Function of the Law in Salvation

[Guest shiloh357]

"Take up your cross" is a symbolic saying. It simply means "die to God." It is a reference to the mode of death of our Savior.

Well, duh. You don't think that goes without saying???

I am not talking about the literal wooden instrument of death itself. I am for the one billionth time, referring to the "work of the cross" or the work that was done on it by the Christ, i.e. His death.

Many people try to complicate a very simple concept.

No, you are complicating the issue by thinking that I am referring to two pieces of wood. You are oversimplifying the point I was making.

When you separate any aspect of the atonement from the full atonement, you make that aspect powerless.

I am not "separating" anything. As I previously indicated, Paul Himself has two discussions in the first eight chapters of Romans. He first discusses the blood of Jesus, and then He focuses on the death of Jesus. I am taking my cue from him, so you can either address that or you have nothing of value to say to me worth consideration on the subject. I am using the Bible to make my point about two vital aspects of what Jesus did on the cross and what is still being effected through the power of His blood today.

We should be careful to refrain from raising it to an idolic position of worship.

What a crock. This is evidence that you do indeed miss the point.

[hr.jr.]

"Take up your cross" is a symbolic saying. It simply means "die to God." It is a reference to the mode of death of our Savior.

Well, duh. You don't think that goes without saying???

I am not talking about the literal wooden instrument of death itself. I am for the one billionth time, referring to the "work of the cross" or the work that was done on it by the Christ, i.e. His death.

You made my point in your own quote. The "work of the cross." As I said, if you would simply define what "the cross" is, you would see that "the cross" refers to the atonement our Savior provided. You just stated what I have been trying to tell you all along. The DEATH, BURIAL, and RESSURRECTION of our Savior did the work. The Death was worthless without the Ressurrection. If you had defined the cross "1 billion" times, I would not have asked you to define "the cross." Christ died and bore our sin, but had he not arisen, it would have been worthless. The entire event was an intertwined process. Christ provides complete atonement, not compartmentalized atonement.

[hr.jr.]

When you separate any aspect of the atonement from the full atonement, you make that aspect powerless.

I am not "separating" anything. As I previously indicated, Paul Himself has two discussions in the first eight chapters of Romans. He first discusses the blood of Jesus, and then He focuses on the death of Jesus. I am taking my cue from him, so you can either address that or you have nothing of value to say to me worth consideration on the subject. I am using the Bible to make my point about two vital aspects of what Jesus did on the cross and what is still being effected through the power of His blood today.

Where in the First 8 Chapters of Romans, is Paul discussing "the Cross?"

I seem to have missed that. I could tell you where he discusses it in his other books, but the discussion is eluding me in the first 8 chapters of Romans. I have not gone to my concordance or anything, but my memory seems to have discussion of "the cross" absent from the first 8 chapters of Romans. I can not comment on the Romans references because I can not remember them. If my memory serves me correctly, the word Cross does not apear in the book of Romans.

However, every reference Paul made to "cross" referred to the total process of accepting the redemption offered by my Savior.

If you will kindly point me to "The Cross" in the "first 8 Chapters of Romans," I will gladly address any questions you may have.

Maybe I am readng the wrong translation of the Bible. Maybe I should go grab a paraphrase or something.

The death of Jesus is referred to in Romans, however the death is not compartmentalized away from the atonement process. It is a component of an entire process.

[Guest]

Therefore By The Deeds Of The Law There Shall No Flesh Be Justified In His Sight

Salvation By Grace Alone Without Works

(Romans 3:20-28) "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. {21} But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; {22} Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: {23} For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; {24} Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: {25} Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; {26} To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. {27} Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. {28} Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

(Romans 5:18-19) "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. {19} For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

(Romans 6:23) "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

(Romans 11:6) "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."

(1 Corinthians 4:7) "For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?"

(1 Corinthians 15:10) "But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."

(Galatians 2:16) "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

(Galatians 2:21) "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

(Ephesians 2:8-9) "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: {9} Not of works, lest any man should boast."

(2 Timothy 1:9) "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,"

http://www.freegrace.net/scriptures/gracealone.htm

Yes!

His Love Is Too Wondrous For This Tiny Man To Comprehend

All I Can To Is Cleave To Jesus

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

And Sing Thanksgivings To The LORD

Thank you, Lord, for saving my soul,

Thank you, Lord, for making me whole;

Thank you, Lord, for giving to me

Thy great salvation so rich and free.

http://my.homewithgod.com/heavenlymidis2/index.html#T

[hr.jr.]

When you separate any aspect of the atonement from the full atonement, you make that aspect powerless.

I am not "separating" anything. As I previously indicated, Paul Himself has two discussions in the first eight chapters of Romans. He first discusses the blood of Jesus, and then He focuses on the death of Jesus. I am taking my cue from him, so you can either address that or you have nothing of value to say to me worth consideration on the subject. I am using the Bible to make my point about two vital aspects of what Jesus did on the cross and what is still being effected through the power of His blood today.

Where in the First 8 Chapters of Romans, is Paul discussing "the Cross?"

I seem to have missed that. I could tell you where he discusses it in his other books, but the discussion is eluding me in the first 8 chapters of Romans. I have not gone to my concordance or anything, but my memory seems to have discussion of "the cross" absent from the first 8 chapters of Romans. I can not comment on the Romans references because I can not remember them. If my memory serves me correctly, the word Cross does not apear in the book of Romans.

However, every reference Paul made to "cross" referred to the total process of accepting the redemption offered by my Savior.

If you will kindly point me to "The Cross" in the "first 8 Chapters of Romans," I will gladly address any questions you may have.

Maybe I am readng the wrong translation of the Bible. Maybe I should go grab a paraphrase or something.

The death of Jesus is referred to in Romans, however the death is not compartmentalized away from the atonement process. It is a component of an entire process.

Romans 6:6 is one verse in Romans 1-8 that speaks of the Cross, and the surrounding context is contingent with this verse.

Verse 6 speaks of our Death to sin. Verse 8 speaks of our ressurrection with Him. Again, complete atonement is referred to in this reference.

However, "the cross" was not mentioned. The concept of death to sin, which I mentioned earlier, was mentioned. However, it was not broken away from the process of atonement.

[Guest shiloh357]

When you separate any aspect of the atonement from the full atonement, you make that aspect powerless.

I am not "separating" anything. As I previously indicated, Paul Himself has two discussions in the first eight chapters of Romans. He first discusses the blood of Jesus, and then He focuses on the death of Jesus. I am taking my cue from him, so you can either address that or you have nothing of value to say to me worth consideration on the subject. I am using the Bible to make my point about two vital aspects of what Jesus did on the cross and what is still being effected through the power of His blood today.

Where in the First 8 Chapters of Romans, is Paul discussing "the Cross?"

I seem to have missed that. I could tell you where he discusses it in his other books, but the discussion is eluding me in the first 8 chapters of Romans. I have not gone to my concordance or anything, but my memory seems to have discussion of "the cross" absent from the first 8 chapters of Romans. I can not comment on the Romans references because I can not remember them. If my memory serves me correctly, the word Cross does not apear in the book of Romans.

However, every reference Paul made to "cross" referred to the total process of accepting the redemption offered by my Savior.

If you will kindly point me to "The Cross" in the "first 8 Chapters of Romans," I will gladly address any questions you may have.

Maybe I am readng the wrong translation of the Bible. Maybe I should go grab a paraphrase or something.

The death of Jesus is referred to in Romans, however the death is not compartmentalized away from the atonement process. It is a component of an entire process.

Yeah, you will notice in my remarks that I said that latter half of the first 8 chapters of Romans (5:12- 8:39) deals with the death of Jesus as opposed to first half which deals primarily with the blood of Jesus. I refer to the death of Jesus as the work of the cross. It is all there in black and white. Paul makes the distinction. I am sorry that your theology can't make room for that, but that is what is in the Bible, like it or not. You should try conforming your theology to the Bible, instead of the other way around.

[Pilgrim7]

Wow, there is sure an effort to bury that 7th Commandment, I wonder why?

Here again is Paul's teaching on Justification, in His own words:

Only Past sins:

Rom 3:23

For

all have sinned,

and

come short

of the glory of God;

3:24

Being

justified freely

by his grace

through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

3:25

Whom God has set forth to be a

propitiation through faith

in his blood, to declare

his righteousness

for the

remission of sins

that are

PAST

(I would hope that we can all understand that past means past, there is no present or future mentioned here),

through the forbearance of God;

Now Paul deals with any sin thereafter which would be future:

Ga 2:17

But if, while

we

seek

to be

justified

by Christ,

we ourselves also

are found sinners,

is therefore

Christ the minister of sin?

God forbid.

(Now why would Paul ask such a question? Because the converted, justified one is indwelt by Christ who is to live through Him and Christ would not lead him to sin, so Paul tells what happened)

2:18

For

if I

build again

the

things

which

I destroyed

(when I was crucified with Christ),

I

make myself

a

transgressor

.

(again, after he was justified, forgiven of all past sin, but now has made himself a transgressor again and must be forgiven for that new sin and thus justified for it)

Now John tells us how this happens:

1John 1:9

If

we

confess

our sins,

he is

faithful

and

just

to

forgive

us our sins,

and to

cleanse us

from

all unrighteousness.

Now this is certainly not initial forgiveness or justification, which takes place at conversion, for that has already taken place.

So we see that any future sin is forgiven at a future time, following the confession of it to God. Now this is a very easy point to grasp. If it was already forgiven at conversion, then why would any need to confess it at a later time in order to be forgiven at that time? At least be logical, if you are not going to believe the Scriptures.

This is why there is a separation of the wheat and tares in the churches, to determine who have continued to confess their sins and be forgiven, and who have presumptuously assumed that they did not need to do so.

God Bless,

Dennis

[nanasimmons]

The doctrine of justification is the gospel...!!

It is a SELF emptying faith like Abraham's...Sarah was over 74 years old and barren and yet Abraham believed God that he would have a son and it was imputed/accounted to him for righteousness....At this point Abraham believed not in himself for Sarah to have a child but believed that God would fulfill the promise made...Work of the Spirit....

Of course as human nature would have it, 10 years later, Sarah now over 84 years old, they decided to help God along with that promise...Works of the flesh...Mixing a little works with their faith so to say...

We Christians should have SELF emptying, justifying faith....... Again, it is not our faith per se, that saves/justifies us, it is what we place our faith in.... Self or Christ's imputed Righteousness........ we need to be 'skillfull in the word of righteousness'....

Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Rom 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Col 1:21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

Col 1:22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight:

Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

2Co 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

2Co 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

2Co 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of(His) righteousness exceed in glory.

2Co 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

2Co 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

1Pe 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism(into Him) doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

1Pe 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

Quote...........

Barnes commentary.......

1Co 15:56 -

The sting of death - The sting which death bears; that with which he effects his purpose; that which is made use of to inflict death; or that which is the cause of death. There would be no death without sin. The apostle here personifies death, as if it were a living being, and as making use of sin to inflict death, or as being the sting, or envenomed instrument, with which he inflicts the mortal agony. The idea is, that sin is the cause of death. It introduced it; it makes it certain; it is the cause of the pain, distress, agony, and horror which attends it. If there had been no sin, people would not have died. If there were no sin, death would not be attended with horror or alarm. For why should innocence be afraid to die? What has innocence to fear anywhere in the universe of a just God? The fact, therefore, that people die, is proof that they are sinners; the fact that they feel horror and alarm, is proof that they feel themselves to be guilty, and that they are afraid to go into the presence of a holy God. If this be taken away, if sin be removed, of course the horror, and remorse, and alarm which it is suited to produce will be removed also.

Is sin - Sin is the cause of it; see the note at Rom_5:12.

The strength of sin - Its power over the mind; its terrific and dreadful energy; and especially its power to produce alarm in the hour of death.

Is the law - The pure and holy law of God. This idea Paul has illustrated at length in Rom_7:9-13; see the notes on that passage. He probably made the statement here in order to meet the Jews, and to show that the law of God had no power to take away the fear of death; and that, therefore, there was need of the gospel, and that this alone could do it. The Jews maintained that a man might be justified and saved by obedience to the law. Paul here shows that it is the law which gives its chief vigor to sin, and that it does not tend to subdue or destroy it; and that power is seen most strikingly in the pangs and horrors of a guilty conscience on the bed of death. There was need, therefore, of the gospel, which alone could remove the cause of these horrors, by taking away sin, and thus leaving the pardoned man to die in peace; compare the note on Rom_4:15.

1Co 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

1Co 15:57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

[Guest shiloh357]

Wow, there is sure an effort to bury that 7th Commandment, I wonder why?

No, it is just an attempt to correct your heretical treatment of the 7th commandment. The problem is not the commandment, but your perversion of it and the rest of the Bible.

Here again is Paul's teaching on Justification, in His own words:

Only Past sins:

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

3:25 Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are PAST (I would hope that we can all understand that past means past, there is no present or future mentioned here), through the forbearance of God;

You seem to forget or ignore that it is the blood in this passage that deals with sins. It is not justification. The text connects the blood to remission of past sins. Justification is nowhere connected to sins, but sinful condition. To prove this, we need to post the verses prior which you ignored:

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: (Rom. 3:19-22)

Paul states that the works of the law will not be the basis of justification for anyone. Justification is not "time centered." It has nothing to do with past sins or future sins. Justification simply means "not guilty." It pertains to your standing before God, not the things that you do. That is why "rightesouness" simply means "right-standing." It does not mean "sinless." It simply means that one is in rightstanding with God on the basis of Jesus works, not our works.

Now Paul deals with any sin thereafter which would be future:

Ga 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. (Now why would Paul ask such a question? Because the converted, justified one is indwelt by Christ who is to live through Him and Christ would not lead him to sin, so Paul tells what happened)

2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed (when I was crucified with Christ),I make myself a transgressor. (again, after he was justified, forgiven of all past sin, but now has made himself a transgressor again and must be forgiven for that new sin and thus justified for it)

You forgot verse 16: Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Gal. 2:16)

The funny thing is that in Galatians 2, Paul is refuting the very things you teach. You have attempted to prevert the law into a works-based system of righteseousness, and that is exactly what Paul was confronting with the Judaizers who were teaching the Galatians that they had to convert to Judaism and keep the law in order to be saved.

What Paul is saying is that if rebuild what I destroyed (legalistic system of Torah observance), I make myself a transgressor. By insisting that the law is necessary for justicification/salvation, you are a transgressor, and are under the very curse that Paul pronounced upon those who promote a false gospel. Galatians is a refutation of your false teachings.

Now John tells us how this happens:

1John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

I find it amusing you just grab verses that have nothing to do with each other and just string them together like lights on a Christmas tree.

John is talking about the cleansing of the conscience and the mind, not the heart.

So we see that any future sin is forgiven at a future time, following the confession of it to God. Now this is a very easy point to grasp. If it was already forgiven at conversion, then why would any need to confess it at a later time in order to be forgiven at that time? At least be logical, if you are not going to believe the Scriptures.

Confession of sin is not for justification. Confession of sin keeps out of condemnation. The blood of Jesus cleanses our conscience something the animal blood could not do (Hebrews 10: 2, 22).

This is why there is a separation of the wheat and tares in the churches, to determine who have continued to confess their sins and be forgiven, and who have presumptuously assumed that they did not need to do so.

No, the "wheat and tares" metaphor meant to separate those who are true believers vs. those who simply profess the faith but were never born again.

[hr.jr.]

When you separate any aspect of the atonement from the full atonement, you make that aspect powerless.

I am not "separating" anything. As I previously indicated, Paul Himself has two discussions in the first eight chapters of Romans. He first discusses the blood of Jesus, and then He focuses on the death of Jesus. I am taking my cue from him, so you can either address that or you have nothing of value to say to me worth consideration on the subject. I am using the Bible to make my point about two vital aspects of what Jesus did on the cross and what is still being effected through the power of His blood today.

Where in the First 8 Chapters of Romans, is Paul discussing "the Cross?"

I seem to have missed that. I could tell you where he discusses it in his other books, but the discussion is eluding me in the first 8 chapters of Romans. I have not gone to my concordance or anything, but my memory seems to have discussion of "the cross" absent from the first 8 chapters of Romans. I can not comment on the Romans references because I can not remember them. If my memory serves me correctly, the word Cross does not apear in the book of Romans.

However, every reference Paul made to "cross" referred to the total process of accepting the redemption offered by my Savior.

If you will kindly point me to "The Cross" in the "first 8 Chapters of Romans," I will gladly address any questions you may have.

Maybe I am readng the wrong translation of the Bible. Maybe I should go grab a paraphrase or something.

The death of Jesus is referred to in Romans, however the death is not compartmentalized away from the atonement process. It is a component of an entire process.

Yeah, you will notice in my remarks that I said that latter half of the first 8 chapters of Romans (5:12- 8:39) deals with the death of Jesus as opposed to first half which deals primarily with the blood of Jesus. I refer to the death of Jesus as the work of the cross. It is all there in black and white. Paul makes the distinction. I am sorry that your theology can't make room for that, but that is what is in the Bible, like it or not. You should try conforming your theology to the Bible, instead of the other way around.

My "theology" would make room for it if it was what the Bible taught. Paul does discuss the death, he does discuss the blood. The thing that you and your theology are missing is that he does not separate the two. Each work was an element in the total atonement that Christ paid for our sins. However, the elements are part of the Same atonement. The entirety of the atonement is where the victory lies, not in the individual aspects of the atonement. No single area of the atonement has power apart from from the entire atonement. The death would have been worthless without the ressurrection. The ressurrection could not have occurred without the death. They are entertwined. There is no power in the cross without the blood. The death blood would not have been shed without the cross. Paul never separates the two. Your "Theology" is attempting to separate something Paul did not. I can speak of the components of the human body without separating the human body. Just as our human body is one body, Christ atonement is one atonement. As I have said many times, It is not a hard concept.

Without naming names, the only one high profile minister that preaches "the cross" regularly agrees holds the same position I hold. He can not talk 5 minutes without the words "the Cross" coming from his mouth. Even though he preaches "The cross, the cross, the cross;" his writings agree with me 100%. The cross is not a separate, or compartmentalized occurrence. It is an element of the total atonement. You can discuss the heart, but the heart does nothing without the blood. You can discuss the blood, but the blood does nothing without the lungs. You can discuss the lungs, but the lungs do nothing without the heart. Paul discussed the cross, but he never separated it from the complete atoning work of Christ.

I think you have a concept that you simply enjoy hanging onto. For some reason your theology likes to separate the cross from the atonement. That, is bad theology.