Jesus Christ keeps us saved forever

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

things most likely was never "once" saved

That is why I am asking for people here to clearly define how and through what various ways one becomes first 'saved'

Then we can begin

There is only one way to be saved ... change your mind and believe the Gospel.

The real place to begin JG is to answer the question 'what is the Gospel'?

Originally posted by troubleshooter

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

things most likely was never "once" saved

That is why I am asking for people here to clearly define how and through what various ways one becomes first 'saved'

Then we can begin

There is only one way to be saved ... change your mind and believe the Gospel.

The real place to begin JG is to answer the question 'what is the Gospel'?

Amen. My vote is that it's in 1 Corinthians chapter 15.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You realize most Christians don't believe in soul sleep doctrine correct? Even if we never received a glorified body the salvation of our soul/spirit would be vital. The body is merely a shell that houses the spirit/soul.

I suppose this means that you are now a spiritualist.
Christianity believes in the bodily resurrection.

I didn't deny a bodily resurrection.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I give all the credit and glory to God.

There is an old saying:
"You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."
It looks like you are taking an incremental improvement and dressing it up in fairy dust to make this magical carriage to take you to heaven.
You need to get over this idea that if you are somehow better than you were at some past point, then you have a free ride from this point on.

I dont have the answers, I just know the Word is true when it says the Holy Spirit will change my will to align with gods. I give that glory to God, I didn't do it.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

We are not saved by our good works, however good works follow genuine salvation.

Feel free to quote a Bible verse that says that.
We are to strive to 'make our calling sure' in the sense that we show that we were correctly called, but we can't really make it so. It takes a combined effort, that is the generally accepted Christian view, between whatever amount of free will we have, and the power of the Holy Spirit, but it is an ongoing battle that never stops. We can rest spiritually in assurance, as in feeling a certain peace from Jesus, but it is not a literal peace to where we can now let up and just do whatever 'comes naturally', which is death. Death is 'natural'. You are talking about spiritual death, thinking you have already done enough and now you can just coast into heaven.

edit on 2-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I already did. Ephesians 2:8-10. We are not saved by works. But saved by grace in order to do good works. James also declares that genuine faith produces good works.

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by fireyaguns

 

Security, not fear, produces Godly living. Romans 12:12; 1 Corinthians 6:15.
Loss of salvation is never threatened.

I agree with the your conclusion...
...and your focus on assurance being the result of being 'kept' by the Spirit of Jesus...
...and as the well-spring of Christian behaviour.

I think that alternate views create a paradox...
...because the will of a sinner is not free until they are saved...in the sense that...
...without the initial action of the Spirit there is no freedom of will toward salvation in the first place...
...so having the 'will' to exit a saved state is only possible when a person is saved...
...because to 'will' to not be saved or to become 'unsaved'...
...would be to use you 'free will' (which you only have by virtue of your union with the Spirit)...
...to choose bondage over freedom.

So even if exiting were possible it would be unlikely and improbable even from a human perspective...
...and from a divine perspective you would have to doubt the Lord's ability to keep you.

edit on 2/7/12 by troubleshooter because: (no reason given)

He has already said none who come to him will perish and that he will not turn any away. He also said no one can take them from his hand, this includes ourselves. We didn't earn him coming to die for us, the gift of salvation came free of merit so that none could boast of their works. He will not take away your salvation because of your merit, when he didn't give it to you on merit in the first place. A gift is not a gift if it is taken away, you give it and those who recieve it keep it, or they reject the gift but once accepted it can't be rejected, he doesn't take it back. Not one time did he ever undo a healing he performed because the people were ungrateful (and there were many who never thanked him, they took him for granted), he did whatever was asked of him. The lesson people should be taking away from his ministry, is how he lived and how truly great,forgiving, merciful and kind he is. He gave and the only thing he asked was that they believe in him.

JesuitGarlic, insulting us proves only your an argumentative type and have resorted to insults through lack of understanding like a child does when they cannot get their way.
You have completely dismissed any and all of the info and continued to hammer your idea, saved by good works.

Tell me champ, did you sin today and if so what good works have you done to counteract your sin and how do you know the good works have zero out your sin?

Once they properly define their terms of "believe" "faith" ect....then we'll begin!

Your above statement shows that we will not be going off our terms of believe or most importantly the Lords word and terms of believe but your terms.

We have already begun and it appears at this stage you will be left behind.
It's fortunate for you I am not God as I feel like giving up on you.
1 Corinthians 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I already did.

This is your statement in response to my asking on what basis, biblically, do you make your claim, "We are not saved by our good works, however good works follow genuine salvation."
I may want to add at this point that Salvation is real, and all believers are saved.

Ephesians 2:8-10.

We could not have been saved by our own good works because the passage you cited is describing how we were dead by being among those who were living in sin. Now this salvation is a victory by Jesus to create a new people who are not following the "ruler of the realm of the air" but through faith are in God's realm of heaven.

We are not saved by works. But saved by grace in order to do good works.

The important word to define here is saved. We can't just plug in what we want it to mean, but should put it in the context of its originally writing. Salvation was understood in a political way, when cities were besieged and destroyed in wars. A battle was fought and won to secure the continuation of the city of God which we are the inhabitants of.

James also declares that genuine faith produces good works.

Our "salvation" is being placed in a people of good works to God.
I think the problem in understanding this text is the tendency for people to personalize this concept by adapting it to apply in a way it was not intended, making it into a ticket to heaven and bypassing judgment, so as to be able to become complacent and slackers when it comes to our Christian duty.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I had to double-check Ephesians 2:8-10. And it still says we are saved by God's grace and not our works, and the reason for him saving us is to do good works. Philippians 2:13 says God's Spirit changes our will to align with His, and I can personally attest to that fact. He is faithful to keep that promise. And James clearly declares that good works is the fruit of every genuine conversion. And this aligns with Christ who said we would be known by our fruit.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I had to double-check Ephesians 2:8-10. And it still says we are saved by God's grace and not our works, and the reason for him saving us is to do good works.

We (as a group) have been saved from a life of sin, through the creation of the Church by Jesus, to have a people presentable to God. It is not talking about an individual receiving of a ticket for guaranteed free ride to heaven.

Philippians 2:13 says God's Spirit changes our will to align with His, and I can personally attest to that fact. He is faithful to keep that promise.

This verse in Paul is not a call for self pride and gloating in your achievements, but to have an awe and reverence for the work of even having a desire to do good, as being of God. It also is not talking about having a completed work where you have a guaranteed ticket for a free ride to heaven, it is saying you are engaged in a continuing effort to "work out your salvation", meaning to take your salvation (to be understood as a collective salvation in the creation by Jesus of the Church) that Jesus did for you, and to make it of real affect in your lives.

And James clearly declares that good works is the fruit of every genuine conversion.

Oh no kidding, could you quote that please? Where does James define a "genuine conversion"?

And this aligns with Christ who said we would be known by our fruit.

Jesus was talking about how to detect false prophets (in the Matthew 7 version). False Prophets end up with a following who are not doing good works, but just serving self-interest. In the Luke version, Jesus is warning that it is not just being a listener to the word, but being a doer. In both of the versions, it comes right after a warning about judging others, so it seems to me like Jesus is talking about who we should take as examples to follow, and not to follow those who merely talk a good talk but have results in their deeds.
I don't see what is recorded as Jesus saying in the Gospels as supporting the idea that we can look at our own works and know from them that we have a guaranteed spot in heaven, and can relax now and just enjoy the rest of our lives without having to worry about what we do.

It's a bad sign when people teach that the plain reading of the text is invalid and we need an esoteric reading to grasp the thought. Finished? Jesus said He was before giving up the ghost.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . we need an esoteric reading to grasp the thought.

Are you literally sitting on the right hand of God right now?
If not, then a "straight reading" is not going to work.

reply to post by fireyaguns

insulting us proves only your an argumentative type and have resorted to insults through lack of understanding like a child does when they cannot get their way.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don't particularly like getting into these kinds of theological debates (with all people I would considered currently saved) as it is pointless.

Hmmm, my lack of understanding You said,

You must be thinking your good works keep you saved which is a lie.

I then reply back with a passage clearly showing 'justified' by works (keeping you saved) from the James 2:14-26 passage. There goes your argument about it keeping you saved. You then contradict yourself by talking about the Vine and producing good fruit, that if we don't produce (works) we are cut off from the Vine.

