Conundrum: Not saved by works. Condemned by them?

[jfrog]

How is it that our works condemn us if they cannot save us?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by jfrog

How is it that our works condemn us if they cannot save us?

Great question!

What is it about our works that brings condemnation? It is the fact that we have transgressed the law, because 'sin is the transgression of the law'. So then sin = crime. Once we have that basic understanding, the question becomes solvable.

Imagine a person commits various crimes, and are then caught. They go to court. They are charged with the crimes they have committed. Suppose they plead 'Oh but wait! I obey the speed limits, I obey this and that law,' etc. The court will still find them guilty, because their obedience to some laws does not overcome their violation of other laws: they are still GUILTY CRIMINALS.

Now, suppose the court grants them a pardon upon condition of repentance. In order for the pardon to be granted, certain other requirements must be met - not by the accused, but by the government itself, to ensure the system of law and order doesn't break down and result in anarchy by the offering of pardon - and let's say they are met. So all that remains is for the accused to accept the offer of pardon and return to being a productive citizen.

Now, their works (obedience to the laws) are not what procured their pardon and their escape from punishment - that was an act of clemency by the government in granting pardon to them. But suppose they return to a life of crime... does their pardon cover their new crimes? Of course not, so then they would be found in violation of the terms of their pardon (repentance), would be found to be criminals, and would suffer the penalty of the law.

Thankfully, God is even more merciful than that, in that he allows backsliders who were once pardoned, and who fell back into crime, to repent and be restored to the condition of pardon they had received.

But, we can see that one's actions or deeds can indeed lead to condemnation, and yet still not be sufficient for justification.

[shazeep]

you give Anarchy a bad rap here, E; it is not Chaos.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shazeep

you give Anarchy a bad rap here, E; it is not Chaos.

Can you identify what your post has to do with my post?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Can you identify what your post has to do with my post?

you have presented a view of works as consistent with law and i ascribe to a different model, which is why i thought it best to merely point out that while we are programmed to believe Anarchy is "absence of laws" nothing could be further from the truth, and this misconception is necessary to support the idea that we need human rulers.

applying works to grace presents a different conception, but you were just using the model that comes...well, naturally to us, the crime/punishment law thing, for deeds (which are not works, imo) considered "evil" under the law, when good deeds, which the law does not address, will not save one either, right?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shazeep

you have presented a view of works as consistent with law and i ascribe to a different model, which is why i thought it best to merely point out that while we are programmed to believe Anarchy is "absence of laws" nothing could be further from the truth, and this misconception is necessary to support the idea that we need human rulers.

applying works to grace presents a different conception, but you were just using the model that comes...well, naturally to us, the crime/punishment law thing, for deeds (which are not works, imo) considered "evil" under the law, when good deeds, which the law does not address, will not save one either, right?

The model I am following is derived from reading the Bible's statements. I am not sure you have correctly identified the elements of that model however. And as a result you are misinterpreting what I said.

[shazeep]

well, maybe, but your treatise seemed to only deal with bad works and punishment under the law, and does not address good works, which will not save one either, and are not contained in your analogy. Which of His works was Christ condemned for, under the law?

[shazeep]

so, not saying you are wrong, just that you are not done yet, and of course any analogy breaks down at some point, but to incorporate grace into the model you will end up discarding the court analogy, if memory serves me right.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, maybe, but your treatise seemed to only deal with bad works and punishment under the law, and does not address good works, which will not save one either, and are not contained in your analogy. Which of His works was Christ condemned for, under the law?

My statements and my analogy/example were addressed directly to the question.

[shazeep]

yes, and actually as the doctrine is an attempt to separate manifesting Christ from receiving Him a la a salvation experience, your answer was about as good as it gets. But while it can be established in Scripture, i think it does a disservice to Christ's Word suggesting that manifesting Christ in the now, loving your neighbor if you will, or whipping some profiteers from the temple, whatever, are actions that either come from the heart or do not, iow you would do them anyway because they are the right thing to do.

And there is no law for this; prolly you might even be breaking some law. And so 'not saved by works, but condemned by them' is just another ploy to move us back to the courtroom, and move salvation off to some past--at acceptance--or future--at being accepted because of works--date, when neither reflects service, now.