How Romans 11 debunks OSAS

[Doubting Thomas]

Andre,

I want to commend you again for your excellent posting on Romans 11. I really can't see how folks can get around the clear statements of v 18-22. The best that proponents of Rom 11 seem to be capable of here is to respond in one or two ways: (1) they can say WTTE that this has something to do with national Israel, as if the mere utterance of "national Israel" magically sweeps aside the plain meaning of the text regarding the real warnings to the Gentiles who were currently "standing by faith" when Paul wrote the epistle; and/or (2) they reply in essence "Oh yeah? well this other (fill in the blank) passage definitely teaches (allegedly) OSAS, so there!" without having to actually deal with Romans 11 at all.

I guess the literal-grammatical-historical method of interpretation goes out the window when it doesn't jive with one's pet theology and favorite 'proof texts'.

 

[steaver]

Andre,

I want to commend you again for your excellent posting on Romans 11. I really can't see how folks can get around the clear statements of v 18-22. The best that proponents of Rom 11 seem to be capable of here is to respond in one or two ways: (1) they can say WTTE that this has something to do with national Israel, as if the mere utterance of "national Israel" magically sweeps aside the plain meaning of the text regarding the real warnings to the Gentiles who were currently "standing by faith" when Paul wrote the epistle; and/or (2) they reply in essence "Oh yeah? well this other (fill in the blank) passage definitely teaches (allegedly) OSAS, so there!" without having to actually deal with Romans 11 at all.

I guess the literal-grammatical-historical method of interpretation goes out the window when it doesn't jive with one's pet theology and favorite 'proof texts'.

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.

Now one can pluck out the phrase "For if God spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also spare not thee." and declare OSAS dead, but is this a fair and honest dividing of the word of truth?

If we stay only within the chapter this is taken from we read the following;

Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to [the image of] Baal.
Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Now you had said, "I really can't see how folks can get around the clear statements". Let me ask you, is this a clear statement that one is saved by election of grace? Secondly, is this a clear satement that no work can be joined with election of grace else grace is canceled out?

Paul goes on to say, same chapter;

Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God [are] without repentance.

Do you find this a clear statement? Where in chapter 11 do you find any reference to gifts? Or a calling? (Remember, it says gifts, plural)

In the same letter we find Paul speaking about the gift of eternal life. And take notice how this gift is called "free";

Rom 5:15But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Rom 5:16And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift [is] of many offences unto justification.
Rom 5:17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

Rom 6:23For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


Where do we read about "callings"? Well, Paul spoke about callings in this very letter to the Romans;

Rom 1:1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
Rom 1:6Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
Rom 8:28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.
Rom 8:30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Pretty "clear" wouldn't you say?

In other letters Paul spoke about those whom God has called;

1Cr 1:9God [is] faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
1Cr 1:24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1Cr 1:26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:
1Cr 7:22For he that is called in the Lord, [being] a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, [being] free, is Christ's servant.
1Th 2:12That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.
2Th 2:14Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Ti 6:12Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
2Ti 1:9Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Now among all of these "clear" statements we have this statement said within the context of the Gentiles who were boasting of themselves and slandering the Jews..."For if God spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also spare not thee.".

This also sounds familiar. Now I believe that within the context of the chapter and letter that if rightly divided it would be wrong to apply this statement to a doctrine of "saved then lost". We read something very similiar to this is Hebrews;

Hbr 3:12Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

It is biblical and evident in our very own congregations that there will always be a portion of church goers that are there for reasons other than they have been born again. Even if they are just curious and searching. I believe this verse could be quoted after every sermon as an invitation to the congregation as a whole (for only God truly knows them that are His) to get off the fence if that so be the case of their lives.

:thumbsup:

 

[Andre]

If we stay only within the chapter this is taken from we read the following;

Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to [the image of] Baal.
Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Now you had said, "I really can't see how folks can get around the clear statements". Let me ask you, is this a clear statement that one is saved by election of grace? Secondly, is this a clear satement that no work can be joined with election of grace else grace is canceled out?

I would like to respond to this even though it may not have been directed to me.

It is true that Paul refers to an "election of grace". But, and I cannot emphasize this enough - the "works" here that are set in contrast to grace are not "good works" in general, they are the works of the Law of Moses which only the Jew can do.

So there is no sense that Paul is denying the necessity of "perservering in doing good" in respect to ultimate salvation. I politely suggest that many (most) in the Reformed tradition have failed to understand exactly what Paul is referring to by the term "works". Altough there are exceptions, when he uses this term (at least in Romans) he is almost always referring to the Law of Moses.

 

[steaver]

I would like to respond to this even though it may not have been directed to me.

It is true that Paul refers to an "election of grace". But, and I cannot emphasize this enough - the "works" here that are set in contrast to grace are not "good works" in general, they are the works of the Law of Moses which only the Jew can do.

.

:thumbsup: Thanks for the added clarification :wavey:

Not sure though about the "only the Jew can do". No one is able to keep the law.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: No one is able to keep the law.

HP: Says who?
Mic 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
Lu 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
De 30:9 And the LORD thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good: for the LORD will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers:
10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
11 ¶ For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
15 ¶ See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Well I spend 30 minutes working on a reply but I lost the it when trying to post it--thanks Baptistboard!:BangHead:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Sorry, but there are easy ways you can see to it that such will not happen again. Work your posts up in another word processor and then cut and paste it to the board. That way if it gets lost in the transfer you can just do it over again!:thumbs:

 

[steaver]

HP: Says who?
Mic 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
Lu 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
De 30:9 And the LORD thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good: for the LORD will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers:
10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
11 ¶ For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
15 ¶ See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

Very interesting. So I wonder why God said;

Rom 3:23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;



So you believe there are some people who have not sinned and who have kept the Law. Interesting, can you name anyone who did not need the blood sacrifice of Christ?

 

[steaver]

Well I spend 30 minutes working on a reply but I lost the it when trying to post it--thanks Baptistboard!:BangHead:

Been there, done that. I always highlight what I have written and then press "Ctrl C" at the same time. If the page messes up just redo the page and then press "Ctrl V" and it will paste what you had highlighted.

:wavey:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: Very interesting. So I wonder why God said;.....

HP: Lord willing we all will have an opportunity to get our answers directly from the Author of the book face to face. :thumbs:

 

[Andre]

Very interesting. So I wonder why God said;

Rom 3:23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

So you believe there are some people who have not sinned and who have kept the Law. Interesting, can you name anyone who did not need the blood sacrifice of Christ?

I think I agree with HP that the Law can indeed be kept - Paul kept it, or so he claims in Phillipians.

Remember - the Law of Moses is only for the Jews. So for Paul to say what he says in the text you give, he must have a concept of sin that extends beyond breaking the Law of Moses. In short, even if you keep the Law of Moses, you could still sin.

 

[steaver]

I think I agree with HP that the Law can indeed be kept - Paul kept it, or so he claims in Phillipians.

Remember - the Law of Moses is only for the Jews. So for Paul to say what he says in the text you give, he must have a concept of sin that extends beyond breaking the Law of Moses. In short, even if you keep the Law of Moses, you could still sin.

"he must have a concept of sin that extends beyond breaking the Law of Moses."

You will have to elaborate on this. Give an example of a sin that is not listed in the Law.

 

[steaver]

HP: Lord willing we all will have an opportunity to get our answers directly from the Author of the book face to face. :thumbs:

Does this mean you have no explanation for me?

 

[Andre]

"he must have a concept of sin that extends beyond breaking the Law of Moses."

You will have to elaborate on this. Give an example of a sin that is not listed in the Law.

At one level, I do not need to give such an example. Here is why:

1. Paul claims that all human beings have sinned (Romans 6);

2. The Law of Moses was given to Jews and Jews only (Leviticus 20, I think and many, many other references);

3. Therefore if a Gentile is to sin, he must sin in a manner that does not involve breaking a law that he is not even under in the first place.

But as to your question, I do not think I see anything in the Law of Moses that outlaws racial discrimination. But I think it is self-evident that this consitutes "sin".

Or what about gluttony. I do not think there is anything in the Law of Moses that speaks against gluttony.

 

[steaver]

At one level, I do not need to give such an example. Here is why:

1. Paul claims that all human beings have sinned (Romans 6);

2. The Law of Moses was given to Jews and Jews only (Leviticus 20, I think and many, many other references);

3. Therefore if a Gentile is to sin, he must sin in a manner that does not involve breaking a law that he is not even under in the first place.

But as to your question, I do not think I see anything in the Law of Moses that outlaws racial discrimination. But I think it is self-evident that this consitutes "sin".

Or what about gluttony. I do not think there is anything in the Law of Moses that speaks against gluttony.

Would being a "racist" fall under "Love thy neighbour as thyself"?

"Gluttony" is listed twice in the OT as wrong (sin);

Deu 21:20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard.
Pro 23:21For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe [a man] with rags.

 

[Andre]

Would being a "racist" fall under "Love thy neighbour as thyself"?

"Gluttony" is listed twice in the OT as wrong (sin);

Deu 21:20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard.
Pro 23:21For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe [a man] with rags.

I guessed at some examples, but the fact remains - the Law is only for the Jews. So people must be able sin without breaking the Law of Moses

 

[steaver]

Paul declares the Law was made for "sinners".

1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Paul declares that he was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious. So why do you believe Paul kept the Law?

1Ti 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief.

Paul believed he was "chief of sinners". So why do you believe he kept the Law?

1Ti 1:15 This [is] a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

:godisgood:

 

[Andre]

Are you suggesting that the Law of Moses was not given to the Jews alone. With all due respect, I cannot see how such a position can possibly be defended. The Law involves going to the temple for ritual cleaning. How can someone in South America do that?

In any event, here are some texts that show the Law of Moses is for Jews only:

'You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those which I have set apart as unclean for you. 26 You are to be holy to me [c] because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

These texts show that Paul understands that the Law of Moses is for Jews only:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too?

Paul would not need to write verse 29 if the Law of Moses was for Gentiles. But since the Law is only for Jews, he needs to say that justification does not depend on the Law, because if it was, the Jew would be able to say that justification is for Jews alone.

And this text is particularly clear. Not only does it show that the Law was a barrier in the sense that the Jews were under and the Gentiles not, Paul explcitly declares the end of the Law:

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two,

The law was only a dividing wall in that it applied to the Jews and not to the Gentiles. How could it be a dividing wall otherwise?

 

[steaver]

Are you suggesting that the Law of Moses was not given to the Jews alone. With all due respect, I cannot see how such a position can possibly be defended. The Law involves going to the temple for ritual cleaning. How can someone in South America do that?

In any event, here are some texts that show the Law of Moses is for Jews only:

'You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those which I have set apart as unclean for you. 26 You are to be holy to me [c] because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

These texts show that Paul understands that the Law of Moses is for Jews only:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too?

Paul would not need to write verse 29 if the Law of Moses was for Gentiles. But since the Law is only for Jews, he needs to say that justification does not depend on the Law, because if it was, the Jew would be able to say that justification is for Jews alone.

And this text is particularly clear. Not only does it show that the Law was a barrier in the sense that the Jews were under and the Gentiles not, Paul explcitly declares the end of the Law:

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two,

The law was only a dividing wall in that it applied to the Jews and not to the Gentiles. How could it be a dividing wall otherwise?

I really have no debate going as to whether the Law is only for the Jew or not. Paul was a Jew and you said that he kept the Law but sinned some other way. Now look at 1 Timothy and tell me that Paul was not connecting the Law to his very own sinfulness.

:godisgood:

 

[Marcia]

I guessed at some examples, but the fact remains - the Law is only for the Jews. So people must be able sin without breaking the Law of Moses

Romans 1 says that all are accountable and gives us a picture of those who deny the true God and fall into worship of creatures and creation and into sexual immorality - the pagans - there is no indication they know the law. This covers beliefs and practices found in numerous cultures around the world - animism, for example.

Then Romans 2 discusses how the Gentile is accountable because he has a conscience:

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

So the Gentile is accountable.

Romans 2 goes on to show the Jew is accountable.

So it covers pagan/heathen, Gentile (the Greek or the moral man), and the Jew. Everyone is accountable.