John says "I write these things to you that you sin NOT"

John did not say "I write these things so that you can say -- I HAVE NEVER SINNED"

You seem to have missed that detail.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I think I agree with HP that the Law can indeed be kept

agreed.

- Paul kept it, or so he claims in Phillipians.

Paul is speaking of his pre-conversion experience and showing us the way he thought of himself before he understood the larger meaning and scope of the Law of God.

As he says in Romans 7 - he was alive apart from the law -- in his preconverted state.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Here we see the case of believing gentiles explicitly being discussed in "the details" given by Paul in scripture.

Rom 11
13But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, [b]I magnify my ministry,
14if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. [/B]


15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

16 If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.
17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,

20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

Well, if you read the entire chapter 11 you cannot ignore the fact that it is certainly speaking about the Jews as a nation and not as individuals. However, I do agree that the phrase "you stand by faith" is speaking of professing (key) Christians.

Do lost - yet "professing" gentiles actually "STAND by faith"? Are they truly wild branches that have been grafted into the body of Christ - when natural branches have been removed from the body of Christ?

In other words - do you agree with the text of scripture here?

Are they actually "standing" or "have they YET to stand by faith" in your view?

If they are NOT standing by faith - then are to they to PERSEVERE in NOT standing by faith? Or should they abandon their "NOT standing by faith" position as fast as possible?

What say you?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Andre]

Here is the problem with clinging to OSAS in light of Romans 11. No matter how much one protests that OSAS is taught elsewhere, or that the chapter is about the nation of Israel, the simple fact remains: Paul stood there in the dim candlelight (or whatever) of that room 2000 years ago, turned to his trusty scribe and said this to his Gentile readers:

you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear; 21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

I can pretty much guarantee this: If you presented this statement (clearly directed to Gentiles) to any classroom of 6th graders - who otherwise have never heard of Paul, or OSAS, or Israel, or whatever - those kids would know enough about how the English language works to conclude that the writer is warning that those who stand by faith are under threat of not being spared.

And so the real problem is this: Those who insist that OSAS survives Romans 11 cannot be honouring the text in its fine-grained detail. Or, they must think that Paul cannot write clearly, or that he is having a bit of a mental lapse. People are free to hold to any one of these possibilities of course.

But, please, lets not pretend that one can take this particular item of text seriously and make it mean something that does not directly challenge OSAS.

 

[Andre]

It is true that the written form of the Law did not BEGIN the Law of God.

Moses reports that God said of Abraham "He kept my LAWS my Statutes and my Commandments". Then Moses reports that God tells Israel to KEEP His "Laws, Statutes and Commandments".

John's point remains - SIN is defined as "transgression of the Law".

in Christ,

Bob

But Bob, I suggest it is clear that when Paul uses the term "the law" in Romans 5, he must be referring to the Law of Moses , since he says this after saying that "for until the Law sin was in the world":

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses

Paul cannot be misunderstood - He is saying that sin was in the world before the Law of Moses. I do not deny that there were other commands and laws originating from God before the Law of Moses. But that is not the point we have been disputing, at least from my perspective.

Sin may indeed be "violation of law" but, I can see no way to rescue the position that sin is only violation of the Law of Moses which, after all was only given to Moses at Sinai.

 

[BobRyan]

But Bob, I suggest it is clear that when Paul uses the term "the law" in Romans 5, he must be referring to the Law of Moses , since he says this after saying that "for until the Law sin was in the world":

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses

Paul cannot be misunderstood - He is saying that sin was in the world before the Law of Moses. I do not deny that there were other commands and laws originating from God before the Law of Moses. But that is not the point we have been disputing, at least from my perspective.

Sin may indeed be "violation of law" but, I can see no way to rescue the position that sin is only violation of the Law of Moses which, after all was only given to Moses at Sinai.

As I am sure all agree -- Peter says that scripture is the product of God not man "holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" -and in Ex 20 it is God (not Moses) that speaks directly to the people from the mountain - bypassing Moses altogether.

The people then go to Moses in Ex 20 and beg that God no longer speak directly to them.

God has Moses place the Ten commandments inside the ark - but the rest of the inspired text of scripture he has Moses place "beside the ark". In Deuteronomy 5 Moses reminds the people that "God spoke these TEN words and He added NO more".

That scripture (placed beside the ark - not in the ark) includes things like the Genesis creation account and the history of man before the flood -- and the history of man after the flood.

That scripture includes the institution of Marriage and the 4th commandment's 7th day Sabbath.

Moses is the one writing in Gen 26:6 reporting what God told Isaac regarding Abraham "Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes andn My Laws".

It is Moses again that is writing 40 years later in Deut 30:10-11 about God telling Israel to keep Gods "Commandments and statutes which are WRITTEN in the book of the Law.."

In the first case the Commandments, statutes and Laws are not "written".

in the second case - they have finally been "written".

