Forgiveness Once? Don't Be A Dunce!

[Drew]

I must admit that I see so very little information in Chapter 9 on the covenant history of Israel. First of all, a covenant history would certain include some clips the Mosaic Covenant. Then there would be some content about Israels disobedience to the Covenant. All that is completely absent. The most you can point to is a quote from Ex 33 that does not refer directly to the Mosaic Covenant. Also, if it were a covenant history of Israel it would not focus so much on the patriarchs. Israel had not even begun at that time. There is very little connection between the material selected from the patriarchs and the concept of covenant. You think Paul would have included the cutting of covenant in Genesis 15, or quotes from the OT where the covenants were cut. There is none of this.

I have to disagree here and assert that Romans 9 is loaded to the gills with covenant history. You say there is nothing about the disobedience of the Covenant. Paul explicitly refers to Moses and quotes from Exodus 33. What is Exodus 33 all about? It is about Moses' interaction with God following the disobedience of the people in constructing the golden calf. Immediately follow this disobedience, Moses intercedes for the people and appeals to the covenant:

But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. "O LORD," he said, "why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, 'It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: 'I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.'

I cannot think of a more clear reference to the covenant as this. And Paul also echoes Moses words about wanting to be blotted out so that the nation of Israel can be spared. Paul is standing in the Moses' position in Romans 9 - lamenting over national Israel's disobedience to the covenant.

To call this "narrative" literature is a farce. Paul is using anecdotes from patriarchal, and Israelite history to establish a theological point.

The real farce is seeing individual elements of this clear story of the covenant as mere anecdotes. The evidence that Romans 9 (and 10) is about the covenant is rich and compelling and there is a lot more I could and will say in support of this point of view. To not see the covenant here is to not see the forest for the trees. The same "small - picture" thinking occurs when people read Romans 4:6 and think Paul is citing Abraham simply as an example of "justification by faith". While Abraham is indeed such an example, Paul includes him here in service of one of his main reasons for writing Romans - to show that indeed God has been faithful to the covenant that he established with guess who - Abraham.

 

[Drew]

I hope to return to each of mondar's point and address them. In this post, I give further evidence that in Romans 9 and 10, Paul is talking about God's faithfulness to the covenant.

Note the following from Romans 10:

"But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down)"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming."

Now consider the following from Deuteronomy 30:

It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

Is anyone going to deny that Paul is "transcribing" from this text in Deuteronomy. But what is Deuteronomy 30 all about?

It is about covenant renewal. Starting at verse 1 we have

When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come upon you and you take them to heart wherever the LORD your God disperses you among the nations, 2 and when you and your children return to the LORD your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, 3 then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes [a] and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. .

This clear reference to the covenant - and specifically the element of covenant renewal - comes at the end of a retelling of the covennat story that begins in Romans 9. Its all there - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the disobedience of the people to the covenant, exile, and here in this text - covenant renewal.

 

[Drew]

Drew, if you understood what Paul is saying in Romans 9:6, you would see that Paul is saying the exact opposite of what you have suggested. Drew, in Romans 9:6 there is no redefinition of terms. Romans 9:6 is dividing up Israel into two groups. Group 1 (all Israel) is every genetic Israelite. Not all of these had faith and were saved. This group is "non elect."
Group 2 is the remnant, or elect Israel. They are the ones with whom the word of God takes "effect."

The point of Romans 9:24 is that just as there is an elect and called Israel, there is an elect and called gentile group. To say that the context is not about salvation, then the natural question is:
QUESTION 3---What are the gentiles "called" to or elected to in verse 24?

I certainly agree that Paul is saying something along the lines that "all Israel is not Israel".

But Romans 9 and 10 are about the covenant. And therefore the correct question to ask is "Who are the true children of Abraham- the true members of the true covenant family?". Being a member of national Israel is not enough in Paul's eyes. In Romans 4, he points out that Abraham was reckoned a member of the covenant before he was circumcized. And in Romans 9, Paul says:

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

So being a member of genetic Israel is neither necessary nor sufficient for covenant membership. I think that true covenant membership is based on one thing only - faith.

There is no re-definition of terms going on here at all. Paul is pointing out what has always been the case - membership in the covenant family is not based on being ethnically Jewish. The covenant was always designed to include Gentiles as well as Jews.

Paul sends us back to Genesis to understand the covenant. God calls Abraham to be the means of saving the world. Reading Genesis as it stands, we find that in chapters 15 and 17 God establishes his covenant with Abraham.

Abraham's faith was the evidence that he was already, by the grace and call of God, entering into that partnership with God which is then embodied in the covenant described in the next
verses, followed in chapter 17 by the covenant sign of circumcision. And the covenant indeed envisages both the restriction of blessing to some, not all, of Abraham's children and the extension of blessing to the Gentiles.

So I see no evidence at all against the interpretation that I am putting forward. In Romans 9, Paul is underscoring that the true children of Abraham is simply not the set of all Jews.

So we agree that not all genetic Israel had "had faith and were saved". But I submit that you are bringing a particular belief about election to this text if you think that it is about election of persons unto salvation. I think it is about national Israel's national election to "act out the Christ pattern" and thereby to be cast away for the sins of the world. I will not further defend this particular claim in this post but will return to it in later posts.

What has Paul been talking about just before he introduces the potter' tale? He has been talking about God's hardening of Pharaoh to serve a specific redemptive purpose - the deliverance of the Jews out of Egypt. Even if there were no other reasons (and there are other reasons as we will see) to see the potter's account as one about "national election" to a specific historical purpose, the mere fact that this story immediately folllows the exodus story in which God hardens Pharoah to achieve a specific historical act of redemption should clue us in that Paul is not talking about election of persons unto salvation and damnation.

I suggest that he is explaining how Israel is a vessel fitted for destruction just like Pharaoh was.

In any event, turning to Romans 9:24 and your question , one can quite legitimately see this text as describing the fact that God has "elected" national Isreal (a corporate entity) to be a vessel cast away for the sake of the true members of the covenant - containing both Jews and Gentiles. This family of true members of the covenant have benefited from Israel's being cast away and owe her a deep debt of gratitude and Paul acknowledges this - the "true family" are elected to this benefit in the plans of God. And this benefit does indeed include salvation, so I mispoke if I categorically claimed in the past that this has nothing to do with salvation.

But, and here things get interesting from a conceptual point of view, God works in history - He "manipulates" nations. God's great plan for salvation involves electing national Israel to bear the sins of the world (I will return to this in later posts) so that another group - the true family can benefit. However, I don not think this means that individual members of either group are elected.

 

[mondar]

The fact that Romans 9:24 mentions the Gentiles is Paul's re-assertion that the true people of God are, and actually always were (as per earlier "selectivity" material in Romans 9), not specifically defined by Jewish ethnicity but rather a people marked out only on the basis of faith. Obviously Pauls' "re-definition" of who the covenant people really are cannot be extricated from the story of national Israel - a people who thought they were "born into" covenant membership.

So in Romans 9:6 Gods people is Israel, but by Romans 9:24 we find out that God never really did pick Israel as a people unto himself. By Romans 9:24 God not longer means that Israel is Gods people, it was always the nations or gentiles?

Not only this but Paul is making a "re-defination" of who the people of God really are? Would it be OK with you if Paul "re-defined" a few more terms to suit his fancy? It amazes me that someone could think the OT defined the people of God in one way, and that Paul came along and just redefined it all. Yet in the very same paragraph you say "and actually always were."

Don 't blame me - it is Paul who make the case, not me. And I never said that the OT "defined the true nation of Israel one way and that Paul re-defined it".

No, I dont need to blame Paul, he did not redefine anything in the context of Romans 9. Your statement is:
"Obviously Pauls' "re-definition" of who the covenant people really are cannot be extricated from the story of national Israel..."
In what you write in your next statement, you seem to retract this statement without admitting your error. I think we have it strait now that there is no "re-definition" of any terms in this passage.

Paul's very argument is that true Israel has always been defined in terms of one thing and one thing only - faith.

Paul writes the following in Romans 9:

For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel

and

"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"

Paul is saying that, from the very establishment of the covenant, the true people of God are marked out by faith and not by ethnic Jewishness. This is underscored in the very establishment of the covenant:

Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness

Paul is saying that, at the time Jesus arrives, there are two Israels - one expressed in terms of ehtnicity and the other, a subset of this first Israel - those ethnic Jews who actually have faith in the God who declares:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength

But this "real Israel" will soon expand beyond the boundaries of ethnic Israel. In keeping with what the covenant promised all along, the Gentiles are now to be grafted in.

I would be careful with this last statement. We are grafted into the promise of God, and we are drawn near to the commonwealth of Israel. Yet the scripture does not teach we were made to be Israel. There is a subtle difference. I mention this subtle difference because we gentiles come under the blessings of Israel, but this does not make us Israel.

ILLUSTRATION---If I promised my son $100 for Christmas, and gave the neighbor boy $100 for his families Thanksgiving Day feast. That does not mean he is a part of my family.

I think what you are saying is that Paul is making up a complete redefinition of the term "Gods people." God used to mean one thing by the term, but when that idea fell apart and did not work God and Paul just redefines terms to keep his word from totally failing? Oh, and I forgot, this term "Gods people" has nothing to do with salvation. Your suggesting that the OT promises in verse 4-5 were to unbelieving genetic Israel and God came along and just said, "Well, I am going to re-interpret my promises to Israel and change it all up." Really? You really believe that?

I am not saying that God's idea "fell apart" and that Paul is redefining Israel on this basis. I am saying, actually it is Paul that is saying, that "true Israel" was never reckoned on the basis of Jewish ethnicity. In fact, in Romans 4, Paul writes:

If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast aboutâ€â€but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.

Paul here is saying that Abraham was never justified by being under Torah - that is what "works" refers to here, not moral self-effort - but rather by faith. In covenant language, justification equals membership in the true family of God.

Now that you admit that true Israel receives her blessings by faith, I must of course ask whose faith? Is it the faith of a nation, or individuals within that nation. So then are the promises to the genetic nation as a whole, or individuals within that nation?

To divide up Israel (in Romans 9:6) into two groups is a correct interpretation (genetic Israel which includes unbelievers Vs believing Israel). But now it leaves you agreeing with my reading of Romans 9 that includes issues of faith and individual salvation. Yes, I have never denied it is also about Israel, my point has always been that it is not exclusively about Israel.

So then the statement in verse 11 concerning election involves individual Israelites within the nation. Thus the illustrations in verse 7-12 of Isaac and Jacob, and not Ishmael and Esua reflect Gods sovereign choice of individuals to come to faith and receive the promises and covenants.

There are no blessings given to Esau, even though he was geneticly from Isaac. Neither did Ishmael receive any blessings even though he was a genetic descendant of Abraham. It was an issue of faith.

 

[Drew]

The fact that Romans 9:24 mentions the Gentiles is Paul's re-assertion that the true people of God are, and actually always were (as per earlier "selectivity" material in Romans 9), not specifically defined by Jewish ethnicity but rather a people marked out only on the basis of faith. Obviously Pauls' "re-definition" of who the covenant people really are cannot be extricated from the story of national Israel - a people who thought they were "born into" covenant membership.

So in Romans 9:6 Gods people is Israel, but by Romans 9:24 we find out that God never really did pick Israel as a people unto himself. By Romans 9:24 God not longer means that Israel is Gods people, it was always the nations or gentiles?

Not only this but Paul is making a "re-defination" of who the people of God really are? Would it be OK with you if Paul "re-defined" a few more terms to suit his fancy? It amazes me that someone could think the OT defined the people of God in one way, and that Paul came along and just redefined it all. Yet in the very same paragraph you say "and actually always were."

Don 't blame me - it is Paul who make the case, not me. And I never said that the OT "defined the true nation of Israel one way and that Paul re-defined it".

No, I dont need to blame Paul, he did not redefine anything in the context of Romans 9. Your statement is:
"Obviously Pauls' "re-definition" of who the covenant people really are cannot be extricated from the story of national Israel..."
In what you write in your next statement, you seem to retract this statement without admitting your error. I think we have it strait now that there is no "re-definition" of any terms in this passage.

Your analysis of what I have said is arguable. And even if I was somewhat unclear, any error on my part does not underminse what Paul is saying. I very intentionally placed the word "re-definition" in quotes - to give the strong message that Paul is not actually re-defining what was defined in the Old Testament. But perhaps I could have been clearer.

I will try to be more clear:

1. In Romans 9, Paul points out that not all the genetic offspring of Abraham are to be considered part of national Israel - Israel according to the flesh. There is selectivity - Isaac is part of national Israel and Ishmael isn't, Jacob is and Esau isn't.

2. Paul also argues in Romans 9 and elsewhere in Romans that while there is indeed a national Israel (subject to the selectivity described in (1)), there is also a second Israel - the true family of God . At the time of the writing of Romans, this second Israel is a subset of national Israel. But not for long- the Gentiles are about to be grafted in:

What 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 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people

So when, in the early verses Romans 9, Paul asserts the "selectivity" at Isaac and again at Jacob, what is he up to? He is establishing a precedent for "things perhaps not being what they seem" in terms of who is "really Israel" and who is not. And in the later verses of chapter 9, as well as elsewhere in the book of Romans, Paul makes it clear that this "true Israel" - this true covenant family - has its membership determined solely on the basis of faith.

So Paul is not "re-working" anything - he is simply telling the reader the way things always have been. Please do not be deceived into thinking that I am proposing anything at all to the effect that Paul is striking down stuff from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul goes out of his way to make this clear in texts like:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

13It 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.

 

[unred typo]

I see Drew has done an excellent treatise of Romans 9. I won’t muddle it up with my two cents. I would like to focus on Mondar’s post dealing with “the concept of not being forgiven for all sinâ€Â.

quote by mondar on Tue Oct 16, 2007:
One of the great and massive problems of the concept of not being forgiven for all sin is that it makes keeping your salvation dependent on your own righteousness. This self-righteousness is never the basis of either salvation, or keeping salvation.

No and no. Not having a blanket forgiveness for all sin makes ‘keeping your salvation’ dependant on the blood of Christ, and walking according to his way of salvation, where it should be. This has been incorrectly labeled as ‘self-righteousness’ when it is really just obedience. Pride is not a prerequisite for obedience. There is no reason to assume because a person is attempting to follow Christ, that they are doing it in pride. In fact, a sincere reading of Christ’s teachings will knock the pride right out of you and dedication to his principles will keep you humbly confessing your sin and ever thankful for his love and forgiveness and mindful of his sacrifice.

quote by mondar:
Notice that God is always be basis of salvation. In the process of salvation, notice it is always God who does the action. All pronouns are speaking of Gods actions in salvation.

Rom 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
Rom 8:30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

As usual, you have redefined the meaning of Paul’s words. Step back up to verse 1. Notice there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. It is clearly and without a doubt that Paul is speaking of those who are being obedient to Christ, who are walking according to the teaching of the Spirit.

I would also like to point out here that those whom God foreknew are the individuals who were selected because of their choice to follow Christ. This plan to select ‘those who obey Christ’ to obtain eternal life was made before the foundation of the world, not specific individuals who had not even been created yet.

quote by mondar:
On the other hand, it is the elect who receive the benefits.
Rom 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?
Rom 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?
Rom 8:33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth;
Rom 8:34 who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Rom 8:36 Even as it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; We were accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Rom 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
Rom 8:39 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.

This part is true. The elect do receive the benefits. The elect are those who are obedient to Christ and are confessing their sins as they repent of them whenever the Spirit brings conviction of missteps in their everyday walk.

quote by mondar:
Salvation is not partially the work of God and partially the work of man, rather it is completely the work of God and man receives the benefits.

You wish. The plan for salvation was fully prepared by God and made possible by the death of his son, but the plan is not that man do nothing in the process. The plan entails that man be made responsible to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, both to do good works and to repent of sin. Salvation is still a gift.

Think of it as a free full scholarship to a prestigious university with on-campus housing given you by a rich unknown benefactor. You don’t have to build your classrooms, or hire your professors, or write your books or pay your tuition but if you are going to get your ‘free’ education, you are going to have to study, go to classes, be tested, do your homework and apply yourself to learn. You may even have to buy and carry your own books. Does that mean you can brag that you paid for your own education? You are still indebted to your generous benefactor for his wonderful gift of grace to you. If you don’t get an education and graduate, it’s your own fault.

 

[Hugo]

We have been buried with Christ; we have been raised with Christ.

And Christ died once for all.

 

[Imagican]

If OSAS is TRUTH then there would be NO NEED for 'judgement'. And how could there be repentance WITHOUT conviction? And HOW could there BE conviction if one has 'started fresh and NEW'? For IF one were to BE CLEANSED and LIVING IN CHRIST, how could they offer ANY OTHER SIN to begin with?

OSAS was created to SATISFY those that chose to 'believe in Christ' but NOT live FOR HIM.

MEC

 

[Biblereader]

God loves even those in hell. Forgiveness of sin is not the same as God loving us. God does not cease to love us EVER.

I'm not sure how far you mean to take that, however that view isn't far from the front door step of universal reconcilliation. Could you clarify, biblically?

Thanks,

~Josh

What is universal reconciliation?

 

[Biblereader]

If OSAS is TRUTH then there would be NO NEED for 'judgement'.
Your works of faith will be judged, and if they are wood, hay, and stubble, they will burn up,
but you will be saved, as if by fire.
And how could there be repentance WITHOUT conviction?
Amen. We know the difference between right and wrong, and you don't turn away from your sins,
until you feel guilty about them.
And HOW could there BE conviction if one has 'started fresh and NEW'?
Here;s where you lost me. I don't understand what this sentence exactly is getting at.
For IF one were to BE CLEANSED and LIVING IN CHRIST, how could they offer ANY OTHER SIN to begin with?
How could WHO offer any other sin? What are you talking about?