I then provide 9 verses to back up my argument, 8 from the New Testament one from the Old Testament (which was after the old covenant and therefore becomes terms of the New Covenant). You reply with me being stuck in the Old Testament (implying stuck in the old covenant) and that my statements are not worthy to dishonor with my addressing them (because you can't answer them).

I have never once said the Law or Works saves us...you keep putting words in my mouth to suit your own purposes. I am saying that producing good fruit (works) and following the Law keeps us saved. Considering your Statement was concerning KEEPING us saved you'd think that my answer would be about that, not what is also require to first receive the Spirit.

Your whole 3 post successive answer is based on me magically saying somewhere 'saved my works', your whole answer is pointless and a complete DISHONEST representation of my words. If this is the quality of your argument to twist my words and have absolute dyslectic levels of tunnel vision on my New Covenant argument thinking they are old covenant then why would I bother with your thread....your honesty level is abysmal

You have completely dismissed any and all of the info and continued to hammer your idea, saved by good works.

Once again please show me where I said all that you need is works to be saved?

My NT passages dismissed you already but they are not 'worthy of you'

..........
The difference here is that you point words in my mouth to suit your own devices whereas I am seeking understanding of terminologies so that we are all on the one page and can have a constructive argument. One seeking Honest debate, the other dishonest representations and tunnel-vision caused by DENIAL.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


concerning Matthew 19:17 "...but if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments"

Matthew was not talking about the Mosaic law or Decalogue

Matthew 19:18-19
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Clearly pointing out to Commandments 5 through 10 of the Divine Law. So Jesus' Commandments are the Divine Law. Therefore if people don't keep Jesus Commandments (terms of the New Covenant, they will not enter into life). It seems pretty straight forward...

Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem addresses the problem of judaisers saying that new christians must obey the mosaic laws. Now i have told you this before and you always seem to ignore it.

And I answered you on these

Your whole argument about the Council of Jerusalem is pointless, I am referring to the Divine Laws which the council never abolished. in this post ages ago

which you never replied to. There is a difference between the Mosaic Laws and the Divine Law...

Did the 'Council of Jerusalem' abolish any one of the 10 Commandments?
----
Check out the full write up on the following passages about the relevance of the Divine Law (he seems to miss the verses for the Sabbath which I can argue for but other than that it is a very good piece)

Divine Law a Continuing Rule of Life
But then what about the believer today? If Mosaic law is abolished, is he under law? Is there for him a rule, a standard of conduct?

It is difficult for many to accept that law is in any sense a part of the believer's life today; law to them is wholly contrary to and exclusive of grace. Early dispensational writers especially were strong promoters of this view.10 The difficulty of this teaching lies in the clear presence in the apostolic writings of so many scores of commands addressed to believers as well as even explicit references to law (e.g. Gal. 6:2; James 1:25). Sin itself is defined as "lawlessness" (anomia, I John 3:4). Law is written on the heart of the New Covenant believer (Heb. 8:10), but it is law nonetheless. Clearly, the Christian is given law, a rule of life to which he is bound.

In answer to this problem, adherents of this view argue that these requirements are gracious rather than legal, being given within the framework of grace; that is, grace makes him willing and able to do what is right apart from legislated demands, and the believer is exhorted to righteousness merely on the basis of what God has done for him.11 After arguing long that no Christian can be placed under law ("or any respect of the law . . . or any phase of law") Chafer claimed that the "commandments" of Christ are not really "commands" after all(!) but the "teachings of grace."12 But this effectively reduces law to advice and commands to suggestions. God, of course, does not merely give advice. His revealed will is law--however gracious the context. McClain argued that the standard of conduct for today's believer is the example of Jesus and not law at all,13 but even that begs the question, for if there is any standard at all to which men are accountable, that standard (whatever it is) carries the force of law.

Accordingly, in those passages which Paul argues that the believer is "not under law" the meaning is not that he has no rule of life. At times Paul may argue that the believer is free from the law of Moses (e.g. Gal. 3:19-25; cf. Peter, Acts 15:10). At other times he may argue that the believer is free from the law as a means of justification (Rom. 10:4 and perhaps 6:14-1514)--he is not under its penalty of condemnation. But he never implies that there is no more law. Grace frees a man from the law's condemnation, but it does not leave him without a binding rule of life.

McClain argued that since there are no penalties stated in the New Testament it follows that there are no laws.15 However, there is a stated penalty: Hebrews 12 speaks plainly of chastisement for the disobedient son. Of course, there are no Mosaic penalties, but then the penal code of the law of Moses is not necessary for one not under Mosaic law. And while this chastisement may not have the same penal character as those penalties imposed by Moses, the fact of chastening for disobedience remains clear.

The believer today indeed has a rule of life. As was the case before and during the Mosaic economy, all men are bound to a divine standard of righteousness. Just as Divine law against idolatry, murder and theft was in effect before Moses, so it is binding after Moses. The Formula of Concord (1576), although confusing the law of God and the law of Moses, is entirely correct in its insistence that the law of God is today a "certain rule after which [regenerate men] may and ought to shape their life."16 The law of God--with or without formal codification--reflects eternal principles of righteousness that are always obligatory. It is an eternal standard; never could it become any less a binding rule of life.
...
Conclusion

But whatever the similarities or differences, it is to the stipulations of the New Covenant that today's believer must look for his rule of life. To look to the law of Moses, or any part of it, in order to establish a standard for today is to look in the wrong place. The basis of the Old and New Covenants is the same--the law of God. The details, however, are different, and this is to be expected. The law of God is still in effect, only under different codification. For any law to be enforced upon the Church it must be a law enjoined within the framework of New Covenant teaching, for it is the obligation of today's believer to follow these terms in his life under God.

Summary

The law of God is always binding and could never be anything else. Before Moses there was no formal codification of it. Since Moses there have been differing codifications of it in accordance with covenantal relationships. The Old and the New Covenants entail varying responsibilities, some of which are identical to each other (because of a common basis) and some exclusive of each other (because of fulfillment and further revelation). But the standard of conduct for today's believer is found in the framework of New Covenant teaching, not that of the Old Covenant. To this rule of life he is bound as to law, and this law, like that of Moses, is sufficient to bring men "to an acknowledgment of their sins."
Source: The continuing relevance of the Divine Law

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


I very much like this post of yours Lonewolf and agree with it greatly, especially on baptism and when you are first saved....

From my last reply concerning His commandments (I would make it clearer in referring to the Divine Law, which I hope you will see from that reply and the passages given from the sourced write-up)

Concerning what you wrote on when you are first saved you are spot on, I too believe that people are first/initially 'in Christ' right at that point. I also believe that people who never have heard of Jesus before all through the thousands of years that 'YHWH/Yeshua reads your hearts and thoughts' as well and considers how their life and allegiance to Him would be like if they were born at a different time or in a different place.

What I find dangerous/pointless about 'Once Saved Always Saved' is that the emphasis is put solely at the bare minimum and places no emphasis on walking with Christ, growing with Him, and being an effective disciple for Jesus. At the point that one first comes to Christ with a contrite heart and sincere repentance then they are 'saved' and receive the Holy Spirit to guide us to right paths to strengthen us in our weakness and warn us when we're erring and convict us again of our transgression so that we repent from them (so that we are not putting up any barriers between us and God).

For me personally, when I am thinking about sinning or have sinned I feel the Holy Spirit promoting me against what I am thinking of doing or promoting me to repent afterwards if I go along and do it anyway. At that point I either follow the Holy Spirit to not sin or I follow the Holy Spirit who is promoting me to repent. I know from past experiences when I have continually ignored the promptings of the Holy Spirit His voice grows fainter and fainter to the point where I don't feel lead by God or the Holy Spirit is not in me at all. People can go through these highs and lows in their spiritual life all the time, life circumstances can distract you from what is important and people can readily turn away from God even though at an earlier point in their lives they decided to 'believe' in Him. At that point when I have felt cut off from the branch I never felt that I was still 'saved'.

When people go through these various tough periods in their spiritual lives and I think it is the totally wrong message to say basically 'continue along in your wrong path, it doesn't matter now if you ever pray to God anymore or seek to give your life and time to Him ect ect because you are ALWAYS 'saved' now and can do no wrong in His eyes'. I really don't think there is much exaggeration here. To me it is a pointless message to basically say to people be content in your capitulation to the world cos you are already home free, just cruise along, no need to live boldly for God's services.

The only people that have been attracted to this thread (would be the target audience) are jmdewey60 and I, both Adventist and both of whom if we were to die today would consider yourself would be in the Resurrection of the faithful. It is a pointless thread. It is a pointless thread for us and it is a dangerous thread for other Christians who don't know any better.

