No Choice

[Tom Butler]

The answer is found in Romans 2, where Paul says that those who are without the law are a law unto themselves. I take that to mean that everyone has developed some sort of moral code by which they live. The condemnation comes because they cannot even live up to their own moral code.

We who find ourselves blessed by having heard the gospel are in the same boat. If we could live up to the Law, we could get into heaven. If they could live up to their own moral code, so could they. But they can't, just as we can't perfectly obey the Law.

HP: A very interesting post indeed.:thumbs: As I read it I was it was yea and amen all the way down to just before the last sentence. That is where this question entered my mind. Suppose we we to die to self and become alive in Christ, to the point where it was no longer ‘us’ that were alive but rather Christ in us. What then Tom?

Hmm, let's brainstorm through this. My standard pat answer has been, if you could keep the law perfectly, you could get into heaven without Christ. Of course, nobody ever did (except Jesus), and I believe the Bible says nobody can, so the matter is settled.

But let's do the "what if." You do know that some Holiness groups do believe that through the sanctification process, one can actually reach the point that he simply stops sinning. So let's say this happens as you describe it. You die to self and become alive in Christ, Christ living in us.

Well and good. But, what about all those sins you committed up to the point where you quit? Are they covered by the blood? Or are only the sins you committed up to the point where you were saved? And do you need the blood from the time you quit sinning?

I think even if you reach sinless perfection, you're still out of luck. You still need the blood of Christ to cover the sins up to that point. Just as we need the blood to cover the sins I've committed since God saved me, as well as before.

Doesn't James 2:10 say that if you keep the law except for one point, it's just as if you broke every law?

You know, HP, that's a pretty good question. What if we could, except the Bible says we can't.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ga 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

HP: Are we too late to inform brother Paul of his own words?

 

[webdog]

My standard pat answer has been, if you could keep the law perfectly, you could get into heaven without Christ.

Scripture never states this, in fact even if the whole law could have been kept, it would have been futile apart from faith. Even if one kept the whole law, they would still need faith.

 

[Tom Butler]

Scripture never states this, in fact even if the whole law could have been kept, it would have been futile apart from faith. Even if one kept the whole law, they would still need faith.

Well, I certainly wouldn't dispute that, except that we're discussing a "what if" question. Just as the Bible says it's impossible to please God without faith, so does Paul say that the law exists as a schoolmaster to teach us what sin is and the impossibility of living up to the law perfectly.

That failure leaves us under the wrath of God and without hope. Except for what Jesus did.

In order to discuss "what if" we have to ignore all those scriptures we both cite. So in order to discuss what would happen if we could keep the law perfectly, we have to ignore scriptures which say we can't, and scriptures which tell us to believe for our salvation.

We're just having some fun here with idle speculation.

 

[steaver]

HP: Here is where I might differ. God is love and He has shown mercy, but could He be love and not show mercy? I believe He can and He will. Even now God is not showing mercy towards the angels that have fell, or so it would seem. There is coming a time when His mercy will not be extended to man., Will He cease to love them? I think not. Love does not necessitate mercy. It may be an excellent way for sentient beings to see a side of love that otherwise could not have been seen, but nothing necessitates mercy that I can see. All that is necessitated is that if God is going to blame and punish man for sin, He in justice must give them an opportunity at some point in time to be able to do something other than what they do in th every same set of circumstance. Man must have a choice in determining the intent if he is to be blamed and punished. If man was created a sinner, no choice could be evident and as such no just blame for one choosing sin. Once choice is granted, and man voluntarily chooses sin, love does not necessitate any second chance. If one is given it is in mercy, but again mercy is not necessitated by love.

God’s Spirit will not always strive with man. Another indication that today is the day of mercy if one will harden not his heart. Mercy shown will not always be the case for man, but God will still be love.

I agree. I said Love offers Mercy, and God has offered Mercy to those who will accept it. You are right to say God's offer will one day end and it does end even today to those whom God chooses to harden their hearts because they have rejected Him for so long. But only God knows who has crossed His line. His word does say that after much longsuffering He does choose to harden some hearts.

:godisgood:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: I said Love offers Mercy

HP: Agreed. His love indeed has shown mercy!:thumbs: :godisgood: