Jesus came to bring people out of bondage to themselves and the law. The offer will defeat the purpose of the law.  God's righteousness would be taken away.

 If sinners were not required to bow down to God, then the curse in the law would not apply to Jesus. The gospel is about how a man came to die for us to pay for our sins to help us.

 The gospel cannot be an offer to people who are still under the law. The offer will invalidate the purpose of the law. God will stop justifying.

 I believe that the gospel is the only answer to our complex problems. I agree that the ethical standard is always ahead of us. But how can we tell someone who universally identifies what needs to be done if we know it imperfectly but know we are not obeying the Ten Moral Commandments?

In this situation, there is a conflict between the grand nature of the gospel, and what we know is the sinfulness of our imperfect understanding.  God thinks that telling lies is wrong.

 We don't care about the good news because we don't understand the bad things that happen to us because of our bad actions. God absolutely hates smart liars.

So what does he claim to be criticizing the judge if we ourselves do not obey the criminal law? Are we not saying that at some point we no longer needed grace because by letting others know that they understand what we are barely accomplishing, we are saying that we are doing it perfectly since we have just done some of what was required? Is this not political hypocrisy?

 We trust that God will not hold us responsible for our sins. Shouldn't the gospel of Christ be applied as carefully as they rightfully deserve, but rather obtain enough grace as we do?  If we are constantly doing the wrong thing, or if we never do the right thing, then we need God's grace.

The gospel culture is something that isn't possible by the world's standards. The gospel of Jesus Christ brings justice to the world by satisfying the needs of people through grace.  Their attack on the law that keeps them in bondage is very dangerous. We are in a blessing and cursing battle with the blind wicked.

If there is a legitimate need for grace, we are not completely complete. Conscientiously, we cannot meticulously say that the paperwork shows our voluntary obedience! The only thing that speaks humanly in our name is to get God's grace right.

It is impossible to be saved by doing good deeds. The only hope is to reconcile or be judged. Blessing or curse.

 It is impossible to reconcile the gospel with people who rely on doing things to get them out of bondage to law. The only hope is to reconcile or be judged. Blessing or curse.

It is impossible to reconcile the gospel with people who are dependent on a substitute to release them from bondage to law. The only hope is to reconcile or be judged. Blessing or cursing.

We just like to drastically revise the impossible standard for the other guy that inevitably allows us to be easily in the political seat of judgment. We are expected to apply the gospel correctly and this will place us strategically on God's timeline. At this key moment, we will be living a life that is based on social justice.

Society has lots of ills because people want justice in the world without consideration for the gospel. The king needs to bless or curse people in order to have hope.

The gospel of the world is an offer. But the biblical gospel is a warning of eternal punishment upon the command to bow down or be cursed.

I sincerely believe that the everlasting gospel is naturally the only answer to our complex problems. I agree that the ethical standard is always ahead of us. But how can we tell someone who universally identifies what needs to be done if we know it imperfectly but know we are not obeying the Ten Moral Commandments? Conceptually, the ethical problem is that the glorious gospel is not so important to us because we imperfectly understand the remarkable depth of sin and what we rightly deserve for our failure. God absolutely hates clever liars. So what does he claim to be the critical judge if we ourselves don't abide by the criminal law? Are we not saying that at some point we unwittingly ceased to need grace because by letting others know that they understand what we are barely accomplishing, we are saying that we are doing it perfectly since we have just done some of what was required? Isn't that political hypocrisy? And don't we trust that God will not consider us according to our sin? Shouldn't the everlasting gospel of course be applied as carefully as they rightly deserve God's judgment as we do, but rather obtain sufficient grace as we undoubtedly do? If we are always below the ethical standard, then we perpetually have a specific need for grace. If we have a legitimate need for grace, then we are not completing anything perfectly. We cannot in conscience scrupulously say that the paperwork demonstrates our voluntary obedience! The only thing that speaks humanly in our name properly obtains divine grace. You see, we just like to drastically revise the impossible standard for the other guy that inevitably allows us to be easily in the political seat of critical judgment. But we are reasonably expected to apply the everlasting gospel correctly and this will place us strategically on God's timeline. At this key time, we will absolutely live in the social gospel.