If the OP was really serious about the importance of 'believing in Jesus' so much then he should be giving information on Jesus/God to give people a reason to believe that he is real, that he actually came and died in our place, that the stories in the bible actually occurred. This wins new people to Jesus not the message of 'once saved always saved'. The information appeals to the lowest common denominator and would only ever attract the laziest least sincere people. We should seek passionate followers for Jesus with a message that is relevant through all the various iterations of ones spiritual journey, all the highs and the very low lows. We should be promoting resilience and striving to attune our characters with Jesus not enabling words to justify remaining in weakness, it is dis-empowering.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


The divine laws are fulfilled in Christ already, thats the whole point of HIS commandments from Matthew 5 and on. The religious jews were teaching a tradition of men and putting ceremonial law above moral law. The divine laws are moral laws and he was teaching how to obey them according to him, not them. He became our laws and was interred in our hearts and minds changing our spirits to attune to his will.

Take the sabbath for instance, in Matthew 12 the disciples were out walking around with Yeshua. In Mosaic judaism on the sabbath you couldn't even leave your home or make food, you had to prepare for the sabbath before sundown. Well in Matthre 12 Yeshua is running around on the sabbath healing, and at one point the disciples start picking the hrads off the grain which is work and under the ceremonial law was unlawful. This is where Yeshua confronts the pharisees who saw him and he schools them in the difference between moral law and ceremonial law. David when he was on the run from Saul stole the showbread from the tabernacle to eatch which was not lawful, yet breaking the 8th commandment "you shall not steal" yet he remained sinless. Why did David remain sinless afer breaking the 8th commandment? Because he and his friends were starving and stealing the showbread to eat was preserving life and was doing an act of good in YHWH's eyes.

Matthew 12:1-8

1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

Moral law supercedes ceremonial law. It's the moral laws that shall not disappear until the end when everything written is fulfilled, the ceremonial laws are done with. We are under moral law now which are Yeshua's laws which he teaches from Matthew 5 and on.

Jesus did not come to fulfill any "divine laws".
Jesus came as Adonai, to fulfill prophecy of a visitation by the Lord, in this case, a preexistent person who was the Son of God in heaven before coming to earth incarnated as a man to be the heir of David.
Jesus was the promises kept, of the reestablishment of Israel, this time in an expanded form, to include all those of the earth who believed in the name, Jesus.
There are Jewish people with another Messiah who want to relegate the historical Jesus (even giving him a different name) as merely a lesson in person of how to keep the Torah. That is a complete fabrication to take away his real identity as the true Messiah, who is now Lord, and forever will be, not to be replaced by some other, more "Jewish" messiah who will create a man worship of a particular race to enslave the world.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Take the sabbath for instance, in Matthew 12 the disciples were out walking around with Yeshua. In Mosaic judaism on the sabbath you couldn't even leave your home or make food, you had to prepare for the sabbath before sundown. Well in Matthre 12 Yeshua is running around on the sabbath healing, and at one point the disciples start picking the hrads off the grain which is work and under the ceremonial law was unlawful.

I don't know why you are bringing this up...I already covered this whole issue in 3 successive previous posts to you which you never replied too, did you ever read those posts?

Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
summary outcome post
The most relevant info to address you here is from the bottom of the 1st post and all of post 2
The information from the Desire of Ages outlines very well your argument and puts it in the rightful context that you are missing. Please read the information carefully
-----
We are told in Hebrews 4:9 that the weekly Sabbath observance on the 7th day of the week is to remain.

“there remains therefore a rest for the people of God” (verse 9). The Greek word translated “rest” in every other verse throughout Hebrews 3 and 4 is katapausis. The word for “rest” in Hebrews 4:9 is sabbatismos. This is the only New Testament occurrence of this word, and its meaning is fundamental to understanding this pivotal verse, which is the conclusion of everything previously said about “rest” beginning in Hebrews 3:7.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary states about the meaning of sabbatismos:

“The words ‘Sabbath rest” translate the [Greek] noun ‘sabbatismos,’ a unique word in the New Testament. This term appears also in Plutarch…for Sabbath observance, and in four postcanonical Christian writings which are not dependent on Hebrews 4:9, for seventh day ‘Sabbath celebration.’”

