The law, the commandments, and Christians.

[Abraham1st]

The teachings of Christ define Christian morality. Sin and the moral law of God has not changed from Moses to Jesus, it just has been more fully explained. God’s righteous standard has not changed.

Firstly the moral law of God was exampled, by one without sin, what better way to fully explain what sin is, by not being any of what it is. So sin became not believing in the Son of God, because all the Son of God spoke telling the truth, sets men free from sin, which is lies, vanity, impurity, ( we are saved in our hearts being purified by faith.) and if we do not hear in faith we cant have anything fully explained, and will hear the same laws yet again, but this time consider we heard them correctly.

Gods righteous standard has not changed, but HIs standard with man did, as I said, seen in who He sent this time and the very difference between Moses and Jesus Christ, which is this much.



Numbers 12:7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Luke 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

Hebrews 3:5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;
6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

 

[Abraham1st]

Exquisite post, my dear @linux.poet ,

I had to correct that exquisite post just now, from just the top of my head, of course i can delve very deep if we need to head that direction, shall we see.

 

[fhansen]

ARBITER01 said:
You're not obeying Jesus if you're obeying moses. In fact, a person obeying moses does not know Jesus, and He does not know them.




Lets see exactly who Jesus instructed, what He instructed and why.



The context in Matthew 19, is already about being of the kingdom of Heaven, and of Jesus saying to His disciples t allow the little children to come unto Him, FOR OF SUCH IS THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, the same as in Luke 18 which I have included below for better context.... Whosoever shall not receive the KINGDOM OF GOD AS A LITTLE CHILD SHALL IN NO WISE ENTER THEREIN.

Now this time look in Luke 18, for EVEN more context, of a Pharisee who as those in the law who trust in their own righteousness, ( Romans 10:3-4.) think the works they do, such as the fasting, the giving of tithes, to not do extortion, to not be unjust, to not be an adulterer, all the keeping of the law as this same parable represents, just before how to really enter the Kingdom of God ( by faith/conversion/receiving of the Holy Ghost, which is as a little child.) is told in the example Jesus gives of the little children.

Then a certain RULER asks Jesus, like tempting Him, as this we see is what those rulers did often to Christ, and also we see Luke 23:35, it is the rulers who derided Christ and who delivered Him to be crucified, and the ruler is already comparable to the very same Parable in this chapter of Luke 18, of the Pharisee who TRUSTS IN HIS OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS.

The rich rulers list of trust in his own righteousness was to not kill, to not do adultery, to not steal, to not bear false witness, to honour your mother and father, and in Matthew 19 to love your neighbour as yourself.


( REMEMBER JESUS HAS AREADY TESTIFIED TO THE WORLD THAT TO BE JUSTIFIED YOUHAVE TO HUMBLE YOURSELF, WHICH IS DONE AS THE OTHER END OF THE SAME PARABLE, TO BE LOWLY AND TO BEG GOD TO BE MERCIFUL=BELIEVING IN HIS GRACE OF CHRIST.)


So now I can reveal all this for us on the Christian forum, it is easy to see the total direction where this HAS to go, the ruler is not an example of the law and how it is right in any way whatsoever, but the very opposite, of how it is WRONG in every way instead.

To an exalted rich ruler, who also according to the parable in the same chapter of Luke 18, trusts in himself that he is righteous, how is he going to be able to hear ( he that has ears let him hear/faith.) that he must drop all law, and all exaltation, to now be enabled to trust ONLY IN THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF OUR LOIRD JESUS CHRIST, to have to do as the Apostles of the Lord were chosen and anointed to do, to forsake all they have to follow Christ, and that, that can be the only same possible answer of what it meant for the young man and for all men, to take up their cross and to follow Christ...





Matthew 19:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.




Luke 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Luke 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: AND COME, TAKE UP THE CROSS, AND FOLLOW ME.

Luke 23:35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

Luke 24:20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.

Matthew 19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, WITH MEN THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE; but WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.
27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, WE HAVE FORSAKEN ALL, AND FOLLOWED THEE; what shall we have therefore?

Mark 9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

You know, Jesus didn't come to make righteousness a bad thing, or to make sin ok.

And He wasn't fooling the young man when He told Him the commandments must be obeyed in order to enter life any more than He was fooling the Pharisees in Matt 23 when he told them the inside must be cleaned first of all in order for the outside to be truly clean, or when He told us in Matt 5 that our hearts must be right before our actions will be authentically right-or any more than Paul was fooling anyone about the need to obey the commandments in Rom 2:13.

It's not a matter of whether or not to obey them, but a matter of whether or not we obey them with Him, or apart from Him. Apart from Him is all about pride, myself doing the obeying, by the Letter, while with Him is all about humility, my need for Him in order to obey, the right way, without even needing to hear the Law: God’s way, by the Spirit, now under grace, by the love poured out into our hearts (Rom 5:5). The New Covenant is not only about the forgiveness of sin but also about the overcoming of it, of becoming the righteousness of Christ that we were meant for from the beginning.

 

[Abraham1st]

was that reply to me, Jesus came for all, to save from death, and give life, your words bring that, if they do good for you, if not, bad for you.

obeying Jesus Christ is to believe in HIs example, of laying HIs life down for the world, Moses cant do that, he had no such feelings, so there is one left to believe in, what Moses had, was not good enough, and the law to put people to death, surely is far from good enough too. Now there is holy and harmless, our high priest, and of we believe in Him, we are too.

law talk is great if you want to talk, but if you want action, you have to leave the law behind and follow Christ, but that was what the scriptures that answered you say, and if you say different, then say on to who wants to talk. ( as you have for many many years, God Bless.)

 

[fhansen]

It's a Slow Fade, right (as in the 2007 Casting Crowns song)?

• We are one with the Father and the Son (Jn 17:22),
• We are in Him and He is in us (Jn 17:23),
• We are joined to the Lord and are one Spirit with Him (1 Cor 6:17),
• We have eternal life because life is in Jesus and Jesus is in us (1 Jn 5:11–12),
• We shall not come into judgement because we have passed from death into life (Jn 5:24),
• With an unveiled face, we behold the glory of the Lord and are transformed into the same image (2 Co 3:18),
• We who have the firstfruits of the Spirit groan within ourselves, and eagerly await our adoption (Ro 8:23),
• We earnestly desire clothing from above and have the Spirit as a guarantee (2 Co 5:1–5),
• We have the mind of Christ (1 Co 2:16),
• We have come to know Him because He lives in our hearts (Jn 14:19-23),
• He will never leave us or forsake us (Heb 13:5), and
• We are partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4).

If you look closely, all these things (and this is not a complete list) are true for a person only if Jesus is residing in that person's heart. If Jesus is in there, all these things are true for him. If Jesus is not in there, none of these things are true for him.

Maybe our dissagreement is not on the effect, but on the residency of Jesus in a person's heart.

And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” (Ga 4:6)​

Well, yes, that is the point. We must remain in him and he and us.

 

[ARBITER01]

You know, Jesus didn't come to make righteousness a bad thing, or to make sin ok.

And He wasn't fooling the young man when He told Him the commandments must be obeyed in order to enter life any more than He was fooling the Pharisees in Matt 23 when he told them the inside must be cleaned first of all in order for the outside to be truly clean, or when He told us in Matt 5 that our hearts must be right before our actions will be authentically right-or any more than Paul was fooling anyone about the need to obey the commandments in Rom 2:13.

It's not a matter of whether or not to obey them, but a matter of whether or not we obey them with Him, or apart from Him. Apart from Him is all about pride, myself doing the obeying, by the Letter, while with Him is all about humility, my need for Him in order to obey, the right way, without even needing to hear the Law: God’s way, by the Spirit, now under grace, by the love poured out into our hearts (Rom 5:5). The New Covenant is not only about the forgiveness of sin but also about the overcoming of it, of becoming the righteousness of Christ that we were meant for from the beginning.

The Holy Spirit has already witnessed the truth to me on this subject decades ago, so I'm not the least bit interested in others trying to persuade me otherwise.

Go evangelize someone else.

 

[The Liturgist]

There is no I in Christ.

There literally is. I am aware of no language where Messiah, Christ or Annointed are written with out an i. For instance, Christos, Cristo, Moshiach… Indeed his first name Jesus*, in Hebrew Joshua and in Aramaic, Yeshua, means “I AM saves” referring to the meaning of YHWH

*Also often spelled with an I; indeed in antiquity there was no letter J. Thus Iesous in Greek, Isha and Isho in the Eastern and Western dialects of Classical Syriac Aramaic, and Isa in Arabic, and in Latin before the invention of the letters U and J, IESVS.

 

[fhansen]

The Holy Spirit has already witnessed the truth to me on this subject decades ago, so I'm not the least bit interested in others trying to persuade me otherwise.

Go evangelize someone else.

Ask Him to give you a little more insight. Never hurts to ask-we're enjoined to do so, in fact.

 

[fhansen]

There literally is. I am aware of no language where Messiah, Christ or Annointed are written with out an i. For instance, Christos, Cristo, Moshiach… Indeed his first name Jesus*, in Hebrew Joshua and in Aramaic, Yeshua, means “I AM saves” referring to the meaning of YHWH

*Also often spelled with an I; indeed in antiquity there was no letter J. Thus Iesous in Greek, Isha and Isho in the Eastern and Western dialects of Classical Syriac Aramaic, and Isa in Arabic, and in Latin before the invention of the letters U and J, IESVS.

Good points.

 

[fhansen]

was that reply to me, Jesus came for all, to save from death, and give life, your words bring that, if they do good for you, if not, bad for you.

obeying Jesus Christ is to believe in HIs example, of laying HIs life down for the world, Moses cant do that, he had no such feelings, so there is one left to believe in, what Moses had, was not good enough, and the law to put people to death, surely is far from good enough too. Now there is holy and harmless, our high priest, and of we believe in Him, we are too.

law talk is great if you want to talk, but if you want action, you have to leave the law behind and follow Christ, but that was what the scriptures that answered you say, and if you say different, then say on to who wants to talk. ( as you have for many many years, God Bless.)

Well, yes, that was a direct reply to your post. Didn't get that last sentence in your post above, however. Anyway, keep praying, studying, seeking, etc. The truth will evetnaully prevail.

 

[linux.poet]

I find it interesting that the Orthodox and the Baptists agree on matters of the Law. I think sexuality is the principle Bible Church and Orthodox disagreement, as well as how churches are to be structured. Bible Churches believe in in church self-governance, which the Orthodox don't really believe in due to their system of bishops. Still, I imagine that if you get deep enough into our respective theologies, you'll find many areas of convergence. When Protestants rebelled against the Catholics, we were attempting to remove what we thought of as errors in Roman Catholic theology, and we were looking to preserve the truth of God's Word, which gave us some things in common with those who never made those errors in the first place.

Anyway, my pastor decided to take us through the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith as part of an adult Sunday School type thing before the service each week, but I am still relatively unskilled in theology. But this was an easy one. Anyone who has read their Bible cover to cover a number of times, attended Bible studies and church for a length of time would be able to write that post, if they understood the principles of hermeneutics. I've only been a Christian for 19 years, so in comparison to a friend of ours I'm still an amateur. If anything, I have more youthful passion to reign in; for I enjoy debates. It is one of my greater weaknesses, and yes, I will get into an argument about whatever it is .

Enjoying a debate too much, or worse yet, a particular debate partner, is only the road to pain in my 14 years on online forums. I would encourage you to take a deep breath in the power of Holy Spirit and step off that road.

Firstly the moral law of God was exampled, by one without sin, what better way to fully explain what sin is, by not being any of what it is. So sin became not believing in the Son of God,

I think you are getting confused between sin and the unpardonable sin. Sin is sin - it hasn't changed before or after Christ died. The unpardonable sin is quenching/blaspheming the Holy Spirit and not believing in Jesus' death and resurrection.

“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

because all the Son of God spoke telling the truth, sets men free from sin, which is lies, vanity, impurity, ( we are saved in our hearts being purified by faith.) and if we do not hear in faith we cant have anything fully explained, and will hear the same laws yet again, but this time consider we heard them correctly.

Do you have any Scripture to back up this position? I think sin is far greater than this limited list, and lying has to do with false witness (court of law) and repeated lying:

16 There are six things that the Lord hates,
Seven that are an abomination to Him:
17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
19 A false witness who declares lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.

This verse set alone defeats the list in the previous quoted post. Where is murder on that list? That is clearly a sin. No, I'm going to maintain that sin is defined by the Decalogue as viewed through the teachings of Christ.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think sexuality is the principle Bible Church and Orthodox disagreement, as well as how churches are to be structured.

I would have thought it was one of our main areas of agreement, since the Orthodox are opposed to abortion and sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage, and unlike in the Roman Catholic Church it is possible for Orthodox Christians who are divorced to be remarried (and most of our parish presbyters are married, with families). Indeed in my experience with the Pro-Life movement, the main presence has been from various churches such as yours, along with Roman Catholics, and various other traditional liturgical Christians, including the Orthodox, who are among the least numerous in North America, but nonetheless have made an effort to be visible at major events.

 

[The Liturgist]

or worse yet, a particular debate partner, is only the road to pain in my 14 years on online forums. I would encourage you to take a deep breath in the power of Holy Spirit and step off that road.

I’m very sorry you’ve had that experience - most of my activities on ChristianForums I don’t regard as debates, and I have made several very good friends on this forum

 

[linux.poet]

I would have thought it was one of our main areas of agreement, since the Orthodox are opposed to abortion and sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage, and unlike in the Roman Catholic Church it is possible for Orthodox Christians who are divorced to be remarried (and most of our parish presbyters are married, with families). Indeed in my experience with the Pro-Life movement, the main presence has been from various churches such as yours, along with Roman Catholics, and various other traditional liturgical Christians, including the Orthodox, who are among the least numerous in North America, but nonetheless have made an effort to be visible at major events.

The Protestants allow sexuality for pleasure in marriage, whereas the Orthodox do not, is my current understanding. That's all I will say about the subject.

I’m very sorry you’ve had that experience - most of my activities on ChristianForums I don’t regard as debates, and I have made several very good friends on this forum

Not on this forum, thankfully. In my dark past I would long for the company of my online friends to distract me from my suffering and cause myself even more pain, but I think those days may be behind me. I have some that I consider friends that are still here, but they do not cause me suffering.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Protestants allow sexuality for pleasure in marriage, whereas the Orthodox do not, is my current understanding. That's all I will say about the subject.

Well, I can assure you without getting into any specifics that actually, we do, and we regard it as extremely important. The Song of Solomon is an extremely popular text among the Orthodox. However, I am aware of what may have given you the misunderstanding - there are some “Hyperdox Hermans” who have been posting on various online fora inaaccurate information, including an odd obsession with “Marital fasting”; many of them are not even canonical Orthodox but members of the Old Calendarist churches.

 

[The Liturgist]

Bible Churches believe in in church self-governance, which the Orthodox don't really believe in due to their system of bishops.

I used to be a Congregationalist pastor, in a denomination which had a Confessional movement, but which was overwhelmingly liberal; I was a member of a conservative parish, the junior pastor, or rather a moderate parish with conservative leadership, but I left when the senior pastor retired since I felt we should leave and join the CCCC, since in opposition to what our ridiculous advertisements at the time said (and to my knowledge, we were the only mainline denomination, the only one of the Seven Sisters of North American Protestantism, to buy TV ad time, why I can’t imagine), that one should never put a comma where God intended a period. Indeed the comma pins they handed out really pushed me over the edge.

However I’ve always liked congregational polity, for this reason - it represents the default state of a diocese with only one parish, and the Orthodox Church has such dioceses - indeed the autonomous Church of Sinai consists only of St. Catharine’s monastery, plus a few chapels in the surrounding hills, but it serves many pilgrims and also the local Bedouin tribes, which have some Christian members but all of whom, Christian and Muslim, go to the monastery for medical services, which has helped keep it safe as well as the Alexandrian Greek and Coptic pilgrims who visit it, as well as the great many who visit it from outside Egypt (along with a few tourists). Thus, all Orthodox churches started out as having a congregational polity.

Also, I believe congregations should be free to change affiliations, the reasons for this being what we’ve seen in recent years in the UMC and the Episcopal Church when traditional congregations have tried to leave. In the Orthodox Church, congregations generally are able to change their affiliation, and recently due to various controversies a large number of churches in Europe changed their affiliation. Each parish is basically controlled by its own board, with the diocese only really having control of the cathedral church and a few other sites which are directly financed by the diocesan treasury.

In general, congregational and episcopal governance are the only systems I’m comfortable with; Presbyterian polity has always struck me as complicated and imposing, and I can’t find a clear scriptural precedent for it. The problem with episcopal polity is where bishops impose themselves on the local parishes, and the problem with congregational polity tends to occur when one church attempts to control multiple “campuses”, the nadir of which I think was Mars Hill in Seattle, where multiple “campuses” existed where people would watch a sermon broadcast from the main church by Mark Driscoll, rather than a local pastor. I feel all clergy should follow the example of St. John the Baptist in his relationship with our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ: “I must decrease, so that He may increase.”

I also continue to have fairly extensive connections with traditional Congregationalist churches even now and have in recent years had leadership roles among churches that are members of the CCCC, which you might regard as Bible churches (I suppose whether or not you do would depend on your opinion of Park Street Church in Boston, which is the last historical congregational church in that city that has not joined either the UCC, like Old South Church, or which joined the UUA in the 1780s such as the First Church in Boston, the Arlington Street Church, and others, notably Harvard University (which I have to confess to not being a fan of, nor to being able to regard its departure from Congregationalism as a great loss).

 

[Abraham1st]

The truth will evetnaully prevail.

it has, amazing, the truth shall set us free=faith, and law was what we needed to be set free from.

 

[Abraham1st]

I find it interesting that the Orthodox and the Baptists agree on matters of the Law. I think sexuality is the principle Bible Church and Orthodox disagreement, as well as how churches are to be structured. Bible Churches believe in in church self-governance, which the Orthodox don't really believe in due to their system of bishops. Still, I imagine that if you get deep enough into our respective theologies, you'll find many areas of convergence. When Protestants rebelled against the Catholics, we were attempting to remove what we thought of as errors in Roman Catholic theology, and we were looking to preserve the truth of God's Word, which gave us some things in common with those who never made those errors in the first place.

Anyway, my pastor decided to take us through the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith as part of an adult Sunday School type thing before the service each week, but I am still relatively unskilled in theology. But this was an easy one. Anyone who has read their Bible cover to cover a number of times, attended Bible studies and church for a length of time would be able to write that post, if they understood the principles of hermeneutics. I've only been a Christian for 19 years, so in comparison to a friend of ours I'm still an amateur. If anything, I have more youthful passion to reign in; for I enjoy debates. It is one of my greater weaknesses, and yes, I will get into an argument about whatever it is .

Enjoying a debate too much, or worse yet, a particular debate partner, is only the road to pain in my 14 years on online forums. I would encourage you to take a deep breath in the power of Holy Spirit and step off that road.


I think you are getting confused between sin and the unpardonable sin. Sin is sin - it hasn't changed before or after Christ died. The unpardonable sin is quenching/blaspheming the Holy Spirit and not believing in Jesus' death and resurrection.




Do you have any Scripture to back up this position? I think sin is far greater than this limited list, and lying has to do with false witness (court of law) and repeated lying:



This verse set alone defeats the list in the previous quoted post. Where is murder on that list? That is clearly a sin. No, I'm going to maintain that sin is defined by the Decalogue as viewed through the teachings of Christ.

you seem to be questioning for nothing much, what Jesus Christ brought was grace, and sin was what was before what Christ brought, and truth is what was not brought before, as there is no truth in death which was on all the world, so sin did change, the command to repent was given to all the world, and the preaching of the cross is what causes that repentance, as men can then believe in life and no longer death.

Sin was all there was, along, and binding, then eternal life came, which is Jesus Christ coming in the flesh which the antichrist spirit denies, so confession of this alone is the overcoming of sin, which could not be overcome before, so sin did change, it was defeated, it was replacing death by life, sin in its strength to weakness and gone, nailed to the cross of Christ, for us to also be risen away from sin up into heaven with Him.

 

[HIM]

There literally is. I am aware of no language where Messiah, Christ or Annointed are written with out an i. For instance, Christos, Cristo, Moshiach… Indeed his first name Jesus*, in Hebrew Joshua and in Aramaic, Yeshua, means “I AM saves” referring to the meaning of YHWH

*Also often spelled with an I; indeed in antiquity there was no letter J. Thus Iesous in Greek, Isha and Isho in the Eastern and Western dialects of Classical Syriac Aramaic, and Isa in Arabic, and in Latin before the invention of the letters U and J, IESVS.

Sorry you missed the point of that or felt the need to post your post. Take care

 

[HIM]

But Romans 10 is about Israel, so still not about us gentiles in the Body of Christ.

If you don't believe me, you can start from Romans 10:1, who is Paul addressing?

No, in verse 1 he mentions Israel, they are not the subject. The letter is all whom be in Rome (see 1:7). The subject is faith in general. The faith the just live by, which establishes the Law.
This faith according to the context Israel as a whole did not have. (see 9:30-33). The Gentiles were living the righteousness which is of faith that establishes the Law (see 9:30). This is the context

Chapter 10 describes what this faith is that Israel was not experiencing.. It says The word is nigh unto you in verse 8. The You are the all that be in Rome to which the letter is was being written. That would be Jew and Gentile.

Verse 8 continues to speak on this faith the gentiles where living by the establishes the law and says that it is in their hearts and in their mouths. And closes that statement with, that is the word of faith in which they preach.

Which means the word being in our hearts is the faith through Christ. The changed heart is the faith which the just live by and establishes the law, Because it it believes unto righteousness. as verse 10 states.
.
Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Rom 9:32 Wherefore? Because [they sought it] not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
Rom 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
Rom 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.
Rom 10:4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down [from above]
Rom 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach.
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.