The Redemption By Christ Gives License to Sin

I look forward to the discussion to follow. I argue that the redemption of Christ is not a license to sin, and this is in no ways the intention of His suffering for sin, nor has it been the position of Christendom from its beginning. The sufferings of Christ on our behalf are sufficient for the paying of our ransom, but it does not authorize the commission of offenses against God. Argument:Scripture (1)“Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. ” (2);“And whosoever doth not carry his cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple. ” (3);From the context, these clearly indicate taking up our cross daily and following Him in spirit, as we are obviously not daily crucified. There is more, then, that must be done by us in order to avail ourselves of what He has done:“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? ” (4)“Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? ” (5)What are these works which must be done in addition to faith if not, first and foremost, to avoid offending Him through sin, for which we are still accountable? “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. ” (6) From this it is clear that sin is not always forgiven even when submitted to those appointed power to forgive them. But how would this forgiving or retaining sins be possible if the redemption gave license to commit them in the first place? Perhaps the clearest expression that His sacrifice was not a license to sin comes from the words of Christ Himself: “Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. ” (7)ReasonIt is incompatible with the idea of God that Christ suffered for the sins of mankind in order to permit man to sin to his satiation. The implication in this is that offenses against God are no longer offensive to Him, and are now permitted; or that they are no longer offenses at all, as we are free to do them, and then the redemption was an unnecessary act on the part of Christ. The Christian concept of God is of a God Who is the fulness of perfection. The idea that the redemption of Christ is license to sin is a result of attributing to God an imperfection-a failing in His Justice. It is the attribution to Him of mercy at the expense of justice. As He is perfect He contains the perfection of both qualities. It is proper then that His justice require full satisfaction, which could only be accomplished by Christ. This sacrifice satisfies both His justice and His mercy. But neither is suspended after the redemption. He did not subsequently become a much changed God Who permits us to do as we please, even to offend Him without giving offense. This also attributes to Him another failing which would make Him less than perfect, i. e. , mutability, whereas He is immutable. (8)It also stands to reason that attempting to claim license to sin as a result of the satisfaction of it by Christ is a sure sign of contempt of God, which would allow one to try to find a loophole to avoid doing good and permit doing evil. The redemptive quality of Christ’s sacrifice is applied to those who have sorrow for sin accompanied by a resolution to sin no more. Without the resolve to avoid sin, there is no real sorrow for it. “And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst, And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou? And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst. Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee? Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more. ” If sin is licensed why would he then command her to sin no more? Rebuttal:Pro admits that sin is “frowned upon” and that “we all make mistakes”. This is a euphemistic way of expressing that sin is not licensed, as Con argues. Anyone, as long as they have life in them, can avail themselves of the gift of the redemption. Those who accept the fact that Christ died for sin, yet continue to sin without effort to change, try to be saved by faith alone without works, without taking up their cross daily, and simply say, “Lord, Lord”. This will not suffice. Sin is not licensed by the redemptive work of Christ. Con makes the case in opposition to Pro’s argument. Source: Douay-Rheims translation from the Latin Vulgate (available online at drbo. org )Matthew 16:24Luke 14:27James 2:20James 2:24John 20:23Matthew 7:21-23. http://www.compellingtruth.org... John 8:3-11