To Be or Not to Be

HP: Your failure to comprehend or at least admit to the distinction between the grounds of salvation and the conditions God has set forth to be saved does not necessitate error on the art of those that do have an understanding on that important distinction.

 

HP: I am going to repost the prison illustration to highlight the distinction that exists between the grounds of salvation and the conditions of salvation that are seen best by the grounds and conditions of a pardon. There is no contradiction whatsoever to say that we are not saved for the sake of our righteousness, but neither will any one be saved apart from their obedience to Gods commands denoted as ‘their righteousness.’ Certainly no man can achieve a standing of righteous before God without first being cleansed by the blood of Christ through repentance and faith, yet just the same once cleansed man is required by God to maintain a standing of obedience via righteous behavior if their faith is to see the reality of the hope it now affords. Scripture is absolutely clear. An individual once made righteous can indeed turn from that righteousness by engaging in sin, remain unrepentant of it to the end, and by doing so forfeit the righteous standing and hope of eternal life they once enjoyed. Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

Now for the prison illustration.

A man goes to prison for life, being justly condemned and sentenced by a judge for a specific crime. Can such an individual ‘merit’ a pardon by the performance of good works while in prison? Can such a criminal perform good works to such a degree that the governor is forced to grant this man a pardon based merely on the ‘merit’ of the performance of such good works? Absolutely not. You cannot then consider any intents or actions as the grounds of his pardon, not could you say that he in any way could ‘merit’ a pardon. IF he is granted a pardon it cannot be said that in any sense his pardon was ‘for the sake of’ anything the prisoner had done or could do.

Just the same can the governor, if he so pleases, pardon such a criminal? Of course he can. Still, there is something the criminal MUST do, there is an attitude that MUST be reflected by the criminal to receive a pardon IF the governor is indeed fair and just. . If the prisoner is to receive a pardon it still can be said that there must be attitudes that are tied inseparably to intents of the heart, this very initial intent being none other than a ‘work’ in one sense of the word being something the prisoner must do. The governor MUST witness from the criminal a repentant attitude and a change of heart towards his former criminal behavior if the governor is even to consider such a pardon for the criminal. Here we see that the intents and actions of the prisoner indeed do play a part in a pardon, though again, not in the sense of 'that for the sake of.' The sense that the intents and works of the prisoner are involved in a pardon can only be seen in the sense of 'not without which,' not 'that for the sake of.' Nothing the prisoner can or will do can merit a pardon, but just the same neither will he receive a pardon without repentance and an assurance of future behavior is garnered.

What kind of governor would pardon a criminal from prison who had not exhibited true remorse for his crimes? Would not the governor have to be satisfied in his or her mind that IF they pardoned such a criminal that they would not return to commit the same crime or one of like heinous behavior upon society again and that such a criminal possessed and exhibited a true change of heart and attitude towards their former behavior? There are indeed certain conditions that the criminal must meet, works that such a one must of necessity do in order to have the opportunity for a pardon if such an opportunity is offered. These works on the part of the prisoner are again, in no way meritorious in nature, and in no way force the governor to grant such a one a pardon on the account of any or all of their works. Just the same, there are definite conditions or works one must do in order for the governor to consider the pardon. These works are thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not ‘that for the sake of.’

It can properly be stated that one is not pardoned due to any works (in one sense of the word ‘works’) in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ of the prisoner, but just the same it can be said ‘without works’ (in another sense of the word, that being in the sense of ‘not without which’) one will never see the opportunity to receive a pardon.

Can you see how that works can be thought of as necessary for a pardon, or in the sense of “not without which,” yet at the same time no amount of works can be thought of as “that for the sake of” or forcing the governor to pardon the criminal on the account of works performed by the criminal?

Such I believe is the case in our salvation. We indeed will be judged by our works, but our works are not the grounds of our salvation. There is no amount of works that can coerce God into granting us a pardon and therefore it can be properly said that we are not save ‘for the sake of' our righteousness. Although that is true, it still can be said that no man will be found in Him without works consistent with their faith. 1Jo 2:4 “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

Nothing we do is meritorious, nor can anything we do be seen of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of' our salvation. Nothing but the blood of Christ can atone for a single sin. Just the same, God does command us to repent and be obedient to the end, bearing fruits of righteousness and holiness, ‘without which’ no man shall see the Lord.

 

HP: Can you expound on this sentence some? Thanks.