Legalism Is Baffling

[fhansen]

Rom 3:19-20 "under the Law" is defined as "under the Law apart from faith" and so "all mankind condemned"

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
Rom 3:31 "What then? do we make void the LAW of God by our faith? On the contrary we establish the LAW of God"
Rom 2:13-16 "it is not the hearers of the Law that are JUST before God - but the DOERS of the LAW will be JUSTIFIED... on the day when according to my Gospel God will judge all mankind through Christ"

Actually what you find there is the mere quote of the verses. Do you find it problematic to have the verses quoted?

If so it may indicate that you are taking some other statements of Paul to an extreme point of inference that will not fit with the mere quote of these texts.

Not true.

Rather Rom 2 is talking about the Gospel and the future day of judgment.

Rom 2:13-16 "it is not the hearers of the Law that are JUST before God - but the DOERS of the LAW will be JUSTIFIED... on the day when according to my Gospel God will judge all mankind through Christ"

So in Rom 2:13 -16 the context is "justification future" on that future day when according to the Gospel God will judge.
Rom 2:4-16 shows both the FAILING cases AND it also shows the succeeding cases. It can't be re-imagined to just have failing cases.
Matt 7 where we find the "rule of Christ" - is consistent with Rom 2:4-16 "by their fruits you shall know them.
James 2 has the same "justified by works and not by faith alone" context for justification.

By contrast in Rom 5:1-3 we have "justification past"... "having BEEN justified by faith we HAVE peace with God" - this is not a corporate judgment event form of justification. This is an individual event - in each person's life time a real event where they accept the Gospel and are justified. withat union, ghoweverm a righ

So it is important not to conflate these two distinct contexts for the term "justification" that we find in the Bible.

That is true for justification without the Gospel . Without faith in Christ. But in the context of "The Gospel" there is indeed the rule of Christ in Matt 7 which is the same as the Justification context in Rom 2:4-16 and also James 2.

Indeed that is the the "justifcation past" context as we find it in Rom 5:1-2 and it refers to the point at which one is born-again. The lost person that accepts the Gospel

True. That is the context of "a lost person" is that all have sinned, all are lost and all need the Gospel since no one can be justified without it.

But the Matt 7, and Rom 2 and James 2 context is for the born-again believer under the New Covenant and uses the rule of Christ in Matt 7 "by their fruits you shall know them"

Rightness with God begins with faith in Him. The reconciled fellowship or union that results is the basis of righteousness for humankind-we were never meant to be alienated from Him-and injustice is the inevitable fruit of that separation which Adam initiated. But with that union a righteousness, apart form the law, which the law only testifies to, begins to blossom in man.

 

[BobRyan]

Rightness with God begins with faith in Him

True and that is the moment of justification.

So then as Rom 5 states "having BEEN justified by faith we HAVE peace with God"

At that point the rule of Christ in Matt 7 takes over and "by their fruits you shall know them" is a reliable gospel principle just as Rom 2:4-16 points out.

. The reconciled fellowship or union that results is the basis of righteousness for humankind

It is the basis for justification but as Rom 2:4-16 and Matt 7 point out it is not the "CLAIM - Lord lord did we not do this and that in your name" that results in future justification but rather it is the fruit (Matt 7), it is "the doers of the Law that are justified" Rom 2:13, it is the "justified by works and not by faith alone" James 2 principle that applies. Because the born again believer (good tree) is found to have good fruit just as Christ insists in Matt 7.

Christ is not wrong in Matt 7.

-we were never meant to be alienated from Him-and injustice is the inevitable fruit of that separation which Adam initiated.

true.

But with that union a righteousness, apart form the law, which the law only testifies to, begins to blossom in man.

