Eternal Security

[Charlie24]

What are you saying, Jon, it seems you are trying to say those under the Law were saved a different way than we are under Grace?

Is that your point?

"The righteousness of God apart from the Law" is the righteousness apart from works that those under the Law were expected to do.

When they seen that they couldn't keep the Law and they were guilty of sin, the Sacrificial System was their grace and mercy.

The New Covenant in Christ is apart from the works of the Law, it's only by the grace and mercy of God, whereas under the Law god expected them to keep the Law, but gave them a way out through the Sacrificial System.

You see, Jon, we in the New Covenant are law keepers by faith in Christ who kept the Law for us.

Christ had not yet done this during the Law, they were put to the task of Keeping the Law, but given a way out through the Sacrificial System in grace and mercy.

 

[Charlie24]

You see, Jon, we in the New Covenant are law keepers by faith in Christ who kept the Law for us.

Christ had not yet done this during the Law, they were put to the task of Keeping the Law, but given a way out through the Sacrificial System in grace and mercy.

This is how the Law pointed to Christ, they seen they could not keep all of the Law, and in the innocent, perfect sacrifice of an animal, they seen their Messiah, The Lamb of God that takes away their sins.

 

[JonC]

What are you saying, Jon, it seems you are trying to say those under the Law were saved a different way than we are under Grace?

Is that your point?

No. That is not what I am saying at all.

I am saying that God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement to be recieved by faith, the New Covenant. God did this as a demonstration of His righteousness because in His restraint God had left the sins of the past unpunished.

There is no condemnation for those of us who are in Jesus because through Him we have been set from the law of sin and death.

The Law was perfect, a perfect demonstration of God's righteousness, but it was powerless to justify us because it was weakned by the flesh. So what the Law could not do God did by sending His Son.

The Law contains a curse and a blessing, dependent on conduct. Jesus shared in our "sickness", He became a curse for us. The Word became flesh, was made like us, bore our sins, died for our sins. Having died He was judged righteous, vindicated, raised to the right hand of the Father.

Jesus condemned sin in the flesh. He became a life giving Spirit. The righteous requirement of the Law is fully met in us because we do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

 

[Charlie24]

No. That is not what I am saying at all.

I am saying that God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement to be recieved by faith, the New Covenant. God did this as a demonstration of His righteousness because in His restraint God had left the sins of the past unpunished.

There is no condemnation for those of us who are in Jesus because through Him we have been set from the law of sin and death.

The Law was perfect, a perfect demonstration of God's righteousness, but it was powerless to justify us because it was weakned by the flesh. So what the Law could not do God did by sending His Son.

The Law contains a curse and a blessing, dependent on conduct. Jesus shared in our "sickness", He became a curse for us. The Word became flesh, was made like us, bore our sins, died for our sins. Having died He was judged righteous, vindicated, raised to the right hand of the Father.

Jesus condemned sin in the flesh. He became a life giving Spirit. The righteous requirement of the Law is fully met in us because we do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

I don't see that we have an argument!

 

[JonC]

I don't see that we have an argument!

We don't there.

I'm just saying that there are better passages you could use to support your position.


I do not believe in the Reformed doctrine of eternal security.

At the same time I do not believe salvation itself can be lost because it points to a future reality.

I don't believe we can be made new creations and then somehow be unmade.

The question is how we believe and how much we truely know our own heart.


I take warnings about testing our faith, about forfeiting the prize, about not enduring to the end seriously.

We can be assured of our salvation (that we will be saved) only by the fruits we produce. Fruit ends, assurance ends.

 

[Charlie24]

We don't there.

I'm just saying that there are better passages you could use to support your position.


I do not believe in the Reformed doctrine of eternal security.

At the same time I do not believe salvation itself can be lost because it points to a future reality.

I don't believe we can be made new creations and then somehow be unmade.

The question is how we believe and how much we truely know our own heart.


I take warnings about testing our faith, about forfeiting the prize, about not enduring to the end seriously.

We can be assured of our salvation (that we will be saved) only by the fruits we produce. Fruit ends, assurance ends.

I certainly believe in eternal security. But I would say keep a check on that faith.

 

[Reynolds]

In the interest of figuring out who believes what, the doctrine of Eternal Security, Assurance of Salvation, Once Saved Always Saved,… what ever you want to call it- I would like to know what your title and explanation for this subject is. If you are opposed to the notion please share the name of your alternative doctrine and explanation. (Heretic is not an acceptable title)
I’m interested to know where we stand individually because the broader forum is too vague on the subject to give me an accurate idea of who I’m talking to.

IMO, you can’t logically get there without the other 4 points of Calvinism.
I believe Perseverance of the saints.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

(Eph 4:30 KJV) And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Enough said.