Trying to understand... Grace!!!

[jlay]

Well, technically we can say repent means whatever we want as long as we are all on the same page. But, for the sake of discussion i would guess that Paul and ST are referring to how it is translated in the bible.
The Greek word metanoia has no inherent relation to sin. To say it does is to ignore how the 1st century greek writers themselves used the word. The fact is that you can repent from doing good. The word simply means, 'after thought.' A more applical way we might use this today would be to say, "forsake the thought."

Like so many words how we understand repent has everything to do with context. I would dare say that the translators of the LXX had a better grip on the usage of metanoia than any of us ever will. When they translated the OT, the Greek work metanoia was used in many cases. However, the person who was referred to as repenting more than any other in the OT was God himself. Does God need to "understand and acknowledge" His sins? Does God need to "make amends by asking forgiveness?" This alone should cause a stable minded believer to STOP claiming repentance is any such thing.
I held to the same understanding that Paul is using for years. I was WRONG. I had to actually REPENT. I had to abandon the thought of what I beleived repentance to mean.

i would somewhat agree with Paul in that we can't really receive Christ until we come to grips with our sin. Since Jesus died for our sins, we need to have some comprehension of the costs and penalty of our own sinfulness. If a person doesn't THINK sin matters, they need to repent. If they THINK that God doesn't care about sin, they need to repent. If they THINK they can simply do enough good to appease God, they need to repent.
But it is simply a losing battle to appeal to sorrow. How much sorrow? There is no way to quantify this. Feelings may follow our realization of our sinful nature. But as we know, different people are wired differently. For example, someone may come to a very practical understanding that they are not saved. They grasp the reality of Christ's life, death and resurrection. Being convinced that he alone settled the issue of sin, and has the power to save, they entrust their life to Christ. Are they saved? Or must their be some emotional component?

Jac said: (You know you were going to link to that, j. Go ahead and admit it!)

In addition to Cocoris, Ron Shea has gone through every single usage of the word and has identified the subject and object of repentance.
http://cleargospel.org/topics.php?t_id=27

-Repentance has no intrinsic subject. Anyone can repent, even God!
-Repentance has no intrinsic object. It is not automatically directed toward sin. One can repent about virtually anything. One can even repent from good to evil!
-Repentance has no intrinsic consequence. It does not automatically result in eternal salvation. It can result in result in any consequence that naturally follows the exercise God's free will, or man's free will.
-The actual phrase "repent of your sins" never occurs in Scripture. NEVER!
-The Bible never teaches that one must repent of their sins to be saved.
-Whenever sin is the object of repentance, the consequence of repentance is never eternal salvation.
-Whenever eternal salvation is the consequence of repentance, the object of repentance is never sin.
-In every passage on repentance relating to eternal salvation, the object of repentance is, in some way or another, the person of Jesus Christ, his eternal divinity, his atoning death, His resurrection, or the freeness of the eternal salvation he provides. The object of saving repentance is no different than the elements of saving faith described in other terms throughout Scripture:

It doesn't matter how long religion has misused the word. Repeating error doesn't make it any more right. I believe it is sinful to keep using the word in that way, when there is simply NO biblcal reason to continue doing so.

[jlay]

Acceptance of Christ as Our Lord and Saviour.

the problem here is that you've already conditioned acceptance with 'feelings' and asking for forgiveness. Actually, asking for forgiveness is never presented as a means of salvation in the NT, not once.
And before you quote 1 John 1:9, ask who is the "we" in this verse. It is believers. this book is not about getting saved, but knowing one is saved, and how to restore and maintain fellowship.

[Silvertusk]

So basically repentance is a change in the current state of affairs whatever that may be.

I believe repentance comes after salvation but repentance is a sign that the Holy Spirit is working within you and producing fruits. So in essense in is turning away from sin because you are saved. So the end result is really the same.

[neo-x]

Its certainly is a confusing topic.