For the lost person - the Law can only condemn.
For the born-again saved person there is the NEW Covenant Jer 31:31-34 with the "Law of God written on the heart"

so then in Rom 3:31 Paul says "what then? Do we nullify the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

and in Rom 8:4-12 we find that it is only the lost person without the Holy Spirit that "does not submit to the LAW of God neither indeed CAN he"

 

[trophy33]

This is where I got the number of about 1/3:

Naturally, there is going to be some dispute over whether something is a quote and even more dispute over whether something is an allusion, and people have given different numbers, though the point is that a large portion of the verses in NT contains quotes or allusion, and this is not just in regard to prophecy. For example, Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy to defeat the temptations of Satan, so he affirmed its authority. The NT authors clearly used the OT as an authoritative source to support what they were saying and I see nothing that spoke against the authority of God's word. Again, in Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, so he did not say anything against what was said in the OT. In Romans 15:4, Paul said that OT Scripture is written for our instruction, and in 15:18-19, he fulfilled the Gospel by bringing Gentiles to obedience in word and in deed.


The is referring to God making a new heavens and a new earth (Revelation 21:1), not to God negating His word. In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and God's law is how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so that is the way to live in the Kingdom of God. Likewise, the Father has straightforwardly made His will known through what He has commanded in His law, and in Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus said that only those do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of God in contrast with saying that he will tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them.

Too many claims again, so I will randomly select a few:

Because its highly arguable what is quote or even allusion, it makes it quite futile to debate what portion of the NT it is, then.

The Jesus' quotation from Deutoronomy does not affirm its authority as a whole book for Christians. I know of no significant Christian creed or catechism that teaches we must keep all the instructions in the book of Deuronomy. And of no first church writing saying the first church did.

Bereans were praised for checking the gospel of Paul, if what he said about Christ in the OT is true. It has nothing to do with the question if the Mosaic law is authoritative for how to live, after Christ.

New heavens and new earth are part of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God changes everything. But if you want some other text:

"Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law...
So the law was our guardian until Christ came...
Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."
Gal 3:23-25

 

[fhansen]

True and that is the moment of justification.

So then as Rom 5 states "having BEEN justified by faith we HAVE peace with God"

At that point the rule of Christ in Matt 7 takes over and "by their fruits you shall know them" is a reliable gospel principle just as Rom 2:4-16 points out.

At justification a person is reconciled and so brought into right stead with God, which is the state of righteousness for man. All true righteous issues forth from that union as man has no authentic righteousness apart from God. Only from that position, of being His people (Jer 31:33), does He put His law in our minds and write it on our hearts. IOW, man is not merely declared righteous at justification, but rather is given the gift of righteousness at that point, by which he may finally obey in Spirit and truth, not by the law but regardless of the law, in fact.

Faith is the realization of reconciliation with God; it’s to become His people. And this occurs as a result of our coming to know Him (Jer 31:34). This is why knowledge of God is eternal life (John 17:3). Jesus came to reveal that God.

For the lost person - the Law can only condemn.
For the born-again saved person there is the NEW Covenant Jer 31:31-34 with the "Law of God written on the heart"

so then in Rom 3:31 Paul says "what then? Do we nullify the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW"

and in Rom 8:4-12 we find that it is only the lost person without the Holy Spirit that "does not submit to the LAW of God neither indeed CAN he"

Yes, as I said, "But with that union a righteousness, apart from the law, which the law only testifies to, begins to blossom in man." And love is the most precise definition of that righteousness, which is why it fulfills the law.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Yes, but it seems we've landed in many different areas.

This thread is to address a widespread issue that is not confined to just a few denominations.

 

[fhansen]

This thread is to address a widespread issue that is not confined to just a few denominations.

Yes, it's very widespread, the main source of confusion being the doctrine of Sola Fide -and the way that it's understood.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Rom 3:19-20 "under the Law" is defined as "under the Law apart from faith" and so "all mankind condemned"

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
Rom 3:31 "What then? do we make void the LAW of God by our faith? On the contrary we establish the LAW of God"
Rom 2:13-16 "it is not the hearers of the Law that are JUST before God - but the DOERS of the LAW will be JUSTIFIED... on the day when according to my Gospel God will judge all mankind through Christ"

Actually what you find there is the mere quote of the verses. Do you find it problematic to have the verses quoted?

