How Romans 11 debunks OSAS

Good idea, we are getting a discussion of the nature and status of the Law mixed in with what is really a separate matter - whether OSAS can survive the implications of Romans 11.

 

I didn't say he did - I said he taught it.

If people could keep the law, why did Jesus come to fulfill it? Only Jesus kept the Law perfectly.

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. Matt. 5:17

I disagree - he was showing that no one can keep the Law.

Blameless does not mean he kept it perfectly but outwardly, he kept it. This was true of the Pharisees. He is showing how good a Jew he was.

The Law was given to show that man cannot keep it - that man can never meet God's standards. Galatians would be a good book to see that.

Also

 

I 'll quote more Scripture if you wish. James 2:10 is a good one.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

I have refuted this already. Didn't you read my post? Paul didn't say he kept all the law, only the righteousness of the law. Do the grammar. Find out the difference.

There is no inconsistency if you keep things in context. You will not do that.

With respect to the law:
Romans 3:9-20 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The law? No one can keep it. No one can do good. Doing good is keeping the law.

 

This does not refute my assertion. James is simply saying that those people who violate the law at one point are guilty of it all. This statement in no way says anything at all about the possibility that some people might indeed keep the law.

We may have a disagreement over semantics. I will get back to you on this.

This text never says that no one can keep the law.

This text indeed asserts the universality of human sin. And it claims that even if you keep the law, you cannot be justified by it. And it claims that the law gives knowledge of sin.

But, there is absolutely nothing in this text that says that it is impossible for a person to keep the Law of Moses. Are you going to say that sin only exists when the Law of Moses is broken? If that were true, and it clearly is not (see Romans 5), then you would have a point since that would mean that universality of sin means universality of breaking the Law of Moses.

 

Let's not philosophize, or play games of semantics. We know the truth. I will allow you to demonstrate it and give evidence. If you can't give evidence then consider the matter closed.
We know that Jesus was sinless in every area concerning the law. He was completely sinless in all things.

Give evidence of one person that was sinless. If there is a possibility that someone has kept all the law, then where is that person?

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

Sin is a transgression of the law. 1John 3:4

 

Here again is a verse for your pipe.

Lu 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

 

And the preceding verse:
Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

And I am righteous too. Generally speaking I keep the commands of God. This is not a difficult verse. It doesn't say they were sinless, for all have sinned.

Romans 4:2-3 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

They were made righteous the same way that Abraham was: by faith and not by works. Their life consisted in service at the Temple. It was a life of obedience to God. They were faithful, as many are today. That is the testimony of Scripture. The Bible does not say they were sinless. Don't read into Scripture more than what is there.

1 Timothy 3:1-2 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
--The first qualification of a pastor is that he be "blameless," but that does not mean without sin. It simply has the sense of above reproach, having a good testimony.

 

HP: First, you consistently play with words. One could have sinned in the past, yet repented and had those sins remitted thereby making one pure and righteous. Obviously whatever they had done in the past was under the blood if in fact they had sinned, and were currently walking in ALL the commandments and ordinaces of God presently.

There was not a word about ‘generally walking’ in the commandments of the Lord, but rather the clear testimony by God that they were walking holy before God. The position that has been taken, and I believe it to be the position that you have taken, is that no one can walk sinless before the Lord. That position is absolutely false according to this passage. They were walking sinless.
“ Lu 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” When one is declared righteous by God, and is walking in ALL the commandments and ordinances, you could not paint a picture of walking sinless before the Lord any better than that.

Why would you desire to play the part of a miserable comforter, and try to pin sin on these two individuals after listening to God’s testimony of their lives? Go ahead. Fill your cup to the full and hurl your false accusations of sin against two God said were indeed righteous, not simply due to the righteousness of having sins that are past forgiven, but were WALKING in full obedience to ALL the law.

I for one believe God tires of testifying to the righteous character of His saints just to have that character belittled by those trying to bring everyone down to the level they must live on. Belittle yourself, or throw your stones at me or anyone else on this board if you must, but leave God’s testimony of His saints as He has spoken concerning them as God Himself said it. God’s law can be obeyed. There have been and are many saints walking in full obedience to Gods law even as we speak with the help afforded them moment by moment by the Holy Spirit.

