True Justification, works of the Law of Moses, & Conditional Security

[stuart lawrence]

I cannot get into the details right now, but I am prepared to argue that when Paul declares that Christ is the "end of the Law for righteousness, he is not saying:

A believer will be declared righteous no matter how much he or she sins.

....he is instead saying:

Righteousness is not a privilege restricted to Jews.

Bottom Line: Paul sees "doing the law" more as an ethnic badge rather than as a measure of "doing morally good things".

Bottom line is what i have repeatedly told you. Reject it and you reject the core of the gospel message

 

[stuart lawrence]

If you reject the truth of what it means for Christ to be the end of the law unto righteousness, what agreement can there possibly be between us?

 

[stuart lawrence]

The reason you reject the spiritual truth of what it means for Christ to be the end of the law unto righteousness is because you do not understand it is a two part covenant. The first part cuts out the licence to sin. And that is why you refuse to accept the truth, for you believe to accept it gives a person a licence to sin, which it does not. The new covenant DOES NOT only hinge on one core fact, Christ dying at calvary. It hinges on TWO core facts

 

[expos4ever]

Bottom line is what i have repeatedly told you. Reject it and you reject the core of the gospel message

Well, we will see how the Biblical arguments unfold.

 

[expos4ever]

If you reject the truth of what it means for Christ to be the end of the law unto righteousness, what agreement can there possibly be between us?

Oh my, aren't we patronizing. Let me assure you, I have studied Paul at great length. Let's proceed by reasoned, Biblical arguments, not by this "If you don't agree with me, you are necessarily wrong" kind of thing.

 

[expos4ever]

The reason you reject the spiritual truth of what it means for Christ to be the end of the law unto righteousness is because you do not understand it is a two part covenant. The first part cuts out the licence to sin. And that is why you refuse to accept the truth, for you believe to accept it gives a person a licence to sin, which it does not. The new covenant DOES NOT only hinge on one core fact, Christ dying at calvary. It hinges on TWO core facts

Please do not simply speculate about what I believe.

 

[expos4ever]

Let me ask you (Stuart) a question: Do you agree with this statement:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

How about this one?:

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

 

[stuart lawrence]

Let me ask you (Stuart) a question: Do you agree with this statement:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

How about this one?:

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

I will happily go onto other things once there is agreement on what is entailed by Christ being the end of the law unto righteousness. You cannot skip over the core of the subject and simply move on until there is understanding of it. Otherwise we might just as well skip over everything

 

[stuart lawrence]

Do you accept sin is the transgression of the law?
Do you accept that observing the law is not committing sin?
Do you accept a work of the law is working not to sin?

So if Paul says you have no righteousness/justification before God of observing the law, he Must be stating you have no righteousness before God of working not to sin. The only possible way that can be the truth for the christian is if their sin debt has been paid in full.
Christ cannot be the end of the law unto righteousness if he did not die for all your sin, past present and future. For if he did not die for all your sin, you must be unrighteous in Gods sight if you fail to observe the law. Do you not see that?

 

[expos4ever]

I suggest the following:

1. The history of the first century shows that few Jews believed they could be justified by doing the "morally good" things the Law of Moses prescribed; therefore there is reason to be suspicious to the claim that when Paul denies "justification by works of the Law", he is making an argument that we do need to do good works to be justified. Au contraire, Paul clearly believes such good works are necessary as the material in post 1407 shows.

2. Paul's real concern is that Jews think that only Jews - that is, those who do the works of the Law of Moses since only Jews are under the Law of Moses - can be justified.

3. The Jews of Paul's day saw doing the works of the Law as a kind of ethnic marker, something that set them apart from the Gentiles; these Jews thought that God's favour was limited to them and that one would be justified simply by being a Jew.

4. In this context, the statement "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness" (and righteousness is closely linked to justification) is Paul's way of declaring that Jesus's work on the cross shows that the time has come for Jews to abandon this notion that justification (and righteousness) is for Jews only - that is, those who do the works of the Law of Moses.

 

[expos4ever]

Do you accept sin is the transgression of the law?

Obviously this is true in the sense that during the period the Law was in force, transgression of the law revealed the presence of sin. But unless you are going to say that Adam never sinned, we know that sin exists apart from the Law - the law was not in force till Moses at Mount Sinai.

 

[stuart lawrence]

I suggest the following:

1. The history of the first century shows that few Jews believed they could be justified by doing the "morally good" things the Law of Moses prescribed; therefore there is reason to be suspicious to the claim that when Paul denies "justification by works of the Law", he is making an argument that we do need to do good works to be justified. Au contraire, Paul clearly believes such good works are necessary as the material in post 1407 shows.

2. Paul's real concern is that Jews think that only Jews - that is, those who do the works of the Law of Moses since only Jews are under the Law of Moses - can be justified.

3. The Jews of Paul's day saw doing the works of the Law as a kind of ethnic marker, something that set them apart from the Gentiles; these Jews thought that God's favour was limited to them and that one would be justified simply by being a Jew.

4. In this context, the statement "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness" (and righteousness is closely linked to justification) is Paul's way of declaring that Jesus's work on the cross shows that the time has come for Jews to abandon this notion that justification (and righteousness) is for Jews only - that is, those who do the works of the Law of Moses.

I am afraid that does not explain what is written. If the bible continuously states(ad it does) the christian is not under a law of righteousness that is the truth. And I have clearly showed you if a christian is not under a righteousness before God of observing the law/works of the law their din debt must have been paid in full

 

[expos4ever]

Do you accept that observing the law is not committing sin?

I am not sure I understand your question, could you perhaps rephrase it more carefully?

 

[stuart lawrence]

I am not sure I understand your question, could you perhaps rephrase it more carefully?

Do you accept observing the law is not committing sin? If we obey the law we do not sin, for sin is transgression of the law. Therefore, if we observe(keep) the law we do not commit sin
Therefore to observe the law is not to commit sin. Do you agree?

 

[stuart lawrence]

You see Paul is not going to writs a letter to churches and word it as Christ died for all you sins because some who would read the letter would obviously take it the wrong way, so he writes it as he does.

 

[Meowzltov]

2. Paul's real concern is that Jews think that only Jews - that is, those who do the works of the Law of Moses since only Jews are under the Law of Moses - can be justified.

This is correct. The Council of Jerusalem affirmed that Gentiles could remain Gentiles and had no need to follow Jewish law. The bulk of Paul's epistles were meant to sooth Gentiles in understanding that they did not need to follow Jewish law.

 

[stuart lawrence]

This is correct. The Council of Jerusalem affirmed that Gentiles could remain Gentiles and had no need to follow Jewish law. The bulk of Paul's epistles were meant to sooth Gentiles in understanding that they did not need to follow Jewish law.

As you are well versed in the bible I would ask you
If Christ us the end of the law unto righteousness, can this be true unless he died for all of a believers sins at Calvary?
Do you accept observing the law is not committing sin?

 

[JLB777]

But this is the concept most find impossible to understand.
Only by removing a law of righteousness shall sin not be your master (rom6:14) I wonder I you understand what espos4ever does not understand. The only way a law of righteousness can be removed is if Christ died for all your imperfections concerning the law(your sin) at Calvary, past, present and future

We are not under the law of Moses.

However there is the law of faith.

We are certainly now not under the law of Moses, as that was temporary, and for the natural offspring of Abraham, but we have to submit ourselves to the law of the Spirit of life.

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. Romans 8:2

For as we walk after the Spirit, there is therefore no condemnation.

The law of sin and death, unlike the law of Moses is eternal, while the law of Moses was temporary.

We have been set free from the law of sin and death, that Adam transgressed.

We were never under the law of Moses.


JLB

 

[stuart lawrence]

We are not under the law of Moses.

However there is the law of faith.

We are certainly now not under the law of Moses, as that was temporary, and for the natural offspring of Abraham, but we have to submit ourselves to the law of the Spirit of life.

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. Romans 8:2

For as we walk after the Spirit, there is therefore no condemnation.

The law of sin and death, unlike the law of Moses is eternal, while the law of Moses was temporary.

We have been set free from the law of sin and death, that Adam transgressed.

We were never under the law of Moses.


JLB

According to Paul the ministration of death was written on tablets of stone. The only law written on tablets of stone was the ten commandments
May I ask you.
Is observing the law not committing sin?

 

[EmSw]

We are not under the law of Moses.

However there is the law of faith.

We are certainly now not under the law of Moses, as that was temporary, and for the natural offspring of Abraham, but we have to submit ourselves to the law of the Spirit of life.

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. Romans 8:2

For as we walk after the Spirit, there is therefore no condemnation.

The law of sin and death, unlike the law of Moses is eternal, while the law of Moses was temporary.

We have been set free from the law of sin and death, that Adam transgressed.

We were never under the law of Moses.


JLB

David didn't believe the law was temporary.

Psalm 119:44
So shall I keep Your law continually, forever and ever.

Psalm 119:142
Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, And Your law is truth.

Since the law is truth, how is truth temporary? If you believe truth is temporary, then you must believe Jesus is temporary.