No Return To the Law

Now, grace does not fail but for the ungodly rejected to "Hell", and that failure (the "Second Death") waits until after the final judgement. There is then no "gap" in time where the requirements of salvation revert to the old testament law. There is no reversion to the "Old Covenant".

But this is not an anti-semitic statement: Those that would be saved under the old covenant are a disjoint set from those that are saved in the new covenant. Whilst keeping the law is a "good thing", that law is completely superseded by faith on Christ acting in good works instead.

The sets are truly disjoint because there is no simultaneity in the two covenants (in Christianity); only one is active, that being the new. It is actually sound Christian doctrine that a man not in Christ but perfect in keeping the law of Moses from birth up, is yet condemned in Christ and not saved, because the statement "I am perfect" is blasphemy as such a one has also rejected Christ.

Such a one is not "Holy", such a one is also not obedient, not glorifying the Son and not thereby having faith in the correct Christian God. (The Father.) Such a one should do better to follow the example of John the Baptist. (Saying, "He must become greater, I must become less".)

So, as grace continues to the very end (as there will be a preserved remnant - we shall not prevent them that are fallen asleep), there is no return to the old testament law, as there is no such "Second Death" that will interrupt the election of grace in Jesus Christ.

The proof in chapter 15.8 of the book uses the apparently redundant term "faulty" where the cross may redeem such a fault, quite separate from the label "marked" where there is no possibility of redemption. Now, "faulty" is independent of "SAVED" after that manner, yet "marked" is not, as I find (SAVED v marked) as a disjunction.

If there is a return to the OT law one could posit that (saved => raptured) still holds with the disjunction (SAVED v saved). It then should appear immediately that P(¬saved & ¬faulty) => N¬(marked).

And so I find by the contrapositive the presence of P(marked) => (¬faulty => saved) but saved=>raptured, so keeping the OT law becomes the criterion for judgement as to who is able to be raptured, rather than faith in Christ and that alone.

Now, this error permits the "rapture" of obedient Jews, as well as Christians, surely a false doctrine as by the above, no?

Now, if the rapture doctrine holds, then it is also possible for anyone to be given the related (but not true) "mark" (it is forced upon all remaining "left behind"). Then keeping the OT law becomes axiomatically positive rather than merely faith on Christ. Then as the covenants are only in effect one at a time (after the other) I may have (SAVED v saved) equal to (SAVED v obedient) where the latter is to be faultless under the law. (i.e. ¬faulty <=> obedient)

What then? P(¬saved & ¬faulty) => N¬(marked) holds by assumption and (SAVED v obedient) becomes (¬saved v obedient) and as ¬saved is "universal" after the "rapture" for all "left behind", there is then the outer appearance that if you remain obedient under the law, then that is equivalently salvation under this new "dispensation" - salvation equivalent to having been "saved" by the (now past) rapture; as also after the time when the election of grace had supposedly "failed".

But in truth the grace of God does not fail, so the equivalence of the rapture to that belief of salvation upon the obedience to the OT law is equivalence to the same "mark" as well as "rapture", for then remains the truth that only faith in Christ saves a soul from judgement to the "lake of fire".

Only Jesus is the "way, truth, and the life!". (None come to the Father but by Him.) The law does not stand (remain in place) under the new covenant, it is merely there to exonerate the risen Saviour for us to place faith upon Him. None may state before God that "I am perfect", but Christ Himself only.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page