I think one side (Jac and Jilay) is saying that once acquired, sinning does not affect our salvation, because salvation is not conditioned. Therefore even if you have an attitude against sin, the point becomes moot since once way or the other, because of the lack of perfection, we will sin one way or the other. And if grace is conditioned then no matter what we believe repentance to be so, we lose salvation, since that contradicts the message of free-unconditioned grace which is unmerited therefore our works good or bad have no bearing on the matter of salvation itself.

The other side is saying that when one comes to Christ he should know what sin is and therefore there should be a margin of progress towards the christian character. In other words, can free grace be "abused" (for the lack of a better word)? I think this is what the issue is about.

The thing is this is quite confusing.

For example, Jilay said

If a person doesn't THINK sin matters, they need to repent. If they THINK that God doesn't care about sin, they need to repent. If they THINK they can simply do enough good to appease God, they need to repent.

Your definition is that repent does not mean turning from sin but rather changing or abandoning your thought process.

The only thing is, you seem to be saying:
1. Sin matters before God.
2. Salvation does not depend on works; sins or good deeds, the point is irrelevant.
3. Salvation can not be lost because of sinful behavior.

Jilay, I guess the only question remains is then, How does sin matter to God in the life of a believer?
I assume you answer based on our previous discourse would be that "the lord will chastise or correct the believer." (just going on memory here)

But its not a deal breaker in my opinion and you would be the first one to acknowledge that. For example, you remember that we talked about Enola gay pilots. I said killing millions would require some justice (as K was saying the same thing recently in the other thread which is now locked) and you said if they believed in Christ they have everlasting life.

Although my understanding has changed significantly since then and I am going to agree more with you, I still sometimes can't make sense of it. I mean its not that I want my sins to be forgiven but not Hitler's. It's the atrocity and the magnitude of the atrocity which seems to be asking for justice.

For example
1. I agree that Enola gay pilots dropped the bomb, realized what they had done, gone back and gave their lives to Christ. They are forgiven and saved. (this still makes sense)

2. Enola gay pilots believe in Christ as their savior, they go out and drop the bombs. According to you, they are still saved. This makes no sense to me. As a Christian I would expect a believer to refuse to even consider this an option. And if he accepts it then I am not sure what kind of God's love is in that believer. You can make a legit case that I don't have God's love in me when I lie and if I can be forgiven, based on that we can't rank sin, the Enola gay pilots too can be forgiven. In the words of Bond "half monk, half hitman."

But it just doesn't sound right.

I mean, under this, after coming to Christ, nothing separates us from God, not even nuking countries. At this point the idea of justice is severely twisted.

I understand the idea that grace is anti-justice. But then to borrow Jac's own words here: Part of receiving grace is that I am obligated to give other that same grace. I am not sure how the Enola gay pilots, if indeed they were born again Christians, gave grace to millions of Japanese whom they turned to ashes.

But you see my point, if sin does not affect our salvation, then it has to be the same all the way. Your position (mine is close enough) asks either you go all in or all out. This is logical and consistent but it ends up having nuking countries on God's safe list too. Since you are going all in, the logical thing to say is that they are saved people. From a side, its hard for me to accept that. Because now sin is simply not of any consequence except guilt or being "vex in the spirit" by the lord. Apart from that, I don't think there are any eternal consequences under free grace which may have us think or decide otherwise, except for God's love and if we choose to disobey, it certainly has no bearing on our salvation.

I sometimes think that in this way, justice is locked because of grace.

You may agree that whether someone has to come to grasp the understanding of sin or not, if he believes in Christ, he is saved. Coming to the understanding of sin is vital but certainly not a requirement for the gospel. That understanding may come as an afterthought or before, it certainly is not a pre-requisite in hard terms and even if it is, one can't discern that he has that understanding on his own. There is certainly no reference point to confirm that.

This in my humble opinion goes straight back into what is faith and is there a faith that is only self-assuring or sealed divine (our actions or thoughts do no affect it). The other thread on grace and salvation looks more into it.

[RickD]

neo wrote:
2. Enola gay pilots believe in Christ as their savior, they go out and drop the bombs. According to you, they are still saved. This makes no sense to me. As a Christian I would expect a believer to refuse to even consider this an option. And if he accepts it then I am not sure what kind of God's love is in that believer. You can make a legit case that I don't have God's love in me when I lie and if I can be forgiven, based on that we can't rank sin, the Enola gay pilots too can be forgiven. In the words of Bond "half monk, half hitman."

That's definitely an intriguing topic. Moral dilemmas and the military go hand-in-hand.

[PaulSacramento]

Thanks for the fascinating view on repentance.
It is true that the term in of itself has nothing to do with sin but it is also clear that it tends to be associated with it in the bible.
I think it needs to be made clear that salvation is a gift from God, not base don anything we do, but base don what Christ did for Us.
We need to make that part concrete and clear so that we don't ever think we are saved because we did this or that or because we repented.
That established, where does repentance come in and where does sinning ( before and after salvation) come in?
Because we ARE human and still human and fallen after accepting Christ, we have to address that issue.
The one thing we must be clear on is that ONLY God decides who is saved and no one knows other than God.
We can't look at John or Bob or Tammy and say they are saved, only God knows their hearts and only God knows if they are saved.
I don't think we are really discussing grace or even salvation per say, but more of what we THINK a person under Grace is suppose to act like.
Let's be truthful here and admit that is the issue and it is now new since James himself addressed the issue of "faith without works".
We expect that a person under God's grace to be acting in a way befitting of a person that "knows" they have been blessed by the most wonderous of gifts.
I guess the issue is HOW realistic is that and SHOULD we be expecting that?
Should we expect a person under God's grace to do good works and if so, what good works are those and who decides?

[PaulSacramento]

neo wrote:
2. Enola gay pilots believe in Christ as their savior, they go out and drop the bombs. According to you, they are still saved. This makes no sense to me. As a Christian I would expect a believer to refuse to even consider this an option. And if he accepts it then I am not sure what kind of God's love is in that believer. You can make a legit case that I don't have God's love in me when I lie and if I can be forgiven, based on that we can't rank sin, the Enola gay pilots too can be forgiven. In the words of Bond "half monk, half hitman."

That's definitely an intriguing topic. Moral dilemmas and the military go hand-in-hand.

In the military we tend to fall into the "ends justifies the means" category.
IMO, we do what we feel must be done and humbly ask God for guidance and forgiveness.

[jlay]

Sin always matters.

Just because Jac and i believe that no sin can affect a believer's salvation does not mean that we are saying sin doesn't matter. Sin absolutely matters. Nor are we saying that salvation is a license to sin. In fact the apostle Paul was hit with similar objections. It seems clear that people were saying, "If grace is that amazing, then we can do what ever we want!!" Paul says, "heaven forbid."

A believer has an identity as a son. As a son, he will be chastened by his Father. Why? Love. God loves us too much to let us stay as we are. So, if a believer chooses to live contrary to their identity in Christ, I trust God and God alone to deal with that person. I know, because He did so with me. There was a time in my life where there was no visible fruit. No one here would have identified me as a believer. My faith was dead. But looking back on that time, I see how God was actively working in my life. But, I can assure you that most everyone on this forum would have condemned me to Hell.
Jonah was still a prophet of God even though he refused to walk in the work God had prepared for him. Was he chastened? Yes. And even though Jonah went to Ninevah, we have no evidence that he ever got his mind right. He resented it until the end. Yet, God kept chastening him. The NT speaks of believers sinning unto death. That is, their rebellion was sharp and their chastening was such that they physically sufffered.

the problem is that often people want to take things into their own hands. They are convinced that grace isn't enough. There has to be some condition. so, they start changing the actual meaning of words. "Real faith" is trust + __________. Or repentnace means........
I understand. religious people teach this stuff all the time. But, the bottom line is we are warned to watch out for these teachers and to watch out for false Gospels.

Silver,
repentance is not just a biblical word. We have evidence of the word in the 1st century culutre. I would strongly suggest the articles provided. It is exhaustive scholarship on the subject. Certainly, God will work in the life of a believer. But, so many seem to see this as some metaphysical commodity implanted to reprogram a person. They want to mystisize things. I think that is a dangerous doctrine.

Paul said: We expect that a person under God's grace to be acting in a way befitting of a person that "knows" they have been blessed by the most wonderous of gifts.
I guess the issue is HOW realistic is that and SHOULD we be expecting that?
Should we expect a person under God's grace to do good works and if so, what good works are those and who decides?

We should expect it because God has already said it is so. Positionally, the believer has everything In Christ the moment they believe. Paul wrote exhaustively to correct wrong behavior and to guide right behavior. Why? We need instruction.
the Good works are God's. Philip's was attentive to hear the Ethiopian and share the Gospel. It is simply being attentive (having the mindset) to hear and respond to God daily. Some things are very practical.
Here is the problem. Trust God. Our methods show we don't. That is why we add to faith. We are conditioning God's work with what we think it ought to look like. If you tell a person that they need to trust in Christ, plus love him, plus, confess, plus surrender, plus...... You are setting them up for a false Gospel. They are no longer looking to Christ, but looking to their performance. I trust that if a person obeys the Gospel, that they are saved. Period. God said it, and i'm taking Him at His word. I then trust God to keep that person. Let God be true and every man a liar.

[Jac3510]

I mean, under this, after coming to Christ, nothing separates us from God, not even nuking countries. At this point the idea of justice is severely twisted.

I understand the idea that grace is anti-justice. But then to borrow Jac's own words here: Part of receiving grace is that I am obligated to give other that same grace. I am not sure how the Enola gay pilots, if indeed they were born again Christians, gave grace to millions of Japanese whom they turned to ashes.

It's not severely twisted if you take very seriously the work of Christ on the Cross. He really did pay the penalty for ALL sin--not just your lying, but for their genocide, too. If you want to complain that they have thereby received much greater grace than you since their atrocities were such worse than yours (ignoring the argument over whether or not we can rank sin), I would remind you of two passages:

1. Matt 20:1-16 - the basic idea here is that God has the right to give grace to whomever He wants. Implicit in your criticism, even if you don't intend it, is that someone deserves more or less grace than someone else, but the moment you recognize that, you see the absurdity of the claim, for no one, by definition, deserves any grace; and

2. Luke 7:41-50 - the basic idea here is that the one who is better may need less forgiveness, and the one who is worse may need greater forgiveness, but paradoxically, it is the one who is worse who by that ends up loving Jesus more. Perhaps not in this life, but if not here, then in the next (cf. my take on Jesus wiping away our tears in the locked thread).

Grace, then, is not anti-justice. God demands justice, and He got it in full. The grace is that He requires it from no one, because He took care of it Himself on the Cross. For you to wish that God grants you grace for your sins but not to another for his is just wrong headed. Even if you wished (and I know you don't) that God granted you grace for your sins and then granted others grace for their sins up to the degree He granted you, requiring from them justice for the rest--the practical result being that you would all receive the "same amount" of grace and thereby the really evil people having to pay for the left over demands of justice--even if that worked, at it wouldn't for a myriad of reasons, then why would YOU be the bottom line? Couldn't the truly holy among us make the same claims? What about people who sin far less than you do? Why shouldn't they be the bottom line and then YOU have to make up the demands of justice?

Grace is an all or nothing idea, and that in two ways. Grace either takes care of 100% of the problem or it takes care of 0% of the problem, and likewise, God either saves by grace or He doesn't save at all. The moment you try to mix in what people deserve in any shape, form, or fashion, you have contaminated grace and made salvation a wage. Paul therefore says, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace" (Rom 11:6).

Lastly, as to being obligated to give grace to others, we certainly are. And the failure to meet that obligation is sin. But guess what? If we sin by not granting grace to others, then we are still under grace!. Just because a believer is obligated to show grace does not mean he will. It only means that he should. And if he does, he will find great rewards for it. He will find rewards in this life--people just like graceful people more--and if nothing else, he will find them in the next as he lays up treasure in heaven. Doesn't Jesus tell us that He will say to some, "Well done My good and faithful servant"? Not all believers will hear that. Those who lived and walked according to grace will. Those who did not, who denied grace, tried to please Jesus by their own merits, and refused grace to others, they will be saved since the Lord is faithful even when we are not, but they will lose tremendous, eternal rewards. For all of eternity they will lose the capacity to glorify God to the fullest extent they could. Remember that "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil" (2 Cor 5:10).

edit:

the problem is that often people want to take things into their own hands. They are convinced that grace isn't enough. There has to be some condition. so, they start changing the actual meaning of words. "Real faith" is trust + __________. Or repentnace means........

This really is fundamental. People really and truly don't believe that grace is enough. Chris Tomlin sings a song I'm sure you know, "You're grace is enough." If we sang that and really grasped what we were saying, it would change everything--not only the way we thought about salvation, but the way we thought about and treated each other. The fruit of the Spirit would bloom in us, and we would become dynamic witnesses for Christ in ways even the staunchest missionary could only imagine in his wildest dreams. That, to me, is the really great irony here. People are so worried that grace will be abused and that people will go out and live in sin. So in response they give people law and conditions because grace really can't be enough. But it's not grace that is keeping people from really being disciples of Christ. It's the LACK of it. It's the very laws and conditions that we put on people to make them be more serious about their faith . . . THAT'S what is killing the church. THAT is what kills discipleship. It's law, and Paul calls such an attitude foolish.

Yeah, it's really ironic in the proper sense of the word. Christians put themselves and others under law by putting conditions on grace in hopes of safe guarding grace against abuse and making us "better" Christians, and in the process, those very conditions and laws are what cause the abuse of grace and kill discipleship.

People really should just stop grumbling and believe Jesus (cf. John 6:43-47).

[Kurieuo]

Grace, then, is not anti-justice. God demands justice, and He got it in full.

God got justice in full? I believe it is more the case that justice was simply replaced with forgiveness. Here's my own logic -- make of it what you will...

God's Righteousness demands that justice should be served with a fair punishment upon the sinner according to their sin. And the wages of sin is death.

But... Christ associated Himself with humanity and substituted Himself in to receive a punishment that we should have received. To the extent that Christ was even somehow forsaken in His divinity as we eternally should be by God.

God did not receive justice in full with Christ. Rather a great injustice was served upon one who did no wrong -- the perfect lamb slaughtered.

Yet, through this injustice of Christ being our substitution, forgiveness now abounds through Christ -- because Christ is owed for a great injustice done to Him -- and forgiveness is what He desires which is clearly stated in His words on the cross: "Father, forgive them..."

So now God's Righteousness is met by forgiveness rather than justice due to God's desire to graciously provide forgiveness rather than inflict His righteous wrath upon us.

[Kurieuo]

I think one side (Jac and Jilay) is saying that once acquired, sinning does not affect our salvation

The devil is in the details.

It's the "once acquired" that can be quite hard to come by, especially if as Jac said...

...to receive grace, one is obligated to give grace

...to receive forgiveness, one is obligated to forgive

...to receive love, one is obligated to love

Anything less is hypocritical, putting on a mask that one does in fact freely trust in Christ alone for grace.

To not believe that it is beautiful that someone who rapes and viciously rips apart your little girl is pursued by God so grace can abound rather than justice -- is to question God's grace upon ourselves. Such that we do not truly believe, and without a true belief in Christ salvation cannot be acquired.

What appears to be free in "Free Grace" theology, may not be so free after all.

[zacchaeus]

Wow... Thanks, seemed like a week-wasn't sure if I would ever receive a response. I am thankful and glad to be back. Neo good to see you freind, it was hard getting through your post that started with the comments being "confusing" lol...

After reading the only other question which I suppose I've already asked in a different manner is... Pertaining to SIN, if Christ died for our sins this alludes that He took our punishment including going to hell in our place (what then is the punishment for sin, not effect or affect- but punishment left for sin) once accepting Christ as we inherent the payment for sin as a gift? Including not only dieing with but rising with Christ- and we like in marriage become one (which provoked my question of worthiness and being victorious)? Which also begs why we still have to die, if we already died and this is our new life as a Christian in Christ- when death is clearly the punishment for sin (spiritually/physically)?

Have the effects changed or always been the same considering one in Christ who sins? Did or have these effects change after the cross then before?

Those anti-once saved, maybe lost how many sins did you sin before Jesus death on the cross? I for one am joyful that He died for ALL sins past, present, future... Cause all of our sins including our past sins are future sins of the cross!!!

[Kurieuo]

After reading the only other question which I suppose I've already asked in a different manner is... Pertaining to SIN, if Christ died for our sins this alludes that He took our punishment including going to hell in our place (what then is the punishment for sin, not effect or affect- but punishment left for sin) once accepting Christ as we inherent the payment for sin as a gift? Including not only dieing with but rising with Christ- and we like in marriage become one (which provoked my question of worthiness and being victorious)? Which also begs why we still have to die, if we already died and this is our new life as a Christian in Christ- when death is clearly the punishment for sin (spiritually/physically)?

God promised that "in the day" Adam and Eve ate from the tree, that they would die. According to Scripture they lived long after, although they were "separated from God" in that day and tossed out of paradise.

Those anti-once saved, maybe lost how many sins did you sin before Jesus death on the cross? I for one am joyful that He died for ALL sins past, present, future... Cause all of our sins including our past sins are future sins of the cross!!!

Not sure if my words may have been previously misunderstood as I reflected upon Jac's "Free Grace" theology, but I'd just like to say that I too believe Christ died for ALL sins past, present and future...

[neo-x]

Sin always matters.

Just because Jac and i believe that no sin can affect a believer's salvation does not mean that we are saying sin doesn't matter. Sin absolutely matters. Nor are we saying that salvation is a license to sin. In fact the apostle Paul was hit with similar objections. It seems clear that people were saying, "If grace is that amazing, then we can do what ever we want!!" Paul says, "heaven forbid."

i never said, you claimed sinning doesn't matter. You say sinning matters, but its not a deal breaker, it has no consequence except bodily or spiritual punishment, as you imply, in this life. I perceive it to be trivial in this case since I don't lose anything of real worth. I am still saved and I still belong to God.

This works for everyone, but for people who are responsible for evil on a large scale, this puts up questions.

I am fine with the idea that a man commits genocide or slave trade, goes back and turns to Christ, I said earlier, this makes sense since he repented, put his faith in Christ.

I am not fine when a man who has put his faith in Christ, a believer, goes on to commit genocide and drop a nuclear bomb on millions of people. Something about this just doesn't sit right with me. Please explain how you would address this.

As I said earlier, and Jac also agreed, grace either saves all or none at all but it really seems like a stretch to imagine that born again believer would choose to nuke a country. That to me is beyond reason or justification. The nature of the act demands something really anti-Christ (I use the term to denote that it is against Christ teachings in the fullest sense) I would question whether such a man indeed is a believer to begin with?

the problem is that often people want to take things into their own hands. They are convinced that grace isn't enough. There has to be some condition. so, they start changing the actual meaning of words. "Real faith" is trust + __________. Or repentnace means........

I am not arguing for this.

