How Romans 11 debunks OSAS

The argument in Romans 9 to 11 is not "just about the Jews with Gentiles only peripherally involved. The argument is essentially this: God has hardened Israel with the divine intent of enlarging the family of God to include Gentiles. Paul concludes by warning the Gentiles to not boast over those who have been hardened for their benefit and alludes to the clear possibility that they might fall away. Here are several texts from 9 to 11 clearly showing that this is argument not about Israel mainly, but about how Israel and the Gentiles have been brough together in the purposes of God:

In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

Who are the "children of the promise"? Paul has already told us in Romans 4 that it is a family which includes Gentiles.

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it

"Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,

I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;
I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding."[j] 20And Isaiah boldly says,
"I was found by those who did not seek me;
I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me."[k] 21But concerning Israel he says,

Although the word "Gentile" does not appear here, "those who are not a nation" is clearly a reference to Gentiles.

Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles

The text tell the tale - Romans 9 to 11 is not a treatment substantially focused on Israel with a concluding warning to Gentiles to not be arrogant. The matter of the Gentile is woven into the argument from beginning to end.

 

Yes, but it is a very minor role, as any commentary will tell you. These three chapters are focused on Israel and her role in history. That is Paul's focus here. The rest of the Book deals with the doctrine of soteriology as it relates to Christianity.

 

I disagree on both counts, and the texts I have provided make the case that Paul's argument is that the hardening of the Jew has brought salvation to the Gentiles, hardly a "minor role" in respect to the Gentiles:

Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles

This is not a generalized argument about salvation, it is a specific focused claim that the transgression of the Jew has brought salvation to the Gentile.

And Paul makes the same point in different words here:

You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted

This is a clear statement that the hardening of the Jew has specifically led to the salvation of the Gentile.

So I do not see how you can say that the Gentile plays a minor role in the argument that Paul is mounting.

And I definitely challenge your assertion that the book is "about soteriology". I suggest that the basic argument of Romans is this: Through the work of Jesus, God has been faithful to the covenantal promises to give Abraham a worldwide Jew + Gentile family whose members have salvation in virtue of faith in Jesus.

Salvation, of course, is a big topic in Romans, but it is not really the central theme, even though this is how the book had been traditionally understood.

 

HP: If your remark is to be understood at face value, and everything that is done is done by the direct hand of God,(including but not limited to the withholding and granting of faith and repentance without regard to any intent formed by man) that is most certainly a necessitated and fatalistic basis for ones theology.

 

A minor detail, so to speak. Paul is reminding the Gentiles that it is only because of His chosen nation's disobedience that salvation was brought to them at all.

Note the tone of voice here. He is saying: Don't be arrogant or filled with pride. "Branches were broken off so that "I" could be grafted in." The emphasis is on the I. He was telling them not to be proud.
[quote]This is a clear statement that the hardening of the Jew has specifically led to the salvation of the Gentile.[/quote]
It is a statement of the disobedience of the Jew that led to the opportunity of the Gentiles to be saved. It is also a warning to the Gentiles.

I can see you haven't read all three chapters. They all speak of the nation of Israel from beginning to end. Even this chapter ends with the covenant promise of God to the nation of Israel. How can you miss it?

But it is not. It is the greatest treatise on soteriology ever written. Paul goes into ever aspect of salvation. Why don't you take the time to read a few commentaries on the book?

This is the way it has been traditionally understood. But you have a novel idea and you expect us to accept it? On what grounds?

 

HP: Why was he telling then not to be proud? What, according to the verse in question could happen if they were?

 

I am quite confident that I have read these three chapters more times than you have and invested more time in studying them than you have. This is not an idle claim - I have studied Romans in general, and these chapters in particular quite intensively.

No one, least of all me, has denied that Israel is a main theme. But some of your recent posts suggests that Paul's treatment of the Gentiles is some kind of secondary after-thought. This is not the case.

Your condescending tone is noted.

Again, I am confident that I am far more convesant in this book than you, having invested several hundred hours in its study.

The book is not primarily about salvation, even though salvation is a major theme. The book is primarly about God's faithfulness to the covenant and all the outworkings of that, including, of course, salvation.

I am more than happy to explain my take on Romans. I intend to start a thread on it.

 

Now how would you know or even be confident of that, knowing very little about me?

 

It was the same warning that he was giving the Gentiles as he had given to the Jews in the past. It is not God who had changed.

 

Do you not see the irony here? Let's remember what you posted, knowing very little about me:

Now as for my assertion. I agree - I do not know much about you. That's why I said I was "confident" rather than "certain".

But when one has invested as much time in studying Romans as I have - it is a good bet that you have probably invested less time. It is possible, of course, that you have spent as much or more time studying the letter than me.

In any event, it does not really matter, what matters are the relevant scriptural arguments.

 

HP: You make some excellent points Peggy.:thumbs:

 

Your assertion goes like this Bob:

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Your assertion is that James can't teach about demons without addressing them. James ought to be saying: "You demons also believe and tremble," and address himself to the demons, as if the believers are incapable of learning anything outside of Christianity. Ridiculous!

 

Excellent point BR, but what does the truth have to offer DHK if it runs counter to his presuppositions???

 

It doesn't. It only shows that BR is taking Scripture out of context. He refuses to look at the whole picture. From chapter 9 to the end of chapter 11, Paul is speaking of the nation of Israel. That is the topic. The Gentiles are a very small topic in that conversation, hardly even a mention. Bob tries to emphasize them as if they are the main topic. They aren't.

 

HP: Sounds like a still 'small' voice. Hmmmmm.
What if one would just happen to have in reality called God a liar as opposed to admitting ones own ‘infallible understanding’ might not have been so infallible after all, and find out in the end that what one called ‘hardly even a mention’ was in fact God’s full intention when He inspired Paul to write it as he did?

Remember, it is DHK’s understanding or the highway for a lying God…….at least for now. Are you willing to bet your very soul or the souls of others in your care with your insistence of your infallible interpretation? That is precisely what I see you doing.

 

It is not my interpretation. There is one interpretation--God's!
It is our duty to find out what God meant when he wrote the Bible.
Scripture does not contradict Scripture. All Scripture harmonizes with each other. When someone comes on here and posts a couple of verses that are totally against the great bulk of what the Bible says, then their doctrine is very questionable.

 

HP: DHK must believe that he and God are one.