No. I know from my previous conversations with SDA members that those verses are used out of context to justify legalistic Christian living. I addressed one of them.

If so it may indicate that you are taking some other statements of Paul to an extreme point of inference that will not fit with the mere quote of these texts.

Not true.

Rather Rom 2 is talking about the Gospel and the future day of judgment.

Rom 2:13-16 "it is not the hearers of the Law that are JUST before God - but the DOERS of the LAW will be JUSTIFIED... on the day when according to my Gospel God will judge all mankind through Christ"

So in Rom 2:13 -16 the context is "justification future" on that future day when according to the Gospel God will judge.
Rom 2:4-16 shows both the FAILING cases AND it also shows the succeeding cases. It can't be re-imagined to just have failing cases.
Matt 7 where we find the "rule of Christ" - is consistent with Rom 2:4-16 "by their fruits you shall know them.
James 2 has the same "justified by works and not by faith alone" context for justification.By contrast in Rom 5:1-3 we have "justification past"... "having BEEN justified by faith we HAVE peace with God" - this is not a corporate judgment event form of justification. This is an individual event - in each person's life time a real event where they accept the Gospel and are justified.

Despite any notion to the contrary, salvation is only through Jesus Christ because all people (except Jesus), past, present, and future are sinners in need of a Savior, and none will survive judgment on their own without Christ's sacrifice covering all their sins. If SDA doctrine does not support this truth, then SDA doctrine is wrong. Please tell me you and SDA support this central truth.

So it is important not to conflate these two distinct contexts for the term "justification" that we find in the Bible.

There will be no justification handed out at the final judgment. Everyone will be cast into the lake of fire except those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

That is true for justification without the Gospel . Without faith in Christ. But in the context of "The Gospel" there is indeed the rule of Christ in Matt 7 which is the same as the Justification context in Rom 2:4-16 and also James 2.

The thought that a person

Indeed that is the the "justifcation past" context as we find it in Rom 5:1-2 and it refers to the point at which one is born-again. The lost person that accepts the Gospel

True. That is the context of "a lost person" is that all have sinned, all are lost and all need the Gospel since no one can be justified without it.

But the Matt 7, and Rom 2 and James 2 context is for the born-again believer under the New Covenant and uses the rule of Christ in Matt 7 "by their fruits you shall know them"

If legalistic Christian living was not an issue of concern, then God would not have inspired Paul to write about it in his letters to the Galatian, Roman, Colossian, and Corinthian Christians. There is no justification based on obedience to the law, first because it requires perfect obedience, and second because we are not under law, but under grace.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Yes, it's very widespread, the main source of confusion being the doctrine of Sola Fide -and the way that it's understood.

I'm not sure the doctrine of faith alone has anything to do with legalistic Christian living. But based on your last few posts, it appears you understand rightness with God comes from our union with Him. So what exactly is your point about faith alone as it relates to legalistic Christian living?

 

[fhansen]

I'm not sure the doctrine of faith alone has anything to do with legalistic Christian living. But based on your last few posts, it appears you understand rightness with God comes from our union with Him. So what exactly is your point about faith alone as it relates to legalistic Christian living?

You're right. I started in this thread with my post #72:
"What's even more amazing is when people conceive of grace as a carte blanc reprieve from man's obligation to be and live righteously"

My point is that while legalism does not and cannot fulfill our obligation to be righteous, that obligation still remains under the new covenant, but fulfilled a new way now, under grace, by the Spirit, by the love He gives us- Rom 5:5.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Paul fills Galatians with statements of amazement concerning the Galatian Christians who had turned away from grace and had adopted a legalistic approach to Christian living.

Chapter 1: "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ." (Ga 1:6–7)

Chapter 2: "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain." (Ga 2:21)

Chapter 3: "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?" (Ga 3:1)

Chapter 4: "Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?" (Ga 4:21)

Chapter 5: "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." (Ga 5:4)

And in chapter 6, he makes this telling statement: "For not even those who are circumcised keep the law". (Ga 6:13)

It is truly baffling when Christians set aside the grace of God and place themselves under the law.

What is especially baffling is that people want to blow a shofar and observe feast days because they think they need to imitate ancient Israel to be true Christians; it's a nonsense. Keeping kosher, observing tabernacles, Passover, the day of atonement isn't possible without an earthly temple and even if one had such a temple its sacrifices would be empty gestures with absolutely no saving value. The whole project of resurrecting the Law and its ordinances, sacrifices, and practises is fundamentally wrong-headed.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

You're right. I started in this thread with my post #72:
"What's even more amazing is when people conceive of grace as a carte blanc reprieve from man's obligation to be and live righteously"

My point is that while legalism does not and cannot fulfill our obligation to be righteous, that obligation still remains under the new covenant, but fulfilled a new way now, under grace, by the Spirit, by the love He gives us- Rom 5:5.

I wouldn't say it's an "obligation". I would say our obligation to be holy and righteous, set apart for service to God, was fulfilled when the new man "was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness." (Eph 4:24)

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

What is especially baffling is that people want to blow a shofar and observe feast days because they think they need to imitate ancient Israel to be true Christians; it's a nonsense. Keeping kosher, observing tabernacles, Passover, the day of atonement isn't possible without an earthly temple and even if one had such a temples its sacrifices would be empty gestures with absolutely no saving value. The whole project of resurrecting the Law and its ordinances, sacrifices, and practises is fundamentally wrong-headed.

I would agree with that.

 

[fhansen]

I wouldn't say it's an "obligation". I would say our obligation to be holy and righteous, set apart for service to God, was fulfilled when the new man "was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness." (Eph 4:24)

The problem with that concept, IMO, and in the opinion of historical church and ECF teachings, is that it seems to deny the possibility of man turning back away from faith, from God. As believers, we're enabled by grace, by God, to be righteous, but we are never forced to remain on that path with Him. The confusion comes as we separate justification from sanctification, instead of seeing them as part and parcel of the same thing: being made just, and then growing in that justice. Yes, unless man does so, unless man attains some degree of holiness, he won't be seeing God (Heb 12:14); sin always separates man from Him. Righteousness is still a requirement/obligation. To put it most correctly, we're obligated to love God and neighbor. That's the only way justice can ever ultimately prevail in our universe-and that kind of love comes only from God and our union with Him.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

The problem with that concept, IMO, and in the opinion of historical church and ECF teachings, is that it seems to deny the possibility of man turning back away from faith, from God. As believers, we're enabled by grace, by God, to be righteous, but we are never forced to remain on that path with Him.

At its core, legalism denies the true righteousness and holiness we have in the inner man because of our union with Christ, and it sets out to establish righteousness through the conformity of the flesh to the will of God. But in Christ, we have true righteousness and holiness in the new man because we have His righteous, holy, and eternal life. We also have forgiveness of all the sins of the flesh because His sacrifice fully paid the debt we owed because of our sin. If the ECF's didn't understand that the one born of the Spirit (the new man) is untouchable by the devil and immune to the temptation to walk away from Christ simply because Jesus remains in him and he is a child (offspring) of God (1 John 3:9, 5:18), then they did not understand salvation like they should have. Certainly John understood it.

The confusion comes as we separate justification from sanctification, instead of seeing them as part and parcel of the same thing: being made just, and then growing in that justice. Yes, unless man does so, unless man attains some degree of holiness, he won't be seeing God (Heb 12:14); sin always separates man from Him.

Progressive sanctification is a false doctrine. Justification and sanctification are both completely accomplished when we become new creatures in Christ. But we do have a participatory role in the call to godly living. It's called self-sanctification, where we put off the old man and put on the new man. We are called to live out the holy and righteous life of the new man as we walk in lock step with the Spirit. Doing so, does not produce or increase our righteousness, it simply denies the flesh what it wants and produces the desirable fruit of the Spirit.

Righteousness is still a requirement/obligation. To put it most correctly, we're obligated to love God and neighbor. That's the only way justice can ever ultimately prevail in our universe-and that kind of love comes only from God and our union with Him.

I would say love is a fruit of the Spirit. In other words, love comes forth from out of the Spirit of God who lives in us. If a person has been born of God, then he loves God and his neighbor from the depths of his new heart. He hasn't been born of God if he doesn't.

7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. (1 Jn 4:7–8)​

 

[Soyeong]

Because its highly arguable what is quote or even allusion, it makes it quite futile to debate what portion of the NT it is, then.

Again, I granted that the exact number of quotes or allusions is debatable, but my point remains that a large portion of the verses in the NT contain quotes or allusions to the OT.

The Jesus' quotation from Deutoronomy does not affirm its authority as a whole book for Christians. I know of no significant Christian creed or catechism that teaches we must keep all the instructions in the book of Deuronomy. And of no first church writing saying the first church did.

The NT contains about 60 references to Deuteronomy with 44 direct quotes, so it treats Deuteronomy as being an authoritative source. Jesus also set a sinless example of how to obey Deuteronomy. The Books of Moses are considered authoritative by Jews, so don't see room for thinking that the NT authors agreed with some parts of Deuteronomy while disagreeing with others.

Bereans were praised for checking the gospel of Paul, if what he said about Christ in the OT is true. It has nothing to do with the question if the Mosaic law is authoritative for how to live, after Christ.

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers how to live in obedience to the Mosaic Law by word and by example and following Christ does not involve refusing to follow what he taught. If Paul had been speaking against obeying the Mosaic Law, then the Bereans would have rejected what he taught, so he not be interpreted as saying things that they would have rejected according to Scripture.

New heavens and new earth are part of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God changes everything. But if you want some other text:

The Kingdom of God is in accordance with the Gospel of the Kingdom, not the rejection of it.

"Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law...
So the law was our guardian until Christ came...
Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."
Gal 3:23-25

Someone who disregarded everything their tutor taught them after they left would be missing the whole point of a tutor.

 

[Soyeong]

You believe Paul himself spoke against it for incorrect purposes?

Indeed. For example, in Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purposes for which God commanded circumcision, so Paul can be against requiring circumcision in order to become saved while not being against circumcision for the purposes for which God commanded it. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying His law, so if Paul had been speaking against obeying what God commanded, then according to God we should consider him to be a false prophet.

 

[fhansen]

If the ECF's didn't understand that the one born of the Spirit (the new man) is untouchable by the devil and immune to the temptation to walk away from Christ simply because Jesus remains in him and he is a child (offspring) of God (1 John 3:9, 5:18), then they did not understand salvation like they should have. Certainly John understood it.

The ECFs, taken, as a whole, and the early church in the east and west, understood the gospel well, having received it at the beginning, before a word of the new testament was written. Do you maintain that a believer is immune from ever actually sinning, from failure to love, to put it another way? Either way, John was telling us the ideal, how it can and should work, He's not telling us that everyone who ever heard those words and applied them to themselves, either the first audience or anyone else down through the centuries, is and will be saved, We can't even predict our own perseverance for that matter.

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned." John 15:5-6

Progressive sanctification is a false doctrine. Justification and sanctification are both completely accomplished when we become new creatures in Christ. But we do have a participatory role in the call to godly living. It's called self-sanctification, where we put off the old man and put on the new man. We are called to live out the holy and righteous life of the new man as we walk in lock step with the Spirit. Doing so, does not produce or increase our righteousness, it simply denies the flesh what it wants and produces the desirable fruit of the Spirit.

So, do we need to be holy or not in order to see God (Heb 12:14, Rom 6:21)? Do we need to do good works or not to have eternal life (Rom 2:7)? Do we need to obey the commandments, whether we've heard them or not, in order to enter eternal life (Matt 19:17, Rom 2:13)?

I would say love is a fruit of the Spirit. In other words, love comes forth from out of the Spirit of God who lives in us. If a person has been born of God, then he loves God and his neighbor from the depths of his new heart. He hasn't been born of God if he doesn't.

7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. (1 Jn 4:7–8)

Love is the heart and soul of Christianity, It's the reason and motivation for which Jesus came and did what He did; it's the nature of God that we're to be transformed into. It's the very definition of justice for man which is why the greatest commandments are what they are and why Rom 13:10 is what it is. Love is true righteousness- apart from the law. We're nothing without it, regardless of our faith as Paul tells us in 1 Cor 13:2. Augustine put it this way:
"Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing."

And so the church can teach:
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

Yes, as love is both a gift and a choice, just as hope and faith are also, we must cooperate throughout our lives in its acceptance, preservation, and cultivation.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

You don't see ... things of God.

The Spirit is the fulfilment of the Law, as the prophets (especially) explained.

The opposite of legalism is thoughtfulness including assurance of Holy Spirit strength.

Legalistic and counterlegalistic religious movements seem to cause excitable and compulsive personalities / temperaments.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Some people have a legalism that they are not allowed to supplicate for the world.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

The ECFs, taken, as a whole, and the early church in the east and west, understood the gospel well, having received it at the beginning, before a word of the new testament was written.

You're the one who knows them, not me. So I can't vouch for what they know or don't know.

Do you maintain that a believer is immune from ever actually sinning, from failure to love, to put it another way?

No. We are still descendants of of Adam, having inherited his corrupt nature. But through spiritual birth we became partakers of the divine nature. When we die, the human nature will cease to exist, and the divine nature will be further clothed. It is then that we will be completely without sin, and we will see Him as He is.

Either way, John was telling us the ideal, how it can and should work, He's not telling us that everyone who ever heard those words and applied them to themselves, either the first audience or anyone else down through the centuries, is and will be saved,

John was talking about the spirit of a person that came into existance when God gave birth to him by his Spirit. You do know that being a child of God is literal, right?

We can't even predict our own perseverance for that matter.

I know I have eternal life. He gave it to me, and I will never perish. Neither will anyone snatch me out of His hand. His Father, who is greater than all has me in His hand. No one can snatch me out of His hand. And you can believe me when I say I will never walk away from Him.

Baptist doctrine says that if a person walks away from Christ, he was never saved in the first place. I think Scripture backs up that POV.

So, do we need to be holy or not in order to see God (Heb 12:14, Rom 6:21)?

Yes, it is a feature of our divine nature that will survive our physical death. (Eph 4:24)

Do we need to do good works or not to have eternal life (Rom 2:7)? Do we need to obey the commandments, whether we've heard them or not, in order to enter eternal life (Matt 19:17, Rom 2:13)?

No, eternal life is a free gift of God: "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Ro 6:23) NASB

Love is the heart and soul of Christianity, It's the reason and motivation for which Jesus came and did what He did; it's the nature of God that we're to be transformed into. It's the very definition of justice for man which is why the greatest commandments are what they are and why Rom 13:10 is what it is. Love is true righteousness- apart from the law. We're nothing without it, regardless of our faith as Paul tells us in 1 Cor 13:2. Augustine put it this way:
"Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing."

And so the church can teach:
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

Yes, as love is both a gift and a choice, just as hope and faith are also, we must cooperate throughout our lives in its acceptance, preservation, and cultivation.

As I said before, love is a fruit of the Spirit. Love does not ingratiate us to God. It is a by-product of walking in the Spirit.