True or False: Grace is harder than Law

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Who agrees with Jito463?

If you're trying to live for Christ without His Spirit, then it's an impossible task, even more so than living under the law.

This was far too quickly passed over.

He would need to clarify "impossible".

The Bible does not teach natural inability of mankind to obey God. That false doctrine is Calvinism (and Arminianism).

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i fail to see what keeps one from claiming the Spirit as easily as claiming to be a Christian, wadr.

People claim whatever they want, quite easily.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

He would need to clarify "impossible".

The Bible does not teach natural inability of mankind to obey God. That false doctrine is Calvinism (and Arminianism).

amen, and i think "trying to live for Christ without His Spirit" might be impossible in a different way than was meant as well.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

He would need to clarify "impossible".

The Bible does not teach natural inability of mankind to obey God. That false doctrine is Calvinism (and Arminianism).

I disagree. Anything that amounts to anything to the Lord is only what He does through us.

John 15:4-5 KJV Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. (5) I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Calvinism and Arminianism contradict one another.

At any rate, the reference to walking after the flesh in Romans 8 is referring to keeping law without the power of the Spirit. Paul said it cannot be done.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I agree! With the Spirit, I now have help.

[mfblume]

Paul also explained that sin will rule our mortal bodies unless the Spirit that resurrected Christ quickens our mortal bodies. We're not debtors to live after flesh due to the presence of the Spirit and His quickening or empowering activity in us as the result of our faith to believe God to do that in us.

When he wrote, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God," he followed up on the Spirit quickening our lives so we're not debtors to live after the flesh, and the warning that life after the flesh will bring death. So, we're led by the Spirit when we rely upon it to empower us. That's the reason we read we've not received the Spirit of bondage again to fear.

All this teaches that we cannot fulfill God's will naturally.

[Esaias]

There are two kinds of inability: natural, and moral.

Natural inability: "Flap your arms and fly!" Sorry, I cannot do that.

Moral inability: "Give me all the money in your bank account." Sorry, I cannot do that.

Natural inability means a constitutional inability to do something, even if you wanted to. Moral inability means an inability due to unwillingness.

Not one of God's commandments require anyone to perform a natural inability.

If they did, then God requires us, on pain of eternal death, to do that which we cannot possibly do. THINK ABOUT THAT. In this scheme of belief, sin is no longer a crime but an unfortunate condition. We are damned through no fault of our own. Indeed we are damned through nobody's fault at all - except God's. God demands we do that which we cannot possibly do, and casts us into hell for not doing it. It is EXACTLY as if God commands us to flap our arms and fly or go to hell. Is that how God is represented in scripture?

NO.

God is angry with the wicked. Why? Because they do not do that which they CANNOT do? Or because they do not do that which they OUGHT to do?

And how can one "ought" to do what cannot be done? Oughtness means obligation. Are you obligated to do what you cannot possibly do, at all? Of course not. If you were, then words have no meaning, oughtness is a nonsensical term with no meaning, and God is a tyrant more akin to the devil than to Christ!

Calvinism teaches this natural or inherent inability. Arminianism teaches THE EXACT SAME THING, but modifies it by saying "God has given a gracious ability to all to obey", aka "prevenient grace". There is no substantive difference between the two systems on the question of inability. In Arminianism, the obvious objection to natural inability is "removed" by God supernaturally granting, as an act of grace, an ability to obey. But this is just a cop out and only means God's grace is what damns sinners, because without that grace no one would have ability and therefore no one would have obligation.

The truth is, sin is CRIME ie transgression of the law. We COULD obey, but we choose not to. We are not willing, and thus fail to do what we are obligated to do, and therefore incur GUILT. This is why sin is odious to God.

The Spirit makes us voluntarily willing and obedient. Without the grace of God we WILL not submit to God's will. Not because we "cannot" by a physical or "natural" inability, but because we WILL not due to a MORAL inability. Thus, grace is, in part, God securing our voluntary surrender to his claims upon us as moral subjects.

If natural inability were true, salvation becomes a matter of DEBT and JUSTICE rather than GRACE and MERCY. God would OWE it to us to rescue us from hell if we were going there through no fault of our own - which is the necessary conclusion to the premise of natural inability.

And because people believe this nonsensical Augustinian-Calvinist-Arminian false doctrine of natural inability, they do not truly abhor sin for what is - CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR. Instead, sin is just some disease-like affliction that attacks poor otherwise innocent people. And following on that, such people have a hard time justifying God sending sinners to a lake of fire. They don't REALLY believe sinners DESERVE such a fate. And how could they? If hell is your destination for not doing what you could not do anyway, how COULD you believe you DESERVED it?

And preaching this nonsense gives sinners an unending excuse: I cannot HELP but sin. I can't stop it, it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to obey God. And they get this excuse from... CHRISTIANS!!!!

Who ought to know better.

[Jito463]

Esaias, do you believe it is possible for someone, without the Spirit of Christ, to live a holy and righteous life? Or do you believe that, only through the Holy Ghost, are we able to live in holiness?

It's one or the either. Either we can live a holy life without God's Spirit, or we cannot. I'm not talking about being saved, obviously that requires the infilling of the Holy Ghost, I'm talking just about living a holy life.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Esaias, do you believe it is possible for someone, without the Spirit of Christ, to live a holy and righteous life? Or do you believe that, only through the Holy Ghost, are we able to live in holiness?

It's one or the either. Either we can live a holy life without God's Spirit, or we cannot. I'm not talking about being saved, obviously that requires the infilling of the Holy Ghost, I'm talking just about living a holy life.

Holiness is consecration to God's service and being separated to God, and requires not only us setting ourselves apart to God, but Him setting us apart to Himself. A "holy life" is only holy if God sanctifies it, so holiness apart from God's action is an impossibility by the very nature of the term.

As for obeying the commandments of God, everyone COULD, but unfortunately WON'T, apart from the Spirit's work in giving us a new heart and writing His laws into our hearts and minds.

Name one commandment given by God that absolutely and completely CANNOT be obeyed.

[mfblume]

The Bible teaches law came to prove man cannot make it without divine empowerment. No one can keep law with natural ability. And I means consistently. That's the key. That's why we read offending in one point ruins it all. When Paul wrote Galatians 3 her said those who keep law are under a curse because law said we live by doing all that the law said. That implies no one can faithfully keep it.