 

Then according to your pov Jesus was not the only sinless person to walk this earth.

Hbr 4:15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

I wonder what would have happened in this account if one of these sinless persons you speak of had brought the woman to Jesus;

Jhn 8:7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.


1Jo 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

When do you think Zacharias and Elisabeth did sin? Before Luke's testimony of them or after?

 

HP: You tell me. All I am saying is that at the time God wrote about them they were righteous before the Lord walking in ALL the law AND the ordinances blameless. I will leave it up to you or someone else to ascribe sin to their lives.


As I mentioned on another thread, the argument seems to be if in fact sin was ever noted in ones life that that somehow proves one cannot be sinless and that no one can keep the laws of God. That is simply false. If one is not made sinless at salvation, in that all sins that are past are forgiven and under the blood and ones heart made white as snow and blameless, they are not converted. There is no reason why a converted man cannot walk in that purified state, walking righteously before the Lord subsequent to that cleansing with the help proffered by the Holy Spirit. Even if he does sin subsequent to being cleansed, he can do his first works over and receive renewed cleansing and continue from that point sinless. Walking sinless does not signify that one has not sinned in the past nor that they cannot sin in the future. It is a state where all past sins are covered by the blood and one is currently walking in obedience with the Lord with the help of the Holy Spirit. We should all strive to walk such a consistent walk with the Lord.

“Deeper Experiences of Famous Christians” gives clear testimony to such holy lives before the Lord. It is an excellent read.

 

Now wait a minute, you are the one who insisted that these two were "sinless". Sinless means "without sin".

1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Two seemingly opposing statements yet the same author written within the same letter.

Can you harmonize the two?

John says;

1Jo 2:1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:


First John says if you say you know Jesus and do not keep God's commandments you are a liar and the truth is not in you.

Then John says "if you do sin". Sin is the transgression of the Commandments or in other words the NOT keeping thereof.

Can you explain so that both are true?

:godisgood:

 

This is the "semantics" issue to which I refer. The Law of Moses contained a sacrificial means to remediate "accidental" breakings of the Law. So as, you seem to be saying, Paul almost certainly did not keep the Law in the stringent sense that he never ever "broke" a dictate of the Law. I will agree that there were times when he probably did indeed break the law in this sense.

However, there are ways that the Law of Moses can be broken that are beyond remediation by the practices of sacrifice. This is the so-called "sinning with a high hand" - sinning intentionally.

Paul's statement of Pjillipians 3 does not requires that we understand that Paul never accidentally broke the Law of Moses, but it does require us to understand that he never broke it "with a high hand" - with deliberate, considered intent.

 

According to what you have posted you are either sinless or not saved.
Now you have posted this dilemma. How would you answer it?

 

NO, it doesn't say that. It points out that he was a zealous man before he was saved sincerely believing that he was doing the will of God. That is the intent of that passage.

 

This is evasion. I specifically countered your argument and you refuse to engage my counter-argument.

Well, Jesus certainly implicitly counseled others to break the Law of Moses. In Mark 7, He declares that all foods are clean, in direct contradiction to the Levitical kosher laws that are part of the Law of Moses. And Jesus also "broke" the Law of Moses in the sense that He very deliberately came into physical contact with lepers and with a woman with a menstrual discharge. All these activities made Jesus unclean according to the Law of Moses.

Now since the Law of Moses comes to an end at the cross, it is not at all surprising that Jesus would "symbolize" its imminent retirement by "breaking" the Law. This, of course, does not make Jesus a sinner.

Not the complete picture, if you are referring to the Law of Moses when you assert that sin is "transgression of the law". Here in Romans 5, Paul is clear that people did sin even before the Law of Moses was instituted:

Therefore, just as through (X)one man sin entered into the world, and (Y)death through sin, and (Z)so death spread to all men, because all sinned-
13for until the Law sin was in the world, but (AA)sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned (AB)in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a [a](AC)type of Him who was to come

Paul cannot be misunderstood - "sin" has an existence outside of the Law of Moses. If this were not so, Paul would not be able to claim that sin was in the world before the advent of the Law of Moses.

 

We disagree, and I am willing to let this particular matter drop for now.