How Romans 11 debunks OSAS

Do you not believe in absolute statements; absolute truths?
What part of this statement do you not get?
Nothing can separate me from the love of Christ.
Nothing is an absolute. There is absolutely nothing that can separate me from the love of Christ. Absolutely nothing. This is eternal security.

Then that would be contradict what he previously said. That would make him a liar. God doesn't lie. Either what he says is true or not. Nothing separates us from the love of God. True or false. There are no conditions attached to this statement. No exception clauses according to Andre's theology.

The police cannot make an infallible promise such as God can. No earthly illustration can do because God is perfect and man is not. When God says nothing can separate us from the love of God, that is what he means. I am sorry that you don't believe in the promises of God. That is sad.

Paul makes an absolute statement. Nothing changes that absolute statement, not even Andre's theology. Too bad.

No Romans 11 has never taught that. Any person that has studied Romans 11 objectively knows that. The subject is the nation of Israel and their final redemption.

 

Not for us Bob, just for you.
It shows your lack of respect for the Bible. In fact each one of these passages shows your total (either lack of respect or total ignorance of context--you choose).
First, as has been pointed out before (care to listen this time), a parable does not teach doctrine. It simply illustrates doctrine that is already taught elsewhere. But you insist on teaching a false doctrine "forgiveness revoked" that can only be drug out of a parable and nowhere else in the Bible. That is what the Bible calls "wresting the Scripture to one's own destruction."

Again, the same as above--a total avoidance of context. Paul was making a sarcastic type of a statement. But no one can tell that here because you have only quoted half of the verse for your own devious means. That is shameful Bob. Bob, do you believe that the Bible teaches "There is no God." But it does say it doesn't it? It says it in Psalm 14:1

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

However, perhaps you are the fool that quotes only half the verse in Galatians, as the fool above that says in his heart "There is no God."
What does the verse say:

Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
--In other words, if you think that you are justified by the law, I have news for you. Christ is of no effect. If he is of no effect you were never saved in the first place. You are fallen from grace or his offer of grace. He is speaking of an unsaved person, a person who puts his trust in the law and not in Christ. That teaching is obvious. But it isn't obvious if you only quote a portion of the verse.

It has nothing to do with OSAS, but everything to do with the nation of Israel, and when quoted AGAIN out of context, you try to make it say something it does not say. But according to you the Bible says: "There is no God," and perhaps you believe it by the way you take Scripture out of context.

 

So shall my Father do what?
Your perverted application of the parable is not what is intended.
Here is what a Presbyterian, Albert Barnes said:

Remember Bob, it is a parable.

 

Bob, I like and appreciate the manner in which you respond to the tirades and personal insults thrown at you by 'others.' :thumbsup:

It speaks volumes, as do the comments of those hurling the insults.:thumbsup:

 

Mt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

I do not know why, but I personally read and take careful notice of remarks from our Lord such as this.

 

Good greif! raying:

 

Look again. This time put your bias away.

Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

1. Christ has become of no effect to you--a statement that can only be said to an unsaved person.
2. ...you are justified by the law? --a statement that can only be said to an unsaved person.

It is true Paul is writing to believers. Whether spoken in sarcasm or whether the conclusion at the end is rhetorical, it is hard to tell. One thing is for sure, an unsaved person cannot fall from the grace or the standing that a saved person has. Thus it may read or have the sense of: fallen from the grace you "think ye may have had."
The history behind the letter to the Galatians is that they were plagued by Judaizers, those false teachers that demanded that circumcision and keeping the law were required to be saved. They were legalists. A decision was already made on this in Acts 15, that this was not required. It was a perversion of the gospel. Paul states that if one comes with another gospel (as this one), let him be accursed (in the first chapter of this epistle. If there were those among the Galatians that had been swayed by these legalists and were holding on to the law for their salvation, it is probable that they hadn't been saved in the first place and were now following the teachings of false teachers--the Judaizers. The grace that they would have "fallen from" is privilege of hearing the gospel.
Listen to the rebuke:

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
--Apparently there were some that didn't obey the truth. They had followed false teachers instead. They were never saved in the first place, but had the opportunity to be.

 

HP: Let the reader take careful notice that the only ‘evidence’ DHK presents to make his case is via begging the question, arguing from the unsupported presupposition of OSAS and using that unsupported conjecture in an attempt to defeat a clear opposing statement of Scripture to the contrary.

Listen carefully to the rabbit DHK pulls out of his box as support of his position. “One thing is for sure, an unsaved person cannot fall from the grace or the standing that a saved person has.” The rabbit happens to be again nothing more or less than a begging of the question, assuming without proof the position from which he argues.

But it does not stop there. Then he ADDS to the Scripture thoughts no where supported by the text itself with these words. “Thus it may read or have the sense of: fallen from the grace you "think ye may have had."
Pardon me? Where does the text state or insinuate your injection of “think ye might have had???”

 

"There is absolutely nothing that can separate me from the love of Christ. Absolutely nothing. This is eternal security."

DHK, Doesn't Jesus love the lost as much as he loves the saved. Are you saying He only loves those who are saved?

 

He was writing to Christians.

CONTEXT:
Romans 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

Romans 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Romans 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
--Verse 37 specifically shows us the context is speaking of believers. We as Christians are conquerors in this world. And no matter what happens, in the face of the greatest persecution, nothing will separate us from the love of Christ. That was the meaning of the verse.
See again verse 36: For thy sake we are killed all the day long.
--The believers of that day suffered a great persecution, but nothing could separate them from the love of Christ.

This is far different from the truth of John 3:16
God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son

 

You are presenting an entirely unworkable way to read the Bible. Your argument about this text rests on an unrealistic understanding of language. Yes, if language were a precise mathematical system of communincation without subtlety and nuance, then "nothing would mean nothing".

But this is not how language works. As been pointed out to you before, let's imagine what would happen if I took your approach to the exegesis of this text:

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.

Now, just as you have said that "nothing means nothing", I could point out that this text, taken with the same rigid thinking, leads to a "man gets eternal life by his works position". And yet, I suspect that we all agree that this statement needs to be nuanced and qualified in light of all else we see in the Scriptures.

Besides, I have already provided an an analogy which demonstrates that in this general context, the "nothing" can be understood as actually connoting external agencies.

If someone under threat is brough to safe place and told "Nothing can you hurt you here", does this imply that the person cannot choose to leave that safe place? Or take their own life?

Of course not.

 

As per my last post, this is not a workable system inasmuch as it does not honour the inherent ambiguity and imprecision of language. As already stated, we have the statement in Romans 2 that a man gets eternal life by persisting in doing good.

DHK, does this make a God a liar in virtue of the fact that we all know that salvation is fundamentally connected to faith, and not works?

Or consider this statement from the book of Job:

At least there is hope for a tree:
If it is cut down, it will sprout again,
and its new shoots will not fail.

8 Its roots may grow old in the ground
and its stump die in the soil,
9 yet at the scent of water it will bud
and put forth shoots like a plant. 10 But man dies and is laid low;
he breathes his last and is no more.

Considered on its own, this block of text asserts that "when you're dead that's it?

Do you believe this is inspired scripture DHK? If so, how can it be read other than as indicating when you are dead, you are dead,

This is not a valid critique of my argument as has already been shown. I will not repeat what I have already written in response to this argument of yours.

 

I am quite confident that I have studied Romans 11 at least as much as you have. I really see no constructive benefit in your condescending remarks.

In any event, I challenge your take here at many levels. You seem to think that Romans 11 promises a significant future large-scale salvation of Jews. I disagree, but perhaps that is a debate for another thread.

Your statement that the text is about the nation of Israel is manifestly false. An entire swaith of it is directed clearly and unamiguously at Gentiles:

I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

17If 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. 22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.

This is clearly an extended discourse directed at Gentiles - all the "you" references are targeting Gentiles. And, of course, Paul plainly raises the possiblity that they will fall from a position of faith".

This argument that "Paul cannot possibly be raising the possiblity of Gentiles falling away since the chapter is about Israel" is clearly not a valid argument. It is like arguing that if President Obama addresses a component of his state of the union addres to Canadians, those remarkd are discarded since the overall theme of the speech is the state of the United States.

I question whether it can be said that Israel is even the major theme of 9 to 11, or would want to heavily qualify that. However, even if it is, this simply does not give license to ignore a sub-theme where Paul is clearly making significant statements about the status of Gentiles.

 

Hello DHK: This is now the third time I have posed this question to you: