How Romans 11 debunks OSAS

[Amy.G]

No one can take our faith, but we can choose to reject God, even after first accepting him.

I have never understood this position. If you have received Christ as Savior because you placed your faith in Him and believed Him to be true, how do stop believing in the truth?

It's like saying I know my name is Amy. It's on my birth certificate. That's the truth and I know it and accept it. But today I've decided to reject that fact, even though I know my name is Amy. That makes no sense.

If you know something to be true, how do stop believing it's true? It would have to be proven to you that what you believed was true is now false. If you believe Jesus is true (the way the truth and the life), there is nothing that can prove Him to be false, because He IS truth and you know it through the Holy Spirit who indwells you and is a witness to this truth.

If you really have believed in Christ and have received His salvation and Holy Spirit, you cannot stop believing. It would be illogical and insane.

 

[BobRyan]

Do we have any Bible scholars here who would venture into the actual text and show that those gentiles standing by faith in Rom 11 are not saved? or that they include "the not saved" gentiles?

Anyone?

Because so far no one has ventured to make an actual Bible case for that POV from the actual text of Rom 11.

And so we are left with a most devastating example of saved gentiles being warned about the very real danger of falling -- being removed from the body of Christ just as were unbelieving Jews.

But there is GOOD news in Romans 11 as well.

"He is able to graft them in AGAIN if they do not continue in UNBELIEF"


So then the OSAS Baptist view is that "YOU gentiles ... that STAND only by YOUR FAITH" is a reference to people who are lost????

In that case why should lost gentiles FEAR that they may fall from their LOST position?

How is it that Paul is sending his letter to the Romans - to NON believers (what kind of address in Rome is Paul using to get into non-Believer mail boxes???) How is it that Paul is writing to NON believing gentiles that STAND only by their FAITH??


How is this "standing only by faith as a lost person and yet fearing lest they fall from that lost position" idea preached in Baptist churches?

That is a doctrine that is totally new to me!!

someone please explain it!

This is the first I ever heard of it - (leading a sheltered life as I do).

Please say more.

I didn't want to continue on the other thread derailing it further, but your understanding that the believers who are being referred to as believers is not the case.

Then it is time for someone in the OSAS camp to answer the points raised from the text of Rom 11 showing that Paul is speaking to lost gentiles.

The warning was for the gentiles to NOT follow the same path the jews had by rejecting Christ, not that believing gentiles would lose their salvation.

If a lost gentile is "standing by their faith" and so are being told to remain in that position of standing by faith -- your entire solution collapses.

It would be "another gospel" to argue that the lost "are standing by faith" and are to be warned against falling from that position.

Paul did not say "unbelieving Jews failed to enter into the body of Christ and so will you unbelieving gentiles fail to enter in - if you also continue in your unbelief".

Yet this is the imaginative text that such a solution as you have proposed "would need" to have exegetical Bible support from Romans 11.

Surely we all easily see this point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I'm really not trying to do this. But, when Scripture like what you think Romans 11 teaches goes against what I see in 1 John 5, I find it nearly impossible to reconcile the 2.

1. Then show from a careful review of the inconvenient details (for OSAS) in Rom 11 that "you stand only by your faith" means "you are lost and in a state of unbelief".

2. As for agreement in 1John 5 and Rom 11 -- that too is pretty obvious. both of them argue for salvation and eternal life to the one who BELIEVES and has faith. NEITHER of them offers eternal life to the one who does NOT.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If you know something to be true, how do stop believing it's true? It would have to be proven to you that what you believed was true is now false. If you believe Jesus is true (the way the truth and the life), there is nothing that can prove Him to be false, because He IS truth and you know it through the Holy Spirit who indwells you and is a witness to this truth.

If you really have believed in Christ and have received His salvation and Holy Spirit, you cannot stop believing. It would be illogical and insane.

James 2 says "the devils believe and tremble"

The kind of belief that Paul speaks of in Romans 11 and that John speaks of in 1John 5 - goes beyond knowing some detail - knowing that some fact is true.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Andre]

I didn't want to continue on the other thread derailing it further, but your understanding that the believers who are being referred to as believers is not the case.

