Question: What are the conditions for salvation?

[Oldmantook]

Ya know, that's a real good idea. Thanks. I reviewed Wallace's grammar text on the present tense. And it was quite helpful.

First, he notes "narrow-band presents" (p.516). The action is portyared as being "in progress" or "as occurring" in the present tense (right now). One of the narrow-band presents is the "instantaneous present, also known as aoristic or punctiliar present" (p.517). He clarifies it this way: "It is normally a verb or saying or thinking (a performative present). The act itself is completed at the moment of speaking." Hm. Believing IS thinking. And it's agreeing with what is being thought of. But one doesn't perseverate on what can be thought of. So the action of believing can be thought of over and over. It's not really a continuous action. Believing fits into this kind of action as well. Just saying. Another n-b present is the "progressive present, a.k.a descriptive present" (p.518). He defines this one this way: "the progressive present normally involves continuous action (his emphasis)." He also notes this one is common.

But then, under the "broad-band presents" (p.51190, he notes one of them as a "customary(habitual or general) present" (P.521). He defined this one as "an action that regularly occurs or an ongoing state. The action is usually iterative, or repeated, but not without interruption. This usage is quite common."

Then he gives the example of the "customary present" of John 3:16 (p.522). You previously pointed out this example. He translated the verse: "everyone who [continually] believes in him should not perish".

Then he said this: "In this Gospel, there seems to be a qualitative distinction between the ongoing act of believing and the simple fact of believing."

However, there is a big problem with his obvious opinion, noted by the red words. First, he added "continually" in brackets. But he had already defined one of the narrow-band presents, the "progressive present" as one that "normally involves continuous action" (his emphasis).

So, his addition of the bracketed 'continually' to John 3:16 seems quite out of place for a broad-band present.

And to explain John 3:16 under a "customary (habitual) present" doesn't make sense, since that present is defined as "an action that regularly occurs or an ongoing state". (his emphasis on both). Believing isn't "habitual" action in any sense. Even Jesus noted that the second soil "believed for a while". btw, in v.12 the word for "believe" is an aorist active participle, and in v.13, the word "believe" is a verb in the present indicative. Clearly showing that believing isn't an ongoing action necessarily.

So all the rest of what you post seems irrelevant. It appears that Wallace got confused, or had a bad day when he wrote about the present tenses. Everyone has them, you know.

His insertion of the bracketed "continually" in front of "believes" in Jn 3:16 doesn't fit under his category of the b-b "customary (habitual) present. It DOES fit under the n-b category of the progressive present.

And..."continuous action" has NO BEARING at all on the results of that action. Or he would have included that idea. But I couldn't find it anywhere.

So, thanks for the advice. Quite helpful.

Ahh...we're back to Wallace again. Weren't you the one who first cited Wallace as the authority for your belief and now you cite him again to point out that he was maybe having a bad day when he wrote those things? Please make up your mind. You also have not responded to the meaning of linear and durative which the other grammars cited.

I on the other hand, have been consistent in maintaining that belief for salvation is a punctiliar action made at some point in the past (aorist) but has present and future implications as well. A believer has to continue in belief which is initiated in the past, involves the present and extends into the future as necessary for salvation whereas you focus on the past or aorist tense.

Moreover you inexplicably cite Lk 8:13 as somehow proving your view showing that "believing isn't an ongoing action necessarily." OF COURSE IT ISN'T ONGOING ACTION in this verse. Why? Because the believer STOPPED BELIEVING OF HIS OWN ACCORD when his faith was tested and he consequently fell away. Don't you read or understand the WHOLE verse? Jesus pointed out in Lk 8:13 those who "believe for a while" [present, indicative] indicative of belief occurring now at the time of redemption but at the time of being tested [present, indicative] they fall away. Thus one can believe when one is converted but later upon being tested, one no longer believes and falls away as his faith was weak and had no root which is exactly what the verse states.

And in Jn 3:16 if the Apostle John wanted to convey the idea of belief to signify a punctiliar act of belief, why didn't he use the aorist participial phrase πᾶς ὁ πιστεύσας ("all who believed") to more aptly represent an act of belief made in the past? John instead chose the present tense participle to demonstrate that ongoing belief is necessary. Which is exactly why I cited 1 Pet 1:5 which also has a present tense participle which no doubt demonstrates ongoing, continued action. You have neglected to address this similar comparison because it obviously negates your view.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Ahh...we're back to Wallace again. Weren't you the one who first cited Wallace as the authority for your belief and now you cite him again to point out that he was maybe having a bad day when he wrote those things? Please make up your mind.

I have. As I demonstrated. By discernment, I can tell when he is opining and when he is scholarly. Didn't you follow my post?

You also have not responded to the meaning of linear and durative which the other grammars cited.

I haven't studied them. So, please explain how they support your notions.

I on the other hand, have been consistent in maintaining that belief for salvation is a punctiliar action made at some point in the past (aorist) but has present and future implications as well.

Well now, I agree with you here. From a point in the past action of belief, the present and future implications are that one HAS eternal life. Bingo!

[QTUOTE] A believer has to continue in belief which is initiated in the past, involves the present and extends into the future as necessary for salvation whereas you focus on the past or aorist tense.[/QUOTE]
Just more talking points. You have still failed to prove your notion. Where does Wallace make that point?

Moreover you inexplicably cite Lk 8:13 as somehow proving your view showing that "believing isn't an ongoing action necessarily." OF COURSE IT ISN'T ONGOING ACTION in this verse. Why? Because the believer STOPPED BELIEVING OF HIS OWN ACCORD when his faith was tested and he consequently fell away. Don't you read or understand the WHOLE verse?

Of course I do. Was the short term believer given eternal life when he believed? Of course he was, as Jesus noted in John 5:24 and 6:47, and John repeated in 1 John 5:11 and 13.

Jesus pointed out in Lk 8:13 those who "believe for a while" [present, indicative] indicative of belief occurring now at the time of redemption but at the time of being tested [present, indicative] they fall away. Thus one can believe when one is converted but later upon being tested, one no longer believes and falls away as his faith was weak and had no root which is exactly what the verse states.

Yes, it does. So, what's your point? I've never argued that a believer can't fall away from the faith.

And in Jn 3:16 if the Apostle John wanted to convey the idea of belief to signify a punctiliar act of belief, why didn't he use the aorist participial phrase πᾶς ὁ πιστεύσας ("all who believed") to more aptly represent an act of belief made in the past? John instead chose the present tense participle to demonstrate that ongoing belief is necessary.

<sigh> What you continue to fail to do is prove your notion that present tense action is needed for the results of said action to continue. When are you going to cease making unsubstantiated claims and prove them?

Which is exactly why I cited 1 Pet 1:5 which also has a present tense participle which no doubt demonstrates ongoing, continued action. You have neglected to address this similar comparison because it obviously negates your view.

I don't need to address your points because you stilll haven't proven from any Greek text your notions.

I'm still waiting.

 

[Oldmantook]

I was beginning to go on the merry-go-round again and respond to your individual replies when I noticed that perhaps we are talking past each other. So just to make sure I understand your position and you mine before I proceed further. My view is that a believer does have salvation upon being born again but subsequent to that moment of belief he needs to continue in belief and obedience in order to maintain his salvation. I have always maintained that. However your responses confuse me because you use terms such as a "short term believer." Does your term mean someone who truly believed and was saved but because he only believed for the "short term" he is now no longer saved. Or, is he still saved despite the fact that he only believed for the short term? Or, was he never saved because he only believed for the short term? I have assumed that your view is option #2 but just making sure.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I was beginning to go on the merry-go-round again and respond to your individual replies when I noticed that perhaps we are talking past each other. So just to make sure I understand your position and you mine before I proceed further. My view is that a believer does have salvation upon being born again but subsequent to that moment of belief he needs to continue in belief and obedience in order to maintain his salvation. I have always maintained that.

And that is exactly how I understand your view.

However your responses confuse me because you use terms such as a "short term believer." Does your term mean someone who truly believed and was saved but because he only believed for the "short term" he is now no longer saved.

No, I meant it the same way Jesus said it of the second soil in Luke 8:13. A short term believer is one who believed for a period of time. And then fell away from the faith. But no where in the Bible will you or anyone else find a verse that says that falling away from the faith means loss of salvation.

Or, is he still saved despite the fact that he only believed for the short term?

Yes, that is eternal security. Once a person believes, they experience:
1. Tthe new birth. Regeneration, they become a new creation.
2. They are forgiven of all their sins.
3. They are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, which is a guarantee for their inheritance as God's possession. Eph 1:14.
4. They possess eternal life. Which cannot die. And no verse says that the gift can be lost, forfeited, given back or away, damaged, stolen, etc.
5. They are placed IN Christ. That means in union with Christ.

Or, was he never saved because he only believed for the short term? I have assumed that your view is option #2 but just making sure.

Since Jesus said the second soil did "believe for a while", I'm in no position to argue with Jesus or second guess Him.

If He said someone "believed", he meant it. That also means they were saved as a result and given eternal life. John 5:24, 6:47, 10:28.

I hope this clarifies any misunderstanding.

 

[Oldmantook]

And that is exactly how I understand your view.


No, I meant it the same way Jesus said it of the second soil in Luke 8:13. A short term believer is one who believed for a period of time. And then fell away from the faith. But no where in the Bible will you or anyone else find a verse that says that falling away from the faith means loss of salvation.


Yes, that is eternal security. Once a person believes, they experience:
1. Tthe new birth. Regeneration, they become a new creation.
2. They are forgiven of all their sins.
3. They are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, which is a guarantee for their inheritance as God's possession. Eph 1:14.
4. They possess eternal life. Which cannot die. And no verse says that the gift can be lost, forfeited, given back or away, damaged, stolen, etc.
5. They are placed IN Christ. That means in union with Christ.


Since Jesus said the second soil did "believe for a while", I'm in no position to argue with Jesus or second guess Him.

If He said someone "believed", he meant it. That also means they were saved as a result and given eternal life. John 5:24, 6:47, 10:28.

I hope this clarifies any misunderstanding.

Thanks for your clarification but your reply has engendered yet another question. Since it appears you are of the Reformed persuasion, do you not believe in Perseverance? That the believer must persevere until the end? I ask that because you wrote "no where in the Bible will you or anyone else find a verse that says that falling away from the faith means loss of salvation." If a believer has fallen away from the faith, he has failed to persevere correct?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Thanks for your clarification but your reply has engendered yet another question. Since it appears you are of the Reformed persuasion, do you not believe in Perseverance? That the believer must persevere until the end?

I'm sorry you have that impression, as I'm no more a Calvinist than an Arminian. Perseverance is a command for believers. I do not believe that all believers will persevere. In fact, Jesus and Paul were clear that some won't.

Luke 8:13 and 1 Tim 4:1.

I ask that because you wrote "no where in the Bible will you or anyone else find a verse that says that falling away from the faith means loss of salvation." If a believer has fallen away from the faith, he has failed to persevere correct?

Yes, correct. But I don't accept the notion that ceasing to believe results in ceasing to be saved, as Arminians believe.

 

[Oldmantook]

I'm sorry you have that impression, as I'm no more a Calvinist than an Arminian. Perseverance is a command for believers. I do not believe that all believers will persevere. In fact, Jesus and Paul were clear that some won't.

Luke 8:13 and 1 Tim 4:1.


Yes, correct. But I don't accept the notion that ceasing to believe results in ceasing to be saved, as Arminians believe.

So would that in essence make you antinomian since you believe that a person is saved upon conversion and nothing a person does subsequent to becoming saved can change the person's salvific status?

 

[BNR32FAN]

How many, and what are they?

Believe, repent, abide in Christ, and endure to the end. If any one of these are missing a person will not receive salvation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So would that in essence make you antinomian since you believe that a person is saved upon conversion and nothing a person does subsequent to becoming saved can change the person's salvific status?

That doesn't make me "antinomian" at all. In fact, Paul spoke of the "law of Christ", which deals with how to be blessed during one's time on earth, and how to receive eternal rewards by faithfulness and obedience.

If you think keeping some law is how to either stay saved or maintain salvation, then your religion is basically the same as the Pharisees. And Jesus told them they would "die in their sins" unless they believed that Jesus was the Christ. John 8

Since salvation is by grace, which by definition, means UNMERITED FAVOR, there is NOTHING anyone can do to effect their saved state.

So, your view is one of MERITED FAVOR; stay saved if you keep your nose clean, or some kind of words to that effect.

You've got zero support from Scripture for that bit of works salvation.

If any kind of behavior is required to either receive or maintain salvation, then such salvation is by works. I don't care how else you will try to twist or spin it.

Jesus the Savior. Not you. Not me. Not anyone else.

You are saved by Jesus Christ.

You are kept by Jesus Christ.

Any questions?

 

[Oldmantook]

That doesn't make me "antinomian" at all. In fact, Paul spoke of the "law of Christ", which deals with how to be blessed during one's time on earth, and how to receive eternal rewards by faithfulness and obedience.

If you think keeping some law is how to either stay saved or maintain salvation, then your religion is basically the same as the Pharisees. And Jesus told them they would "die in their sins" unless they believed that Jesus was the Christ. John 8

Since salvation is by grace, which by definition, means UNMERITED FAVOR, there is NOTHING anyone can do to effect their saved state.

So, your view is one of MERITED FAVOR; stay saved if you keep your nose clean, or some kind of words to that effect.

You've got zero support from Scripture for that bit of works salvation.

If any kind of behavior is required to either receive or maintain salvation, then such salvation is by works. I don't care how else you will try to twist or spin it.

Jesus the Savior. Not you. Not me. Not anyone else.

You are saved by Jesus Christ.

You are kept by Jesus Christ.

Any questions?

Are not the 10 Commandments part of the Law? Yes or No? Can a believer habitually ignore and disobey the 10 Commandments and still be saved? Your view begets a yes to that question which illustrates the fallacy of your belief system.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Thanks for your clarification but your reply has engendered yet another question. Since it appears you are of the Reformed persuasion, do you not believe in Perseverance? That the believer must persevere until the end? I ask that because you wrote "no where in the Bible will you or anyone else find a verse that says that falling away from the faith means loss of salvation." If a believer has fallen away from the faith, he has failed to persevere correct?

So this would mean that not even faith is required for salvation?

 

[Oldmantook]

So this would mean that not even faith is required for salvation?

Faith is the sole means for salvation but one must also persevere in the faith. The person I was responding to believes that perseverance is not necessary for remaining saved.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Are not the 10 Commandments part of the Law? Yes or No? Can a believer habitually ignore and disobey the 10 Commandments and still be saved?

So, I see that you follow the religion of the Pharisees. The Law saved no one, if you thought so. Paul's whole ministry of evangelism was proving that Jesus was the Christ from the OT. And he never said anything about the Law saving anyone.

But it appears you haven't read much of Paul's writing.

rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

Your view begets a yes to that question which illustrates the fallacy of your belief system.

No, my YES demonstrates that I am NOT a Pharisee, to whom Jesus said:

John 5-
39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me,
40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Then He told them:

John 8:24 - I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”

Why do you follow the Pharisee religion? It's a dead end.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

How many, and what are they?

One short verse lists one requirement for salvation/ eternal life,
and one requirement to perish .

"Whoever TRUSTS (as God means) JESUS, has life;
whoever TRUSTS NOT JESUS, has not life.

 

[Oldmantook]

So, I see that you follow the religion of the Pharisees. The Law saved no one, if you thought so. Paul's whole ministry of evangelism was proving that Jesus was the Christ from the OT. And he never said anything about the Law saving anyone.

But it appears you haven't read much of Paul's writing.

rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.


No, my YES demonstrates that I am NOT a Pharisee, to whom Jesus said:

John 5-
39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me,
40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Then He told them:

John 8:24 - I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”

Why do you follow the Pharisee religion? It's a dead end.

Rookie mistake by you as Jesus never conflated the written law with the oral law/Talmud as taught by the Pharisees which are the traditions of men. You conflate the two as if they are the same. Jesus consistently followed the law himself and condemned the Pharisees for adding or subtracting from the written law in order to follow their oral traditions. Big difference which you are oblivious to.

In addition, the written law never saved anyone. Only Jesus saves. Rom 3:20 which you cited plainly states that no one is declared righteous by the law. HOWEVER IT ALSO STATES, through the law we become CONSCIOUS OF SIN. FYI the law instructs us as to what is morally right and what is morally wrong in accordance with God's standards which is why it is referred to as our tutor or guardian. Without the law there would be no consciousness of sin. Without the law, what would people repent of since in order to become saved since they have no standard to measure sin?? Your position is untenable and since I don't discuss matters with antinomians, I won't waste my time any further in conversation with you.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Rookie mistake by you as Jesus never conflated the written law with the oral law/Talmud as taught by the Pharisees which are the traditions of men.

I gave you John 5:39 which was Jesus' words to the Pharisees. So my statement stands. What you believe is what the Pharisees believed.

You conflate the two as if they are the same.

You didn't understand my post. I never suggested anything about the Talmud. Wasn't even on my mind. As John 5:39 proves.

Jesus consistently followed the law himself and condemned the Pharisees for adding or subtracting from the written law in order to follow their oral traditions. Big difference which you are oblivious to.

It seems you are oblivious to John 5:39.

Your position is untenable

You've not yet proven your claim.

and since I don't discuss matters with antinomians, I won't waste my time any further in conversation with you.

Well, that's one sure way to avoid a debate with someone when you don't have any ammo.

 

[Oldmantook]

I gave you John 5:39 which was Jesus' words to the Pharisees. So my statement stands. What you believe is what the Pharisees believed.


You didn't understand my post. I never suggested anything about the Talmud. Wasn't even on my mind. As John 5:39 proves.


It seems you are oblivious to John 5:39.


You've not yet proven your claim.


Well, that's one sure way to avoid a debate with someone when you don't have any ammo.

Your deficiency in understanding the law is apparent for all to read. Of course you didn't suggest anything about the Talmud. I pointed out that you are oblivious to the fact the Jesus consistently referred to and condemned the Talmud as the traditions of men and never condemned the written law.
You keep making laughable claims which betray your complete ignorance. In Jn 5:39 which scriptures do you think Jesus was referring to? WAS THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITTEN DURING JESUS' TIME??
Yeah, that's right - Jesus could have only been referring to the written law - the law and the prophets in the Old Testament which includes the 10 Commandments which you are oblivious to and claim a believer need not follow to retain salvation.

Thanks for proving my point. Case closed. That is all.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Your deficiency in understanding the law is apparent for all to read. Of course you didn't suggest anything about the Talmud. I pointed out that you are oblivious to the fact the Jesus consistently referred to and condemned the Talmud as the traditions of men and never condemned the written law.

You are demonstrating you obvliviousnesss to John 5:39. He told the Pharisees that they thought they would have eternal life from the Law. That's not the Talmud.

Bringing up the Talmud or oral law is immaterial and irrelevant to this discussion.

You keep making laughable claims which betray your complete ignorance. In Jn 5:39 which scriptures do you think Jesus was referring to? WAS THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITTEN DURING JESUS' TIME??

Obviously the OT.

Yeah, that's right - Jesus could have only been referring to the written law - the law and the prophets in the Old Testament which includes the 10 Commandments which you are oblivious to and claim a believer need not follow to retain salvation.

You really aren't following this very well, huh. That has been my point all along. The Pharisees thought by following the Law, including the 10 commandments, they would have eternal life. And Jesus condemned them for such thinking.

Thanks for proving my point. Case closed. That is all.

lol. You haven't grasped anything I've posted, obviously.

 

[Oldmantook]

You are demonstrating you obvliviousnesss to John 5:39. He told the Pharisees that they thought they would have eternal life from the Law. That's not the Talmud.

Bringing up the Talmud or oral law is immaterial and irrelevant to this discussion.


Obviously the OT.


You really aren't following this very well, huh. That has been my point all along. The Pharisees thought by following the Law, including the 10 commandments, they would have eternal life. And Jesus condemned them for such thinking.


lol. You haven't grasped anything I've posted, obviously.

Suit yourself; your grasp of Scripture is woeful. You may disregard the 10 Commandments and still believe you're still saved. So you or any believer for that matter can be a habitual liar, chronic thief, or even a serial murderer and still be saved. That is absolutely ludicrous! Believe as you wish but don't ever say you weren't warned. That's all folks!

 

[FreeGrace2]

Suit yourself; your grasp of Scripture is woeful. You may disregard the 10 Commandments and still believe you're still saved.

Where do you get the idea that keeping the 10 commandments will save anyone?

So you or any believer for that matter can be a habitual liar, chronic thief, or even a serial murderer and still be saved.

Salvation is not based on how a person lives, which obviously shocks you. But then, it is your woeful grasp of Scripture that would make such a conclusion.

That is absolutely ludicrous! Believe as you wish but don't ever say you weren't warned. That's all folks!

This is what the Bible says about salvation and the 10 commandments.

Rom 3:20 - Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law (that's the 10 commandments); rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile.
25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Romans 4-
2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God.
3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it (believing) was credited to him as righteousness.”
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation.
5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.
6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works (10 commandments):
13 It was not through the 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.
14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless,

16 Therefore, the promise (of salvation) comes by faith, so that it (salvation) may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. Salvation is GUARANTEED to believers.

These verses absolutely refute your notions.

Gal 3-
10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”
11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”
12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”
21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. iow, the 10 commandments DO NOT impart life.
24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith,