How Romans 11 debunks OSAS

I stand by my interpretation unless proven otherwise. I have not been proven otherwise.

 

"I do not know how some people, who believe that a Christian can fall from grace, manage to be happy. It must be a very commendable thing in them to get through a day without despair. If I did not believe the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints, I think I should be of all men the most miserable, because I would lack any ground of comfort" (C.H. Spurgeon). This sums it all up very clear!

 

HP: Absolutely not. Just as in my marriage (that the clear possibilities that it could end) I am not walking around in despair, for I love my wife and she loves me and we would not do anything intentionally to cause our marriage to fail. I can walk with the Lord in full assurance and confidence of my daily and final standing before Him just as I can walk in confidence of my marriage.

The only one with a heart of fear or lack of confidence would be likened to one in a marriage that desires to have an assurance of the permanence of marriage while out committing adultery on one's spouse.
2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for IF ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

 

It would indeed be assuring if it were really true that perserverence is guaranteed. But several texts speak clearly that one can indeed fall away. Discomforting? Yes. However, there is a price to pay for free will creaturehood.

In any event, I am not sure why one's happiness should be threatened - walking away is ones' own choice. One should be no more miserable contemplating the possibility of falling away that one should be miserable about the possibility one will wake up one day and rob a bank.

 

I suggest that detailed examination of the text shows that this is an oversimplification - there is a deeply ingrained treatment of the Gentiles that permeates all three chapters.

Note this from the very beginning of chapter 9:

7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8In 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 these "children of the promise" that Paul clearly thinks are this "true" Israel. Are they only Jews? Obviously not. Consider this from Romans 4:

It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. 16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all

Clearly Paul is talking about a family that includes Gentiles right here at the outset of Chapter 9.

And there is much, much more in these three chapters about the Gentiles. The notion that this block of material is "about the nation of Israel" is a fundamentally unworkable generalization.

 

I cannot believe that God gives a gift to sinful people knowing that they will sin again and lose it. He gave me ETERNAL LIFE when I called on Him and NOT temporary life until my next sin, which I'm sure was the same day I was saved and many times since then. However, He is forgiving and hears me when I ask His forgiveness when I sin, which I still do occasionally--mostly just in my thoughts.

 

The problem with this is that you seem to set "what seems right to you" in the role that scripture should occupy. The problem is not about "what seems sensible or right to us", but rather what the scriptures assert.

Now here in Romans 11, we have Paul clearly focussing his remarks on Gentile believers. Paul describes the Gentiles as "standing in faith" This, alone, should seal the deal for the exegete - Paul is talking about believers. But there is more - Paul warns his Gentile audience to "continue in God's kindness" or they be will cut off. Can an unbelieving Gentile continue in God's kindness? Of course not, such a person is on outside of the family of God in virtue of being an unbeliever.

Uncomfortable as it may be for some, an exegesis that takes the details seriously leads us to the conclusion that believers can indeed fall away.

 

Very good post. :thumbs:

 

I for one am not uncomfortable. "For I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day."
My salvation is in His hands, not mine.
I thus observe that your exegesis is not proper at all, and your conclusion is the opposite of what Scripture teaches.

 

What you or I are persuaded of is not the issue. The issue is responsible exegesis - taking Paul at his word, even in the details. So the only recourse to salvage OSAS from Romans 11 is to gloss over, or effectively ignore, the fact that Paul clearly identifies those who "stand in faith",(verse 20) as the very ones who potentially can suffer loss. If we assume that Paul knows how to write properly, we cannot avoid the implication that, yes, Gentile believers can be lost.

As for the "He is able to keep" text: I am persuaded that my banker is able to keep the money I have entrusted to him. Does this mean I cannot go to the bank to retrieve my money? Of course not.

 

I don't gloss over anything. Scripture teaches that the saved has eternal life and that eternal life is eternal and cannot become temporal. A true believer in Christ can never be lost no matter what you think. You opinion on the matter is not going to change the truth of the Word of God.

Your denial of the promises of the Word of God is unfathomable. I was quoting Paul, in case you didn't catch it.

2 Timothy 1:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

Here is something else that Paul was persuaded of:

Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I know I am saved.
I know I have eternal life.
I know that eternal life will never end.
I know that if I died right now I would go straight to heaven. I know that beyond any shadow of any doubt.

 

This is not a valid argument in that it fundamentally begs the very question at issue. The text in Romans 11 says what it says - Paul is quite clear that believing Gentiles have the possibility of falling away. 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.

You simply appeal to the OSAS doctrine above as if it is self-evidently true. If you can furnish the relevant texts, please do. But if you do, we all have a problem - we will have a situation where scripture asserts OSAS in one place, and yet denies it in another.

 

More condescension with more failure to engage my argument. I engaged the above text with a clear analogy. You have simply ignored my argument.

I assume that since you do not see an "except for free will rejection" clause here, you assume that this text is an argument for your OSAS position.

This is a familar tactic, but it is flawed. If Paul were to state every appropriate qualifier everywhere he makes a doctrinal statement, the Bible would be 20,000 pages long. For a variety of reasons, not least the Romans 11 material, we know that Paul believes that believers still retain a measure of self-determining free will. I think it is rather clear that the absence of an "except for free will" clause in the above is not really an argument for OSAS.

Look at what Paul says here:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

If I read this statement on its own, without letting its meaning be informed by other things Paul says, I would conclude that we are saved by moral self-effort. Yet we all know this is false and there are all kinds of unstated qualifiers that we need to nuance this statement with. And yet you seem to think that this text from Romans 8 asserts OSAS just because Paul does not give an explicit "except for free will" qualification.

 

Your argument is that Christ is a mere human banker. Sorry, it wasn't worth answering. Bankers make mistakes; they are human. Christ makes no mistakes. He is infallible. There is no comparison. You can entrust your money to your banker and indeed he may fail. But I will entrust my salvation to Christ, and know for certainty that he will never fail. Thus your analogy fails. To compare Christ to a human banker is akin to blasphemy. Like I said it wasn't worth answering.

What in the context of Romans 8 is going to deny the validity of this promise of OSAS, that the believer will never be separated from Christ? Can you show me?

There is no flawed argument here. Where you want to see man losing his salvation there is no such argument--only a wresting of scripture out of its context. I really would like to see that extra 20,000 pages of Scripture. You can't even show 1.

That is right, because we know that a man is not saved by his works, and the Bible does not contradict itself.

Free will is taught in the Bible; I never said it wasn't. But this is a promise of eternal security. Show me from context how it isn't.

 

Yet more condescension and rhetoric (making the claim that I am engaging in blasphemy - really not even remotely plausible).

In any event, what you say above does not really engage the force of the argument. The point of the argument is not about the difference in the banker's ability to fulfill his promise as contrasted to God’s ability to keep His. The point was that when I give money to a banker, the fact that even when a perfectly competent banker can fulfill that trust, I always retain the right to withdraw my money.

The problem is that the Romans 8 text never explicitly rules out the possibility that we can freely walk away. Again, your argument rests on a dubious assumption - because the clause does not say we can walk away, this is an argument means that we can't, in fact, walk away. As already argued, this is an exceedingly suspect line of reasoning since it is entirely unreasonable to expect that all qualifiers will be listed every time a statement of doctrine is made.

 

The fact that Romans 8 does not deny OSAS is not an argument for the truth of OSAS.

When Paul argues that "nothing" can separate from the love of God, and then lists possible agencies that might otherwise have that power, we can reasonably believe that he is really arguing about how no external agency can tear us away from God.

That this is so is seen from an analogy. Suppose someone has threatened Fred's life. The police take Fred to a place of high security and promise him that "nothing can take your life from you in this safe place", is the police telling him that it is not possible for him to take his own life? Or to leave that safe place freely? Of course not.

Likewise, what Paul tells us in Romans 8 cannot be taken as denying the possibilty that a person might freely walk away.

And, of course, we the text from Romans 11 that clearly states that people can walk away.

You have yet to answer the following question:

 

HP: You have presented the truth in a clear and concise manner. :thumbsup: Many more will find in the end that they have simply had false and hollow hopes from the get go and are deceived as to their standing before God. Possibly they have been led into believing they were saved because of one spreading a false message of salvation and assurance. Sad but true.