[neo-x]

It's not severely twisted if you take very seriously the work of Christ on the Cross. He really did pay the penalty for ALL sin--not just your lying, but for their genocide, too. If you want to complain that they have thereby received much greater grace than you since their atrocities were such worse than yours (ignoring the argument over whether or not we can rank sin), I would remind you of two passages:

1. Matt 20:1-16 - the basic idea here is that God has the right to give grace to whomever He wants. Implicit in your criticism, even if you don't intend it, is that someone deserves more or less grace than someone else, but the moment you recognize that, you see the absurdity of the claim, for no one, by definition, deserves any grace; and

2. Luke 7:41-50 - the basic idea here is that the one who is better may need less forgiveness, and the one who is worse may need greater forgiveness, but paradoxically, it is the one who is worse who by that ends up loving Jesus more. Perhaps not in this life, but if not here, then in the next (cf. my take on Jesus wiping away our tears in the locked thread).

Grace, then, is not anti-justice. God demands justice, and He got it in full. The grace is that He requires it from no one, because He took care of it Himself on the Cross. For you to wish that God grants you grace for your sins but not to another for his is just wrong headed. Even if you wished (and I know you don't) that God granted you grace for your sins and then granted others grace for their sins up to the degree He granted you, requiring from them justice for the rest--the practical result being that you would all receive the "same amount" of grace and thereby the really evil people having to pay for the left over demands of justice--even if that worked, at it wouldn't for a myriad of reasons, then why would YOU be the bottom line? Couldn't the truly holy among us make the same claims? What about people who sin far less than you do? Why shouldn't they be the bottom line and then YOU have to make up the demands of justice?

Grace is an all or nothing idea, and that in two ways. Grace either takes care of 100% of the problem or it takes care of 0% of the problem, and likewise, God either saves by grace or He doesn't save at all. The moment you try to mix in what people deserve in any shape, form, or fashion, you have contaminated grace and made salvation a wage. Paul therefore says, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace" (Rom 11:6).

I am afraid this matter is not as simple as it sounds. First of all, I have no trouble accepting that for the lost. I mean it really just doesn't matter. Hitler could be saved too (whether he would have had opted for it is another debate) but my question is not about that.

I am saying if and when you are ordered to nuke a country, as a born again Christian what should you do? More importantly, if you accept, what are the consequences of an action which is the mother-load of brutal savagery? And if you happen to go through with the nuking, do you still get a free pass from God?

You seem to going from the idea that since its either all or nothing, then it must be all. And since its all, then logically any action can be tolerated. And while you might say, as Jilay also said, sin always matters, the loophole between grace and justice makes any sin, trivial, of little consequence. Stalin could have been a Christian and butchered millions, he would have been saved too, and while it is highly unlikely nonetheless the potential is still there because your case, in its reasoning allows for all kinds of potential, since you are not ranking and quantifying sin.

To me it sounds more like a legal technicality in which justice gets trapped. As I said earlier, I am not complaining that others should not be given more grace, its not about comparing my sins to others. The act in question, itself needs to be addressed. You can imply I'm being hypocritical but to me all of this sounds more like a legal loop hole rather than justice, grace.

Those who did not, who denied grace, tried to please Jesus by their own merits, and refused grace to others, they will be saved since the Lord is faithful even when we are not, but they will lose tremendous, eternal rewards.

I have always failed to see what those eternal rewards would be besides being in the presence of God. Really I haven't the slightest idea. I have always taken these kind of references with the idea that it is just a way to describe eternity with God. Its not like we're going to have gold or money, villas or cars in heaven.

My point being, it can't be material and more so, since we can't quantify works, it kind of puts a question back at your position. I mean if grace is given to all without quantifying works then why I get less than someone else in the end?

You yourself say that its not the amount of sin or good works that grant you grace, and if that is true then why at the end one gets more and the other less? Should not the same principle apply again?

Because if that is not so then by your own statement God is evaluating works in the life of believer and awarding them appropriately. I fail to see here how then nuking a country and say lying, fall in the same category. And if they do indeed fall in the same category then I fail to see why someone gets more rewards and the other less?

If God evaluate works for rewards then grace doesn't work without works and if so then there are respective rewards for respective works; on the other hand if grace makes all works irrelevant in front of God then rewards should be the same since all works became of no consequence through grace.