OSAS was created to SATISFY those that chose to 'believe in Christ' but NOT live FOR HIM.
OSAS is a shakey doctrine. Lots of inconsistencies, when compared with the bible.
The KJV bible, the true word.
Here, look at this passage: 4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
MEC

 

[Imagican]

If OSAS is TRUTH then there would be NO NEED for 'judgement'. And how could there be repentance WITHOUT conviction? And HOW could there BE conviction if one has 'started fresh and NEW'? For IF one were to BE CLEANSED and LIVING IN CHRIST, how could they offer ANY OTHER SIN to begin with?

OSAS was created to SATISFY those that chose to 'believe in Christ' but NOT live FOR HIM.

MEC

Ok, let me clarify:

How could there be conviction of sin where there is NO SIN PRESENT? For IF one IS cleansed of their sins then they are CLEAN. And IF The Word offers TRUTH, then we KNOW that there WILL be a CONTINUING of sin in ones life that NEEDS to be 'cleansed' through repentance. OSAS would eliminate this NEED by saying that ONCE one IS saved they are SAVED FOREVER. And there would also be no need for our warning to serve with 'FEAR AND TREMBLING', for IF OSAS were truth, then one WOULD be ABLE to 'rest assured' that their 'place' was ETERNAL regardless of their 'behavior' AFTER first 'being saved'.

If you will now go back and read what I offered FIRST, I believe that what I have offered here will make my understanding much easier to follow.

Oh, and the scripture to which you refer IS a 'good one' but there are MANY MANY MANY others that point out MORE specifically the 'falacy' of OSAS.

This issue has already been 'beat to death' in past posts so I'll pass on getting much 'deeper' into it. For new members you are able to search for past topics and will find that there has been MUCH offered to either prove to one or disprove such issues. For some PROOF doesn't play much of a 'part' of their understanding for their BELIEF seems much more important than ANY PROOF could offer.

MEC

MEC

 

[unred typo]

quote by Drew:
Veritas wrote:“okay... so... I read that as good works resulting from saving faith.â€Â

Hello:

The above is not my intended meaning. Surprising as it may seem, I am indeed saying that works are indeed the basis for receiving eternal life, not simply a result of saving faith. And yes, this puts my position out of the "mainstream" of post-reformation protestantism.

I cannot see how to make sense of these Romans 2 texts from Paul if we are not justified by the works that we exhibit:

7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous

I find the most common reading of these verses to be utterly implausible - that Paul is referring to a path of justification that no one will take. I humbly suggest that if one reads the text this way, Paul would have to be an awfully confused person to make such statements and intend that we are to take them as being a path to justification that none will take. I have argued this at some length in other recent posts. What kind of a writer would basically say: "There will indeed be works-based condemnation for both Jew and Gentile as there will also be works-based justification for both Jew and Gentile" and to intend his reader to understand that the set of those thus condemned will contain some people while the set of those justified will contain zero people.

This is so true. I don’t think we are going to get very far with convincing others of this since they have been too happy with the ear tickling they get from ‘famous’ Bible scholars who must be right since they have studied it so well. As MEC has just pointed out, why would you need proof when you have belief? This is also shored up by the belief that OSAS’ers have in ‘belief.’ “If you only believe in our ‘no works’ gospel, you shall be rewarded with eternal life, so hold on to your dreams.†Right. Sure. Dream on. What could anyone say that would wake up these dreamers?

Words mean something, to quote a famous talk radio personality. Belief is empty if it isn’t shown by works. Belief and works are intrinsically intertwined. If you believed that your sandwich was poisoned, would you eat it? If you believed that your car was out of gas would you drive by the last gas station for 100 miles? If you believed your dog had rabies, would you let him lick your face? If you believed that Jesus was Lord of all, would you obey him? If you believed in what he taught, would you follow it?

Wait! Didn’t Paul bring us another gospel, I mean, the one for true believers? We don’t have to follow Christ to be saved anymore! That’s the new good news. Now we do works for smaller rewards, instead of the big one. Eternal life is in the bag. What me worry? Heh heh. If you believe that…
You haven’t read Drew’s posts about what Paul taught here:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30673&start=15 and several other places on this board

PS posted this in the wrong place but it fits,,,, :-D

 

[guibox]

unred and others,
First of all, it almost sounds like you and others are saying that believing in OSAS means you have a license to sin and can live a life of debauchery once you get a 'shoe in'. I don't think any follower of Christ would agree with this.

Though I don't believe in OSAS, I must also question the logical conclusions that unred and others will end up drawing. I believe the OSAS was created as a reaction to the inevitable conclusion of 'salvation by obedience'. That if my eternal life is dependant on my obedience, it is very easy to be lost. What happens when I commit a sin (as I most likely will at some point) and then die? What happens then? Is my walk with Christ forgotten? Am I doomed to suffer eternal torment because of one unconfessed sin?

This is why Catholics invented purgatory.

If you DO believe that salvation is based on my choices to remain in Christ and not disobey, then you must come to the conclusion that it is all based on that and that one sin can in fact do me in.

This can't be right either, and this is what OSASers are reacting to and shout 'Salvation by works!'

If our salvation is based on our 'obedience' then you could be lost at ANY given time should you have a heart attack and die while entertaining a lustful thought. It seems it is VERY difficult to be saved and thus we would spend the rest of our days worrying about our salvation status. What extreme pressure that would be.

What say you to this, unred? According to where your theology is headed, the logical conclusion is that either relationship and being in Christ, not individual actions are the basis of our salvation, or purgatory is a necessary option.

 

[Vic C.]

guibox, you may be, in actuality, putting up a case for perseverance of the saints, or some doctrine to that effect. Am I "reading" you correctly?

 

[Imagican]

unred and others,
First of all, it almost sounds like you and others are saying that believing in OSAS means you have a license to sin and can live a life of debauchery once you get a 'shoe in'. I don't think any follower of Christ would agree with this.

Though I don't believe in OSAS, I must also question the logical conclusions that unred and others will end up drawing. I believe the OSAS was created as a reaction to the inevitable conclusion of 'salvation by obedience'. That if my eternal life is dependant on my obedience, it is very easy to be lost. What happens when I commit a sin (as I most likely will at some point) and then die? What happens then? Is my walk with Christ forgotten? Am I doomed to suffer eternal torment because of one unconfessed sin?

This is why Catholics invented purgatory.

If you DO believe that salvation is based on my choices to remain in Christ and not disobey, then you must come to the conclusion that it is all based on that and that one sin can in fact do me in.

This can't be right either, and this is what OSASers are reacting to and shout 'Salvation by works!'

If our salvation is based on our 'obedience' then you could be lost at ANY given time should you have a heart attack and die while entertaining a lustful thought. It seems it is VERY difficult to be saved and thus we would spend the rest of our days worrying about our salvation status. What extreme pressure that would be.

What say you to this, unred? According to where your theology is headed, the logical conclusion is that either relationship and being in Christ, not individual actions are the basis of our salvation, or purgatory is a necessary option.

I don't think this was offered BUT if you DIE while BACK SLIDING you may VERY well LOOSE what you were ONCE offered. In other words, a lustful thought?; doubful. While committing adultery; Maybe. for without repentance YOU MAY NOT receive the 'gift' that OSAS BELIEVE they WILL.

Oh, and WHAT is 'purgatory'?

MEC

 

[guibox]

I don't think this was offered BUT if you DIE while BACK SLIDING you may VERY well LOOSE what you were ONCE offered. In other words, a lustful thought?; doubful. While committing adultery; Maybe. for without repentance YOU MAY NOT receive the 'gift' that OSAS BELIEVE they WILL.

Sin is sin is sin. There is no distinction between sins thought of and sins committed. Christ made this plain when he said 'you have heard 'do not commit adultery', but I say to you that anybody who lusts after a woman has committed adultery already'. He also applied this to 'hate as murder'.

So what do you do with John 6? "All that the father has given me I shall in no wise cast out, neither shall they be plucked out of my hand...for this is the will of Him who sent me, that I whoever believes in me has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day'

If in fact, as some believe, that we are immortal beings when we accept Christ, this verse says once this happens, they cannot be lost. Immortality and eternal life isn't just recinded.

How do you explain this if one sin in our lives will do us in? That would mean that we weren't ever saved to begin with according to John 6. Where is the assurance of salvation then?

Oh, and WHAT is 'purgatory'?
MEC

Purgatory is the Catholic belief of a 'limbo' where the righteous go to be purged of those sins that were unconfessed. In the above scenario, if a Christian who has accepted Christ does die in the thought or act of adultery, his eternal life isn't forfeit but that sin must be atoned for or 'punished'. When this happens, then he is ready to enter heaven.

This is why I put forth to unred and others that it must be a viable option or we will never know if we are saved or not except for a minute by minute basis.

 

[unred typo]

quote by guibox:
unred and others,
First of all, it almost sounds like you and others are saying that believing in OSAS means you have a license to sin and can live a life of debauchery once you get a 'shoe in'. I don't think any follower of Christ would agree with this.

The bottom line is, and I have heard it said and written here, that even if they lied, stole, and committed adultery every night, the elect will still be saved. If that is not a license to sin, I don’t know what is. They cover the reality by insisting that if someone is really, really saved, they wouldn’t want to do such dastardly things. If they slip up now and then, it’s ok, but if they continue without remorse, they obviously weren’t the elect to begin with or some such dibble.

quote by guibox:
Though I don't believe in OSAS, I must also question the logical conclusions that unred and others will end up drawing. I believe the OSAS was created as a reaction to the inevitable conclusion of 'salvation by obedience'. That if my eternal life is dependant on my obedience, it is very easy to be lost. What happens when I commit a sin (as I most likely will at some point) and then die? What happens then? Is my walk with Christ forgotten? Am I doomed to suffer eternal torment because of one unconfessed sin?

This is why Catholics invented purgatory.

If you DO believe that salvation is based on my choices to remain in Christ and not disobey, then you must come to the conclusion that it is all based on that and that one sin can in fact do me in.

If you are in Christ, commit a sin and die, you will still be judged by your works. If you continue in a perfect walk in repentance, love and good works and then die, you will be judged by your works. All are going to be judged by their works. You’re not going to be judged by the last sin you committed but by the works of your life. You remember God is not unrighteous to forget your labor of love. Even a cup of cold water given will not be forgotten.

Sins repented of are covered by the blood. If you commit a sin that you had previously repented of, are you saying that it isn’t a sin or that you feel it is ok to do it now? I’m confused as to your question here. If you sin willfully, there remains no sacrifice for your sin, but a fearful looking forward to judgment. You must repent again and come to the throne of grace for forgiveness again. Whether you end up in heaven or hell is determined by your works though. These are works of love and mercy, not singing in the choir and Bible study and church attendance and obeying proper health and dress codes. All those things are wonderful works that do little to benefit anyone but self.

My question is: If you have been forgiven by God and yet refuse to forgive others, do you think God is going to continue forgive you?

quote by guibox:
This can't be right either, and this is what OSASers are reacting to and shout 'Salvation by works!'

If our salvation is based on our 'obedience' then you could be lost at ANY given time should you have a heart attack and die while entertaining a lustful thought. It seems it is VERY difficult to be saved and thus we would spend the rest of our days worrying about our salvation status. What extreme pressure that would be.

I don’t think it is stressed enough that we must, MUST, walk in the light of love for one another in order to be in Christ. If we walk in the light as he is in the light then the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin. And we are going to have sin, even when we try our best not to.

Not every judgment is an eternal one. If you have a lustful thought, after being repeatedly warned by the Spirit, you just may get that fatal heart attack. I can guarantee that will bring you around to immediate repentance, even though you will have paid with your life and lack of opportunity to earn a better resurrection. There is a verse about that. He, being often reproved that hardens his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed and that without remedy.

Today, you have people preaching that we may only ‘lose rewards’ if we continue to sin. They try to make you as comfortable as possible while you go to hell in a hand basket. I actually remember someone taunting ‘good doers’ that they wouldn’t even get to keep their crowns but have to toss them before the throne in the end anyways. What kind of perverted thinking is this?

quote by guibox:
What say you to this, unred? According to where your theology is headed, the logical conclusion is that either relationship and being in Christ, not individual actions are the basis of our salvation, or purgatory is a necessary option.

I don’t care where my theology is headed as long as it is biblical. If you remove works from the equation, you will have to cut out all of what Jesus himself preached and half what was written by the apostles. The other half you will have to color to fit your ‘no works’ doctrines. Is this not denying the Lord that bought us? He told the disciples to preach whatsoever he had commanded them to the nations. Where does that fit into your theology?

I do know what is against what Jesus taught but I don’t have a clear understanding of all this. The idea of purgatory is not something that would be that far out of whack with scriptures that deal with the burning off of the dross and the refining of the gold, however, I can see that the pains of this life may be used to do all that. Every man’s work is going to be tried to see what sort it is. That doesn’t sound too painful, but this does:

James 5
1Go to now, you rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.
2Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth eaten.
3Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. You have heaped treasure together for the last days.
4Behold, the hire of the laborers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, cries: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabbath.
5You have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; you have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter.
6You have condemned and killed the just; and he does not resist you.
7Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waits for the precious fruit of the earth, and has long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.
8Be you also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draws near.

 

[guibox]

If you are in Christ, commit a sin and die, you will still be judged by your works. If you continue in a perfect walk in repentance, love and good works and then die, you will be judged by your works. All are going to be judged by their works. You’re not going to be judged by the last sin you committed but by the works of your life. You remember God is not unrighteous to forget your labor of love. Even a cup of cold water given will not be forgotten.

So you are saying that it isn't one sin that we commit, but the oveall weight and balance of them in the end? My friend, this is indeed salvation by works and a complete contradiction of Epehsians 2. I know you have your own interpretation of that with your American education analogy, but the bottom line is salvation by the weight of our works is achieving salvation by works. Paul makes it clear that this is not so even though we are still judged by our works. Either salvation is by grace or by works. Though you would disagree, your rational makes salvation completely by works (for Christ dying for the sins of the world don't save us at all if we don't 'apply it' as you've said. So salvation is NOT solely by grace and completely by works (for those who apply it). Paul says that salvation is NOT of works AT ALL. 'By grace are you saved'.

You can't get around this clear teaching, my friend. You emphasis works so much that you are on the oppostie end of the spectrum from the hyper-Calvinist.

You are speaking like a Catholic, not a protestant. Might as well believe in purgatory and the sacraments while you are at it because your theology leads one to these conclusions.

Sins repented of are covered by the blood. If you commit a sin that you had previously repented of, are you saying that it isn’t a sin or that you feel it is ok to do it now? I’m confused as to your question here.

No, my point is that if our works do in fact save us as you say, then any sin committed can send you straight to hell. Where is the assurance of salvation? You are striving to 'be good' lest that one sin condemn you. You are saved by striving to be perfect. Well, the fact is, is that if you are not perfect, you can be condemned at any notice of unconfessed sin or sinful acts. This is the pressure that forced Luther to rethink the salvation process. You are not saved by accepting Christ.

Are you saying that the Catholic church was right and Luther was wrong?

I don’t think it is stressed enough that we must, MUST, walk in the light of love for one another in order to be in Christ. If we walk in the light as he is in the light then the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin. And we are going to have sin, even when we try our best not to.

And the point made by those on the other end of your theology, is that 'walking in the light of love for one another' is what saves us, regardless of whether 'we are going to have sin, even when we try our best not to'. By saying that we 'must walk in the light... to be in Christ' and still say 'we are going to sin' causes a dichotomy according to your theology. OSASers are saying what you are saying. Being in Christ is what saves us. Doing an inevitable sin and dying will not do our salvation in. We cannot be in Christ and feel saved when our individual works condemn us over and over again and become the determining factor of whether we are saved or not.

 

[Drew]

Hello guibox:

How do you know that when Paul writes this in Ephesians 2:

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€â€and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

He is not saying this:

"8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith (belief that Jesus paid for your sins) â€â€and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God 9not by ''good works in general", so that no one person can boast over any other one person saying 'my works are better than yours'"

but is really saying this:

"8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith (belief that Jesus paid for your sins - a faith which has the further property of giving you the power to the good works that will justify you as per Romans 2:7) â€â€and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God 9not by Torah, so that Jew cannot boast over Gentile"

In defense of the "Jew-Gentile" reading, consider what Paul immediately goes on to say:

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men) 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ

I think this strongly support the idea that, in verse 9, Paul is not talking about the boast of the "good works" moralist, he is instead talking about boast of the Jew who might think that because he has Torah, he has an "inside track" on justification.

I think that the "works" in Eph 2:8,9 are the works of Torah that demarcated the Jew from the pagan - things like Sabbath, circumcision, and the purity laws. Paul is saying that posession of Torah - being an ethnic Jew - is not salvific. He is not saying that "good deeds" do not play a role in our justification. I think he clearly teaches otherwise in Romans 2:7 and Romans 2:13:

7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous

This stuff from Romans 2 constitutes Paul's first treatment of justification in that book and, surprise, he teaches justification by works! But, and this cannot be said enough times, he is not saying that we are justified by our "moral self-effort". He leaves the reader hanging in verse 2, develops more of his argument and then in chapter 8, he explains the dynamic by which those who place their faith in Jesus will assuredly be transformed into those who "persist in doing good" and will therefore indeed be "doers of the law", and of course, will therefore be justified.

 

[guibox]

Drew the only way your argument works is to make 'faith' mean 'works done in the Spirit'. For when the Bible says 'justification by grace through faith' you have to make it mean 'God's initial act of setting our sin clock back to 0 allows us to do good works for our salvation'.

I don't believe that when the bible uses 'grace' and 'faith' that it can be interpreted this way. Faith is not good works. James makes it clear that there are both. A saving faith will result in works.

Second, you also have to make every instance where Paul speaks of 'law' that he means the Torah as good deeds followed by the Jews'. Again, I don't believe that this can be done.

Paul also talks about the law in terms of it being the 10 commandments, the moral law from which all good deeds spring. He makes it clear that this does not save us but points us to Christ who by His justifying act of cleansing us from our sins, saves us.

Romans 8:1-9 makes it clear that the law (i.e., works, good deeds, even moral codes) cannot save us for we are carnally minded. The law only condemns.