In Genesis 4 God warns again that "sin is at the door - you must master it" -- but Cain does not have ten commandments on tablets of stone in front of him. That Law was known at that time - but was not written. Clearly murder was sin. The Law of God pointed that out - even though it was not in "written form". Thus 1John 3:4 holds true - sin is transgression of the Law of God (the Word of God) even if it is not yet in written form. God says it - and it is Law.

In Gen 6 and 7 we see a reference to "clean" and "unclean" animals - but the definition for that "term" is not "written" until Lev 11. Yet real animals go into Noah's ark - the clean by 7s and the unclean by 2's -- long before Moses.

Paul in Romans 5 is refering to the fact that God's Law did not exist in "written form" before Moses. But at Sinai God had Moses write His Law (or in the case of the Ten Commandments God first Spoke directly to the people then God Himself wrote the Law on tablets of stone).

Now here is the interesting part -

Gal 1:6-11 there has only ever been - ONE Gospel
Heb 8 - that Gospel is contained in the New Covenant promised in the O.T.
The New Covenant promises that the Law of God is written on the heart.

Thus Adam through Noah (and all those in Heb 11) - all had the "Law of God written on the heart" under the ONE Gospel.

Paul confirms in Heb 4:1 that "WE have had the Gospel preached to us just as THEY ALSO" referring back to ancient Israel in the desert.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Aaron]

Bob, do you love men as you ought to love?

 

[BobRyan]

Aaron - is your point that a saved Christian must sin in that area no matter what 1Cor 10 and Romans 6 say to the contrary?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Aaron]

My point is that you do not know the law if you think you're able to keep it. No one loves as Christ loved, yet He loved no more than was required to fulfill the law.

 

[Amy.G]

Ac*15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?


No one is able to bear the burden of the Law. No one can keep it perfectly, save Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

My point is that you do not know the law if you think you're able to keep it.

When you read Romans 6 on that very point - those that claim that they must continue sinning - do you see Paul affirm "yes you just stay in rebellion against God's Law - breaking it constantly".

No one loves as Christ loved, yet He loved no more than was required to fulfill the law.

Is it ever defined IN THE BIBLE as "sin" to be "unnable" to love "infinitely"?

in Chirst,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Ac*15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?


No one is able to bear the burden of the Law. No one can keep it perfectly, save Christ.

In 1John 5 God's Word - God's Law - specifically "God's Commandments" are NOT "burdensome".

In Acts 15 (to which you refer) we see the man-made-tradition that "gentiles must become Jews to be saved" - something never taught in OT or NT.

Christ refers to this very thing in Mark 7 saying that the "traditions of men" are passed off as Bible "doctrine" that in fact invalidates the Commandments of God.

You have a comment in Acts 15 referring to the fact that the multiplied man-made-rules of the Jews were a burden.

But imputing the work of man-made-tradition to God as if God was the author of it - or as if the SCIRPTUREs were as guilty of that error as the man-made-traditions of the Jews -- is to miss the entire point of the discussion in Acts 15. It is literally taking the POV of the judaizers claiming that they were right to attribute their work to God - to scripture itself.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Aaron]

When you read Romans 6 on that very point - those that claim that they must continue sinning - do you see Paul affirm "yes you just stay in rebellion against God's Law - breaking it constantly".

The error that Paul was correcting was the carnal idea that if sin abounds Grace abounds, then sin must be a means of grace. No one here is saying that.

Is it ever defined IN THE BIBLE as "sin" to be "unnable" to love "infinitely"?

Yes.

This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you, John 15:12.

and

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, Gal. 5:14.

 

[BobRyan]

1. It is a mistake to assume that Christ was saying "if you cannot be as God with infinite love then you are sinning". Going down the "you must BE God" road is not supported in scripture. Adam was not told that he had to be infinite God to stay in the Garden of Eden. Adam was not told that if he failed to Love Eve to the infinite extent that God loved -- he would be cast out of the garden.

Failing to "be infinite God" is not the sin mankind is charged with -

Originally Posted by BobRyan
When you read Romans 6 on that very point - those that claim that they must continue sinning - do you see Paul affirm "yes you just stay in rebellion against God's Law - breaking it constantly".

Originally Posted by BobRyan
When you read Romans 6 on that very point - those that claim that they must continue sinning - do you see Paul affirm "yes you just stay in rebellion against God's Law - breaking it constantly".
The error that Paul was correcting was the carnal idea that if sin abounds Grace abounds, then sin must be a means of grace. No one here is saying that.

Paul states specifically in Romans 6 that anyone who claims they must sin - that they must obey sin instead of God - is a slave to sin, and they do not have eternal life.

8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.


10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
13and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead,
13 -and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.


14For sin shall not be master over you[/b], for you are not under law but under grace.
15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
16Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
17But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin[/b], you
became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
18and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

 

[Amy.G]

You have a comment in Acts 15 referring to the fact that the multiplied man-made-rules of the Jews were a burden.