Who is the recipient of the letter? It is the Jew + Gentile church at Rome, that is believers. So while Paul does, at times, talk about non-believers, this cannot be the case in the following, since he clearly is addressing the recipients of the letter:

If 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

How can Paul possibly not be referring to the Gentile component of the church at Rome?

Do you deny that the letter was written to the church at Rome?

In the same way not every Jew had been broken off (there are jewish believers), the text cannot be understood that the gentiles spoken of were all believers, but gentiles as a whole.

I agree that not every Jew was broken off. But there are two strong reasons why the text in question (see above) refers to believing Gentiles: First, the letter is directed to believers in Rome and the use of the "you" construct shows that Paul is talking to the recipients of the letter. Second, the text itself is clearly talking about those who were "grafted in", those who "stand by faith".

How can this possibly include non-believers?

The warning was for the gentiles to NOT follow the same path the jews had by rejecting Christ, not that believing gentiles would lose their salvation.

No. Paul's argument is that Jews were hardened so that Gentiles could become members of God's family. And now that they are, they are warned to not abuse that status by boasting over the Jews whose hardening has brought them into the family.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I have never understood this position. If you have received Christ as Savior because you placed your faith in Him and believed Him to be true, how do stop believing in the truth?

It's like saying I know my name is Amy. It's on my birth certificate. That's the truth and I know it and accept it. But today I've decided to reject that fact, even though I know my name is Amy. That makes no sense.

If you know something to be true, how do stop believing it's true? It would have to be proven to you that what you believed was true is now false. If you believe Jesus is true (the way the truth and the life), there is nothing that can prove Him to be false, because He IS truth and you know it through the Holy Spirit who indwells you and is a witness to this truth.

If you really have believed in Christ and have received His salvation and Holy Spirit, you cannot stop believing. It would be illogical and insane.

...and i've ran into a many of former 'deacons' and 'pastors' on my 'soul winning' adventures as a former baptist who tell the story of accepting Christ, leading others to Christ and preaching Christ from the pulpit who are now professed atheists...

so what of these people..."never saved to being with?"...so what IF they killed over during their time serving Christ? are they still hell bound, b/c they were never truly saved?

I stood before God and man and made a vow to my wife and she did the same...to love, hold and cherish in sickness and in health till death do us part...but who's to say that next year my wife won't turn her back on me and leave those vows? who's to say that in 2 years I won't do the same?

God's not going to MAKE me stay in a relationship with Him...why would God want to make someone love Him?

My three kids love me, but I don't make them love me and have a relationship with me...i'd rather them love me and desire a relationship on their own freewill.

In XC
-

 

[lori4dogs]

...and i've ran into a many of former 'deacons' and 'pastors' on my 'soul winning' adventures as a former baptist who tell the story of accepting Christ, leading others to Christ and preaching Christ from the pulpit who are now professed atheists...

so what of these people..."never saved to being with?"...so what IF they killed over during their time serving Christ? are they still hell bound, b/c they were never truly saved?

I stood before God and man and made a vow to my wife and she did the same...to love, hold and cherish in sickness and in health till death do us part...but who's to say that next year my wife won't turn her back on me and leave those vows? who's to say that in 2 years I won't do the same?

God's not going to MAKE me stay in a relationship with Him...why would God want to make someone love Him?

My three kids love me, but I don't make them love me and have a relationship with me...i'd rather them love me and desire a relationship on their own freewill.

In XC
-

I had a similar experience while a Baptist. A friend of mine who attended Biola, graduated from Talbot and served in CBA church walked away from Christ. He is barely an agnostic now, rejects the church completely. As a Baptist, my only conclusion would have been that he never really knew the Lord to begin with. He was winning many to the Lord while serving as a pastor. He was passionate, always contending for the faith.

In this case, I would conclude he did not persevere. Of his own freewill he has chose to reject the truth he once obviously embraced.

 

[Johnv]

If Romans 11 debunks Once Saved Always Saved, salvation is not a free gift, being instead based on a person's merit. One can't believe Romans debunks OSAS, and here to salvation based on faith alone.

 

[Andre]

If Romans 11 debunks Once Saved Always Saved, salvation is not a free gift, being instead based on a person's merit. One can't believe Romans debunks OSAS, and here to salvation based on faith alone.

I suggest you posit a false choice - "its either OSAS or its salvation by one's own works".

Paul is clear - "good works" do matter unto salvation (Romans 2, 1 Corinthians 5, and other texts).

One of the biggest errors of the Reformation is to "take good works out of the salvation equation."

We are indeed "saved by works", but they are not "our works" per se, they are the works that the Spirit produces in us.

 

[DHK]

I agree that not every Jew was broken off. But there are two strong reasons why the text in question (see above) refers to believing Gentiles: First, the letter is directed to believers in Rome

This one of the weakest arguments of many topics, not just this one.
It means that if Paul were teaching on demonology, he would have to addressing the demons. He couldn't possibly be addressing Christians, for Christians are not demons. How lame an excuse. You don't think it is possible for Paul to teach the Christians at Rome about the Jews? Or about unbelieving Gentiles? Must everything in this epistle be specific to "believing Gentile Christians"? That is pretty lame.

 

[webdog]

This one of the weakest arguments of many topics, not just this one.
It means that if Paul were teaching on demonology, he would have to addressing the demons. He couldn't possibly be addressing Christians, for Christians are not demons. How lame an excuse. You don't think it is possible for Paul to teach the Christians at Rome about the Jews? Or about unbelieving Gentiles? Must everything in this epistle be specific to "believing Gentile Christians"? That is pretty lame.

This was the exact point I was getting at, that even though the letter was addressed to believers, Romans as a whole was a soteriological letter explaining salvation. While addressed to believers, Paul was stressing ISRAEL's rejection and subsequent "breaking off" and the warning for the GENTILES not to follow suit. It has NOTHING to do with losing salvation whatsoever! The Arminians need to read that into the text for it to work.

 

[Andre]

This one of the weakest arguments of many topics, not just this one.

Actually I believe the argument is compelling and quite robust.

It means that if Paul were teaching on demonology, he would have to addressing the demons.

My argument in no way leads to such a conclusion. The argument, again, is this:

1. The letter is addressed to the church at Rome - believers.

2. Therefore, when Paul uses the "you" construct, without giving us a compelling reason to think otherwise, the referent must be the recipients of the letter.

When you write a letter to someone and use the construct "you", do you not agree that, unless specific qualification to the contrary is given, the "you" denotes the recipient of the letter?

Besides, I have no idea why you assume that I am saying that if Paul wants to address the issue of demons, he would have to write them a letter. If Paul wanted to address demons, he could. But he would not refer to demons with the "you" construct unless that letter were being written to demons (an absurd scenario, of course).

 

[webdog]

2. Therefore, when Paul uses the "you" construct, without giving us a compelling reason to think otherwise, the referent must be the recipients of the letter.

...and hence the problem. The you is plural, speaking to the Gentiles as a whole, and Paul even used such language so there would be no mistake "(to you gentiles..."). He would have addressed them as brothers or something similar if he intended believers being the object.

 

[Andre]

This was the exact point I was getting at, that even though the letter was addressed to believers, Romans as a whole was a soteriological letter explaining salvation.

I believe that DHK's critique does not work as per my recent post. And I challenge this assertion of yours about the intent of Romans. While salvation is a theme, it is not the central theme. And despite our tendency to think the letter was written to us, it clearly is not. It was written to the church at Rome.

 

[Andre]

...and hence the problem. The you is plural, speaking to the Gentiles as a whole, and Paul even used such language so there would be no mistake "(to you gentiles..."). He would have addressed them as brothers or something similar if he intended believers being the object.

No. I agree that the "you" construct is plural, but the letter was not written to a single recipient in the first place.

Unless one can identify a reason to see "you" as something other those to whom the letter is targeted, one has to see the "you" in that section of Romans 11 as denoting believing Gentiles.

Let's be clear - when someone uses the contruct "you" in any letter, they are almost always referring to the recipient (or recipients) of the letter, or perhaps some sub-set thereof. No competent person would address a letter to the New York Yankees, saying "you need to play better" and expect to be understood as saying "all American league teams" need to play better". And yet this seems to be what you are expecting us to accept - that the "you" in a letter addressed to Gentile believers actually includes non-believing Gentiles as well.

 

[BobRyan]

...and hence the problem. The you is plural, speaking to the Gentiles as a whole, and Paul even used such language so there would be no mistake "(to you gentiles..."). He would have addressed them as brothers or something similar if he intended believers being the object.

"You gentiles" are the readers of Paul's letter. Church members

"you gentiles stand by your faith" specifically identifying gentiles that are standing by their faith. This is very different from "you unsaved gentiles if you would simply choose Christ you could then stand by your faith".

Don't see how to wrench this to the point of "you unsaved gentiles" or even "some of you stand by faith"

 

[DHK]

No. I agree that the "you" construct is plural, but the letter was not written to a single recipient in the first place.

Unless one can identify a reason to see "you" as something other those to whom the letter is targeted, one has to see the "you" in that section of Romans 11 as denoting believing Gentiles.

Let's be clear - when someone uses the contruct "you" in any letter, they are almost always referring to the recipient (or recipients) of the letter. No competent person would address a letter to the New York Yankees, saying "you need to play better" and expect to be understood as saying "all American league teams" need to play better". And yet this seems to be what you are expecting us to accept - that the "you" in a letter addressed to Gentile believers actually includes non-believing Gentiles as well.

Even when I post on this board I often use the pronouns "we" (as in us Baptists or evangelical Christians), or you (not necessarily the person, but the group to which the person belongs). If I am addressing a Catholic on the board, you often refers to all the Catholics, not just the one I am addressing. Paul was addressing Gentiles. One has to determine from the context whether he was addressing believing Gentiles or Gentiles in general.

 

[webdog]

"You gentiles" are the readers of Paul's letter. Church members

"you gentiles stand by your faith" specifically identifying gentiles that are standing by their faith. This is very different from "you unsaved gentiles if you would simply choose Christ you could then stand by your faith".

Don't see how to wrench this to the point of "you unsaved gentiles" or even "some of you stand by faith"

Romans 9 - 11 is specifically dealing with Israel and addressed particularly to Jews. The shift to "you Gentiles" is a warning to not follow the ways of Israel. I don't need to wretch it to make my point since not ALL Jews have been broken off, only the unbelieving Jews were.

 

[Andre]

Romans 9 - 11 is specifically dealing with Israel and addressed particularly to Jews. The shift to "you Gentiles" is a warning to not follow the ways of Israel.

This cannot work with Paul's argument. Paul is clear in Romans 9, and Romans 11 for that matter, that God has actively hardened the Jews with the intent of bringing salvation to Gentiles. Since this hardening is the divine intent in Paul's argument, it would not make sense for him to warn Gentiles to not suffer the same fate, since the argument all along has been about what God is up to. The Jews were hardened in accordance with God's plan, so it does not make sense that Paul would warn Gentiles to "avoid being caught up in God's plan" - God will do what God will do.

 

[DHK]

This cannot work with Paul's argument. Paul is clear in Romans 9, and Romans 11 for that matter, that God has actively hardened the Jews with the intent of bringing salvation to Gentiles. Since this hardening is the divine intent in Paul's argument, it would not make sense for him to warn Gentiles to not suffer the same fate, since the argument all along has been about what God is up to. The Jews were hardened in accordance with God's plan, so it does not make sense that Paul would warn Gentiles to "avoid being caught up in God's plan" - God will do what God will do.

God will do what God will do, but He is not fatalistic. He has revealed his plan to us in His Word. In Romans 9 through 11 Paul starts with the Jews and ends with the Jews (not with the Gentiles). He explains God's plans for Israel throughout the ages. The Gentiles are only a small part of those plans, partakers of the blessings that have come to Israel. His advice to the Gentiles is basically not to be arrogant because they have been grafted into the tree. Yet we see the arrogance even here on this board, in spite of the warning given by Paul. Look at the end of the chapter. He returns to God's plans for Israel.

Romans 11:27-28 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
--Stronger words could never be said against the Gentiles whether saved or not. They are enemies for your sakes. Why? Because they are the beloved of God. God has made his covenant with them. God will take away their sins. When the Lord comes again, He will come again specifically for the Jews.

He says this right before launching into a beautiful hymn of praise which closes the chapter.