The Anchor Bible Dictionary continues with an explanation of the context:

“The author of Hebrews affirms in Hebrews 4:3-11 through the joining of quotations from Genesis 2:2 and Psalm 95:7 that the promised ‘Sabbath rest’ still anticipates a complete realization ‘for the people of God’ in the … endtime which had been inaugurated with the appearance of Jesus [Hebrews 1:1-3]… The experience of ‘Sabbath rest’ points to a present ‘rest’ (katapausis) reality in which those ‘who have believed are entering’ (4:3) and it points to a future ‘rest’ reality (4:11). Physical Sabbath-keeping on the part of the New Covenant believer as affirmed by ‘Sabbath rest’ epitomizes cessation from ‘works’ (4:10) in commemoration of God’s rest at creation (4:4 = Genesis 2:2) and manifests faith in the salvation provided by Christ.

“Hebrews 4:3-11 affirms that physical ‘Sabbath rest’ (sabbatismos) is the weekly outward manifestation of the inner experience of spiritual rest (katapausis) in which the final…rest is…experienced already ‘today’ (4:7). Thus ‘Sabbath rest’ combines in itself creation-commemoration, salvation-experience, and eschaton [end-time]-anticipation as the community of faith moves forward toward the final consummation of total restoration and rest.”

Follow-up argument of Hebrews 3 and 4: Does “today” replace the seventh day? is fully addressed

After the Old Covenant has come and gone we hear this from Isaiah as part of the new covenant promises"

'you will find your joy in the LORD, and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob.'
and
'I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer'
That was addressed to 'foreigners', meaning non-Jews/Gentiles (meaning us)

Guess what the terms are for receiving these promises?.....Keeping the 4th commandment the Sabbath (Isaiah 56:6,7 and Isaiah 58:13,14)
--------

The divine laws are fulfilled in Christ already, thats the whole point of HIS commandments from Matthew 5 and on.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Some of our critics use these words to suggest that Christ has abolished the law, and that therefore, under grace, we don’t need to keep the law. To these critics I would like to show some of Paul’s words, from this same book, in regards to what he says of the law.

My first verse says:

Romans 3:31
(31) Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Lets back up a bit. Paul is trying to let the reader know that he is not justified by the “works” of the law, but by grace (verse 24). Why? Because “all have sinned” (verse 23), and therefore with our sinful flesh we can not be justified because we simply can not please God by our righteous deeds. We can not make ourselves “look good,” in other words. So grace needs to take the initiative. The law, which is righteousness (Psalm 119:172), was not obtained by the Jews, neither was it given to the Gentiles. So what had to take place was for the Son of man, who is the law “alive,” to be manifested, and “be” that righteousness for us. Notice:

Romans 3:20
(21) But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets

Manifested? How?

1 John 3:8
(8) He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

The righteousness which is of the law (Psalm 119:172) was not obtained by the chosen ones, neither was it shared with others. So Christ, who is now our righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30) was “manifested.” Does this do away with the law, because the above verse says that the righteousness of God was manifested “without the law?” No indeed… because Christ literally is that law… for as the law is righteousness, so is Christ!

Now we return to verse 31. Note the word “establish.” The greek word translated establish literally means to “make stand.” In other words… while we are justified freely by grace through Christ, since he now abides in us, and he is the manifestation of that perfect law… this causes us to uphold, or, make stand, the law. For if Christ lives in us, his “life” of righteousness, or, obedience to the law, will be made…

“… manifest in our mortal flesh.” -2 Corinthians 4:10-11.

What then my dear friends, will Paul, after establishing the law, now disestablish in chapter 10?

My second verse, or verses, will be found in chapters 7 and 8. Note that throughout chapter 7, in speaking about the 10 Commandments, he shows that because the law is spiritual (verse 14), he can not obey the law with his own carnal mind (Romans 8:7). The solution?

Galatians 5:16
(16) Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. (these words parallel Romans 8:1, 5).

If we walk in the spirit, we will mind spiritual things, for…

“… they that are after the spirit [do mind] the things of the Spirit.” –Romans 8:5.

Since the law is spiritual (Romans 7:14), then the man walking in the spirit will logically mind (or regard) the spiritual law of God. This is why Paul said in chapter 7 verse 22 that he delights in the law of God “after the inward man.” That inward man is none other then Jesus (Romans 8:10, Col. 1:27). Only while Jesus is in him, in his mind (Philippians 2:5), can he really say…

“... So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” -Romans 7:25.

… for the carnal mind is “enmity against God, it is not subject to the law of God neither indeed can be.” –Romans 8:7.

Paul is once again establishing, or, “making stand” the law of God, while being Justified by grace alone, for through Christ in our minds we too can “delight in the law of God.” Tell me, will Paul now contradict himself in chapter 10?

What does the word “end” mean?

The word “end” in Romans 10:4 is the greek word “telos” which, according to both Strong’s and Thayer’s greek definitions, can mean “goal, result or purpose.” At times, this words can also mean “termination,” but given the surrounding context we just addressed, this is hardly the case here. In fact, most of the times this word is used in the New Testament, it is implying some type of goal or purpose. For example, notice how Peter uses this word in his first epistle:

1 Peter 1:9
(9) Receiving the end (telos) of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

Of course, Peter is not telling us that faith will come to an end when a believer is “saved,” for “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” –Romans 14:23. Obviously then, it is the purpose/goal of faith… to save souls.

Now whenever this word is used to literally mean “to end” or “terminate,” it always speaks about the end of the present condition. For example, our present world is said to one day come to an end:

Matthew 24:14
(14) And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end (telos) come.

Yet, the bible also says that the earth will endure forever:

Ecclesiastes 1:4
(4) One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

Notice also this verse about our Lord:

Luke 22:37
(37) For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

Have all the things of Christ come to a literal end? Or is it the work he had to perform in his first advent that came to an end at the cross? Are there not other things concerning Christ that are yet to be fulfilled (i.e. the second coming)? How about the earth? Will it end, or is it the present wicked condition of the earth that will end?

You know the answer.

The goal of the law

Let us read down the context:

(Romans 10:1-2)
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

Note carefully that Israel, who was given the law of righteousness (Psalm 119:172), have a zeal for God but “not according to knowledge.” Why not according to knowledge? The answer is found in the next verse:

(Romans 10:3)
For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Note that the Jews were trying to establish their own righteousness. It is in this verse where Paul’s concern is revealed. Throughout the beginning of his letter to the Romans, he establishes the fact that it is by grace, through “faith” that we are to be justified. Paul here asserts that salvation is not earned by works, and anyone who thinks to establish their own righteousness by works is walking "not according to knowledge” –verse 2.

With the context considered, and with the word “end” understood, we may now proceed with “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15):

(Romans 10:4)
For Christ is the end (telos – goal, purpose) of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth

Since Israel could not gain righteousness by their works of the law, what then is the goal of the law? Verse 4 gave us the answer, the goal of the law was Christ. But for what? The verse continues...

“… for righteousness…”

Paul is not stating that the law is abolished; on the contrary, he is saying that "Christ is the goal of the law FOR righteousness." The law’s purpose was to bring about righteousness. Jesus is righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30) therefore it brought about him. We can’t become righteous by keeping the law, but we can become righteous by believing in Christ, who will in turn manifest his righteousness through “our mortal flesh” -2 Corinthians 4:10-11, which is how we will in turn be found obedient to his law. Since the law is righteousness and Christ is that righteousness alive, if he abides in us, his life of righteousness will show, and we will be found with HIS nature… a nature that obeys every one of God’s commandments. Truly then, can we be called… “the sons of God” (1 John 3:1-2), for…

(1 John 3:9)
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin (break the law –verse 4); for his seed (the seed is Christ –Gal. 3:16) remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

It is no longer we, trying to obey the law. It is him obeying the law for us... and through us.
source

edit on 4-7-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)

The Decalogue in Both Testaments

Commandment....................NT Parallel
#1 - No other gods...............1 Corinthians 8:5-6
#2 - No graven image...........1 Corinthians 10:7, 14; 1 John 5:21
#3 - Name of YHWH............James 5:12
#4 - Sabbath.......................Hebrews 4:9
#5 - Honor father & mother...Ephesians 6:1
#6 - Murder.........................Mt. 5:21-22; James. 2:11
#7 - Adultery.......................Mt. 5:27-28; 1 Corinthians 6:18
#8 - Theft............................Ephesians 4:28
#9 - False witness...............Ephesians 4:25
#10 - Coveting.....................Ephesians 5:3

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


All of those are summed up in the two that Jesus gave my friend...