But imputing the work of man-made-tradition to God as if God was the author of it - or as if the SCIRPTUREs were as guilty of that error as the man-made-traditions of the Jews -- is to miss the entire point of the discussion in Acts 15. It is literally taking the POV of the judaizers claiming that they were right to attribute their work to God - to scripture itself.

in Christ,

Bob

No, you are the one saying that the burdens were the man made traditions. That is not what the scripture says, nor what I said.

It is clearly meaning the "burdens" were the strictness of the Law, which no man can bear, even the fathers (ancestors) of the current Jews of the time. There is nothing there that refers to "traditions" added to the Law.

If you break even one law, you have broken them all.

 

[Aaron]

1. It is a mistake to assume that Christ was saying "if you cannot be as God with infinite love then you are sinning".

The commandment is to love as Christ loved us. Tell us about the limited, conditional love you believe that was.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
You have a comment in Acts 15 referring to the fact that the multiplied man-made-rules of the Jews were a burden.

But imputing the work of man-made-tradition to God as if God was the author of it - or as if the SCIRPTUREs were as guilty of that error as the man-made-traditions of the Jews -- is to miss the entire point of the discussion in Acts 15. It is literally taking the POV of the judaizers claiming that they were right to attribute their man-made-traidtions to God - to scripture itself.

the point being that NO scripture (OT or NT) required that gentiles be circumcised in order to be saved (no not even one). Which was the point of Acts 15:1-2.

No, you are the one saying that the burdens were the man made traditions. That is not what the scripture says, nor what I said.

It is clearly meaning the "burdens" were the strictness of the Law, which no man can bear, even the fathers (ancestors) of the current Jews of the time. There is nothing there that refers to "traditions" added to the Law.

If you break even one law, you have broken them all.

1. The point above remains - since you provide no scripture at all to show that God's Law required Gentiles to be circumcised in order to be saved. Not even one.

2. By making the problem "God" in your post - you are taking the side of the Judaizers.

In Mark 7 - Jesus said that they were stuck "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men" and that they "set aside the commandments of God for the sake of their tradition".

you seem to side with the Judaizers as if to say "no it is actually God that came up with this bad idea".

notice that James affirms the fact that scripture is read every Sabbath in the Synagogues - and gentiles are hearing it (as we see in Acts 13 - Sabbath after Sabbath).

The issue of requiring that gentiles be circumcised in order to be saved - was man-made tradition - you cannot blame that on God.

in Chritst

 

[BobRyan]

The commandment is to love as Christ loved us. Tell us about the limited, conditional love you believe that was.

There is no text saying "If you love less than infinite God you are sinning" in all of scripture -- no not one.

And there is no indication that Adam had "infinite love" until he fell.

There is no sense that Adam was in some infinite way "God" before he fell.

This is just stating the obvious so far.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here we see the case of believing gentiles explicitly being discussed in "the details" given by Paul in scripture.

Rom 11
13But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, [b]I magnify my ministry,
14if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. [/B]


15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

16 If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.
17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,

20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

Here is the problem with clinging to OSAS in light of Romans 11. No matter how much one protests that OSAS is taught elsewhere, or that the chapter is about the nation of Israel, the simple fact remains: Paul stood there in the dim candlelight (or whatever) of that room 2000 years ago, turned to his trusty scribe and said this to his Gentile readers:

you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear; 21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.


I can pretty much guarantee this: If you presented this statement (clearly directed to Gentiles) to any classroom of 6th graders - who otherwise have never heard of Paul, or OSAS, or Israel, or whatever - those kids would know enough about how the English language works to conclude that the writer is warning that those who stand by faith are under threat of not being spared.

And so the real problem is this: Those who insist that OSAS survives Romans 11 cannot be honouring the text in its fine-grained detail. .

Agreed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Amy.G]

the point being that NO scripture (OT or NT) required that gentiles be circumcised in order to be saved (no not even one). Which was the point of Acts 15:1-2.



1. The point above remains - since you provide no scripture at all to show that God's Law required Gentiles to be circumcised in order to be saved. Not even one.

2. By making the problem "God" in your post - you are taking the side of the Judaizers.

In Mark 7 - Jesus said that they were stuck "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men" and that they "set aside the commandments of God for the sake of their tradition".

you seem to side with the Judaizers as if to say "no it is actually God that came up with this bad idea".

notice that James affirms the fact that scripture is read every Sabbath in the Synagogues - and gentiles are hearing it (as we see in Acts 13 - Sabbath after Sabbath).

The issue of requiring that gentiles be circumcised in order to be saved - was man-made tradition - you cannot blame that on God.

in Chritst

Bob, the only one talking about man made tradition is you. The scripture I quoted does not say that. It is speaking of the LAW, not tradition.

Ac*15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Were their "fathers" unable to bear the burden of circumcision? Or were their fathers unable to bear the burden of the Law? The Law was never meant to save, but to show our sin.

I have no problem with God. :sleep: