Salvation

with God nothing is impossible user

there's a never ending fight inside us. At least in me. So I don't think this is common. Glad for you in any case.

Attached: descarga.jpg (318x159, 10.95K)

...

You're right, it's about justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ.
*bzzzt* WRONG, it's about the entire law of God including the decalog. What Paul is saying is that we can no longer suffer the wrath our sins deserve because they have already been punished on the cross, we are crucified with Christ, and that means the law has forgotten us.
Sin does lead to hell always, that's why it must be blotted out by the blood of Christ, if God finds even one sin in you you will be damned.

It isn't though. It's about Mosaic Law being dead. And even if I would, against letter and spirit of those verses, grant you that it's about imputed righteousness then I have to remind you, that imputed rightousness does not equal to eternal security. Luther is all for imputed rightousness (for he invented it i.e. he denied inusion aspect of it) but he also preach that salvation can be lost
It's not though. For divine moral law, by its very definition is eternal and cannot be abolished. That's why Paul (and John) time and time again speak about how "Murderers, homosexuals, liars" etc. cannot enter heaven and how if one sow flesh will reap fruit of flesh that is death of soul.
Wage of sin is death. It's not death of body since even righteous experience that but death of soul. If Christ was to be punished for our sins then he would have to experience death of soul. But it's impossible since as Chalcedonian defintion teaches (and it's biding for you if you wish to post here and be named Christian) "Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably". To say adhere to PSA theory is to commit serious Christological heresy, a form of nestorianism. Not to mention that it would deny dogma of Christ archpriethood for it would mean that Father is the one who is minister of sacrfice (which suddenlly stop being "offered up" but begins to be "poured down")
And even if, against the cornerstones of Christology, I would grant you that PSA is true, it would still do not equal to eternal security. Again, Luther.
That's why I do not believe in eternal security (and Luther theory of imputation alone), for it blinds God. I rather adhere to what Christ says to Seven Churches - that He sees sin of alredy saved Christian, that sin lead them unto death of soul and if they do not repent of sins he will cut them off and throw in fire (Rev 2:1-5, 18-22 3:1-4, 14-19; especially verses 4-5, 20, 22b, 2a, 3b, 4a, 16, 19)

Didn't say it does.
Yes it is. If it were not, this would mean that Christ paid only for our sins against the mosaic law, leaving us still in our sins against the moral law. Also keep in mind that Paul's usage of the term law does not change between here and verse 7, I recommend you read the entire chapter before forming an interpretation of the beginning.
Paul does not say anything is abolished, but that we are released from it, from its obligations and its punishments. The mosaic law remains just as binding as the moral, there are men born after Christ who will go to hell for eating pork. The eternal law of God remains the standard of holiness for God's people however, and they will keep it, or be chastised as disobedient children.
Paul speaks of those who are in the flesh, and not those who are in the Spirit. In Paul's usage, a murderer is one who is desirous of murder, not simply one who commits murder, hence a Christian may commit murder, but would not be a murderer.
It's both. Christ suffered on the cross not only physically but also in His soul, hence the words of the creed, "He descended into hell".
You haven't laid any foundation for that claim.
Christ offered His sacrifice after rising from the dead.
And I'm still not talking about that, go back and re-read the image I was responding to, except the words "eternal security".
I seriously hope you don't think I'm saying God is literally ignorant of our sins, as if He were not omniscient. What I'm saying is that it is forgotten in His law, since we are marked in it as punished, hence He no longer relates to us as judge but as father.

Right. Mea culpa. I was tried and didn't think clear.
But since whole discussion is about OSAS then I feel justified.
That thinking presupposes that Death of Christ was in fact PSA i.e. Christ is punished in our place. It's circular logic. Rather Christ atonement was atonement of superabundant sacrifice i.e. warth of God is not pured down on him but rather calmed by offering of pure love.
Mosaic law was threefold as proven from Deuteronomy 6:1. And this allows Paul to change meaning or rather to change aspect of thing discussed. So fast he says "Not-moral law of Moses is dead" to add then "Was then law of Moses evil? No for it had moral percepts as well"
'But if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband." Law, being masculine in greek is styled as husband. Law is dead. It's no more. But moral law cannot be be abolished, nor dead. That's why he tells us that " For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall reap corruption." And in another place: "Now you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err [sinners] shall possess the kingdom of God."
This is some form of dual covenant theology. But old covenant is dead "For, until this present day, the selfsame veil, in the reading of the old covenant, remaineth not taken away (because in Christ it is made void).". And not only dead but als deadly. For outward ceremonies signify inward faith. And since all ceremonies of the old law points that Messiah will come to partake in them means to confess that Mesaiah will come. But Messiah did come. He was alredy there. The mystery of faith - Christ died, Christ rose, Christ will come back. To your claim to be true it would mean that Messiah did not come in flesh. Not to mention, that center and core of ceremonies of old law, that is temple and priesthood is no more. There is no Temple. All of aaronic priesthood lines died out. There is no phisical way to even keep old ceremonies
I already quoted Paul who say those things as a warning already saved christians so I will not repeat myself. But I will add that he says and commands that Christians 'should walk in newness of life and spirit not that all christians do that.
This is twisting this verse out of context and it proper meaning. Paul is clear - "Christians do not err, nor be deceived - murderers will not inherit kingdom of God." And in another place "Christians you erred, you fallen from grace. You run well, but failed from the run. Works of flesh is this - murders. And those who murder shall not obtain kingdom of God. Walk thefore in Spirt, not Flesh. Be not deceived, God is not mocked. Those who sow flesh, will reap fruit of it"
This is not what words of this creed means. Let me quote third generation Christian, student of Saint Policarp, student of Saint John, to tell you what it means
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Chap. 27, Para. 2:
The Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, announcing there the good news of His coming and of the remission of sins conferred upon those who believe in Him.
5, 31, 2
For since the Lord went away into the midst of the shadow of death where the souls of the dead were, and afterwards arose in the body, and after the resurrection was taken up, it is clear that the souls also of His disciples, on account of which the Lord underwent these things, will go away into the place allotted them by God.
Or just give it this acient homily on the matter
vatican.va/spirit/documents/spirit_20010414_omelia-sabato-santo_en.html

Christ would not experience spiritual death if his union of both his natures is indivisible, inseparable".
Huge Point
If you deny this then we will end this here and I recommend you to stay away from this board. For it's Chalcedonian.

I did. You ignored it. To quote myself

Yes I believe it is safe to presuppose Paul's own teaching when reading Paul
It would be if I was using that as an argument for PSA, but I deliberately arranged my words to be compatible with other perspectives on the atonement because my point does not require that view. The word paid is the past tense form of the word pay, meaning to give money. Therefore my language had little difference to the bible's language when it speaks of Christ paying our debt. If you are objecting to saying that Christ paid for our sins, you object to the bible's own explicit words.
So my point still stands. However Christ paid for our sins, if He only paid for some, we are doomed.
Paul quotes from the decalog in verse 7 as an example of the law of which he is speaking. I do not dispute he also has ceremonies in mind, but it is every law God has ever given to man.
So you are in fact arguing that there disjunction between the beginning of Romans 7 and the rest? That is most odd considering verse 7 says "What then shall we say", which is about as close as you can come to explicitly saying "I'm still talking about the same thing".
Were the non-moral laws evil, user? Are you saying that God gave us evil? If not, how would that answer that question? That is not how Paul answers the question, he says "Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin", meaning that just as in Romans 3:19-20, he is saying the purpose of the law is to show us our inability to work with God, so we can see our need for Christ. Hence it is proven that the entirety of God's law is in mind, since any command which God gives us has the capacity to make sin come alive.
It is not. The Greek isn't saying the law is her husband, but that it is about her husband (covenantal obligations of marriage), hence the masculine. Paul does not say that the law is dead, but "you also have died to the law", and "we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive", proving that the law stands, but not for a Christian.
That the old covenant has passed away does not show that the old law has done the same, since the old covenant is merely a dispensation (or rather, a serious of dispensations) of the one covenant of grace, being in substance no different from the new covenant. Hence, it is done away with, since it only concerns the people of God, who have moved on into the new covenant, but the old law concerns all who hear it and believe it, so those who remain in the covenant of works and know the law are convicted by the law.

The sacraments of the old law continue even now as the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which point backward that the Messiah did come, and signify inward faith, inasmuch as they are badges of covenant membership.
He spoke that multiple times, so we have several parallels to examine. The reading in Galatians is prefaced "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law", meaning that it is not a warning to Christians of what will happen if they fail to keep the law (indeed, that would be to forsake the whole epistle), but that this is what awaits the unrepentant, who neither believe nor desire to. The sins that he lists (and the virtues he lists after) are not the deeds properly, but mean as things that one fixes their mind on. One claiming to be Christian but fixing on these sins is like Lot's wife, desiring to escape the judgement but turning back to the real object of their heart.
If Paul does not say that not all Christians do that and it's just something you take as implied, you are adding to scripture. The fact Paul calls us to live in light of our calling does not mean that calling is not ours.
Men professing to be Christians fell away from the realm of grace, namely the true Church.
And how does he conclude that section? "And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires". He tells us plainly that no Christian walks in the flesh.
I do not deny that it also refers to the harrowing of hell, but I think it is also meant to assure a believer that Christ suffered all which they deserved to suffer.
I categorically deny that Christ suffered spiritual death. Spiritual death is a sinful nature, it would be blasphemy and heresy to say He died spiritually.