The Case for Eternal Security

[Sister-n-Christ]

How do you substantiate that claim?

[

I read the Bible.

And you?

 

[Helen]

1. MATTHEW 5:17-19 (Sermon on the Mount)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

* "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (v. 15)
"Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me." (v. 21)

He tells us plainly that He came to do what we can never do or attain to.
He came to fulfill the law.
The whole of the sermon on the mount is to show us how high He had raised the bar!
“Poke out your eye , cut off your hand .”
Just how many Christians have you met that have one eye and one hand ?
He is showing that it cannot be done , He came to walk , bleed , and die to fulfil Gods requirement for sin. It took Him to the cross . If man can do it , then He died for no reason !
His Blood cleanses us from all sin..
What a price!

*He says “ A NEW commandment I give unto you . Love God, and Love your neighbour .
Which fulfills all the law. ! “

 

[Dan Clarkston]

The gal

The whole of the sermon on the mount is to show us how high He had raised the bar!

Great point that many don't get.

A good example of this is when Jesus said if a man looks upon a woman to lust after her it's the same as doing the physical deed.

Under the old testament it was only sin if one did the deed outside of being married, but in the new testament just desiring intimacy with a woman that is not one's wife is sinful behavior and this same concept applies to other desires as well.

 

[Sister-n-Christ]

Matthew 22

 

[BarneyFife]

He tells us plainly that He came to do what we can never do or attain to.
He came to fulfill the law.
The whole of the sermon on the mount is to show us how high He had raised the bar!
“Poke out your eye , cut off your hand .”
Just how many Christians have you met that have one eye and one hand ?
He is showing that it cannot be done , He came to walk , bleed , and die to fulfil Gods requirement for sin. It took Him to the cross . If man can do it , then He died for no reason !
His Blood cleanses us from all sin..
What a price!

*He says “ A NEW commandment I give unto you . Love God, and Love your neighbour .
Which fulfills all the law. ! “

Respectfully, in effect, you're simply pitting one passage against another, both by the same author:

Consider 1 John 2:7 NKJV — Brethren, I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which you heard from the beginning.


What he very precisely died for is to afford us a probation and a chance to have our hearts transformed. Wrangling about the perpetuity of the law is foreign to the Bible.

Man can't commend himself to God by keeping the law because he begins to break it before he even knows what it is. No amount of life-saving can undo a murder.

The arguments against the ten commandments that permeate online Christian communities simply didn't exist outside of radically liberal seminary study halls just a few decades ago. No Christian churches or Sunday Schools failed to teach that the ten commandments were the moral standard for Christians when I was growing up. My dad was in the Navy and I went to churches across half of the world. I was there. Law-objecting simply didn't exist, except as a means of merit toward salvation, which was rare because it was a moot point that no one raised anyway.

I've repeatedly asked for evidence that law objection was a popular teaching before the days of the Internet and have yet to see any.

Additionally, and most conspicuously, objection to the law of ten commandments as a moral standard for Christians seems only to apply to the 4th commandment. Even when stealing, lying, etc. are being defended by Christians, it's never done in the form of objecting to the ten commandments in principle, but always about making an exception or equivocation/justification.

 

[St. SteVen]

I. JESUS'S TEACHINGS ON THE LAW
--------------------------------------------------

1. MATTHEW 5:17-19 (Sermon on the Mount)
PASSAGE:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

SUBSTANTIATION:
Jesus explicitly states He did *not* come to abolish (kataluō – "destroy," "invalidate") the Law but to "fulfill" it (plēroō – "to make full," "to bring to its intended meaning," "to complete"). He affirms its enduring validity and the importance of teaching and obeying it. "Fulfill" does not mean "abolish."

What is your definition of the Law? (capital L) ???
And the phrase "the Law or the Prophets"? (capital L, capital P) ???

What Law did Jesus not come to abolish? (the Books of the Law)

Jesus explained what he meant after His resurrection.
But the phrase expanded to "the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms". (the books)

Luke 24:44 NIV
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you:
Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

[

 

[St. SteVen]

I've repeatedly asked for evidence that law objection was a popular teaching before the days of the Internet and have yet to see any.

The book of Galatians works pretty well.

• Galatians 2:21
  I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be
  gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
  
  
• Galatians 3:18
  For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise;
  but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
  
  
• Galatians 5:4
  You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ;
  you have fallen away from grace.

(and Romans too)
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known,
to which the Law and the Prophets testify. - Romans 3:21 NIV

[

 

[BarneyFife]

What is your definition of the Law? (capital L) ???
And the phrase "the Law or the Prophets"? (capital L, capital P) ???

What Law did Jesus not come to abolish? (the Books of the Law)

Jesus explained what he meant after His resurrection.
But the phrase expanded to "the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms". (the books)

Luke 24:44 NIV
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you:
Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

[

Okay, that's a really good point about defining "the Law" and how Luke 24:44 fits in.

So, when we talk about "the Law" (capital L, the Torah), yes, that's primarily the first five books of Moses. And phrases like "the Law or the Prophets" or "the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms" (like in Luke 24:44) are ways of referring to the whole Old Testament.

And you're right that in Luke 24:44, Jesus is explaining how His suffering, death, and resurrection fulfilled everything written *about Him* throughout the entire Old Testament. That's a key part of what "fulfillment" means – He is the culmination of all those prophecies and foreshadowings.

But when we look at Matthew 5:17, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." The word "fulfill" here is important, and it's set up directly against "abolish."

If "fulfill" *only* meant that the prophecies about Him were now complete, then what He says right after, in Matthew 5:19, about not relaxing "one of the least of these commandments" and then going on to talk about murder, adultery, and oaths (which are moral commands from the Law) wouldn't make as much sense. Why warn people about relaxing commandments if the only point was that prophecies about Him were done?

So, it seems "fulfill" has a broader meaning in Matthew 5.
1. Yes, He fulfilled the prophecies *about Himself*.
2. Yes, He perfectly *obeyed* all the Law's requirements.
3. And, crucially, He fulfilled the *moral law* by showing its deepest meaning and intent. He didn't get rid of "do not murder"; He showed it goes deeper, to anger in the heart.

So, when Jesus says in Matthew 5:17 He didn't come to abolish the Law, He's including its moral commandments. The ceremonial parts of the Law (like animal sacrifices) pointed to Him and found their ultimate fulfillment *in Him*, so those specific practices aren't binding in the same way anymore because the reality they pointed to has arrived.

But the moral law – like the Ten Commandments – which reflects God's character, wasn't abolished. Jesus upheld it, deepened our understanding of it, and it remains the standard of righteousness for us as believers, guiding how we live.

So, Luke 24:44 emphasizes the fulfillment of prophecy *about Christ*, while Matthew 5:17-19 emphasizes that the moral core of the Law wasn't abolished but is actually upheld and given its true, deeper meaning by Jesus. Both aspects of fulfillment are true.

 

[BarneyFife]

The book of Galatians works pretty well.

• Galatians 2:21
  I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be
  gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
  
  
• Galatians 3:18
  For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise;
  but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
  
  
• Galatians 5:4
  You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ;
  you have fallen away from grace.

(and Romans too)
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known,
to which the Law and the Prophets testify. - Romans 3:21 NIV

[

As I said in the other part of my post from which you quote here, I have no argument with objections to keeping the moral law as means of merit toward gaining God's favor or redemption—except for the fairly conspicuous fact that no person who should expect to be taken seriously in the discussion makes such a claim anymore.

 

[Sister-n-Christ]

As I said in the other part of my post from which you quote here, I have no argument with objections to keeping the moral law as means of merit toward gaining God's favor or redemption—except for the fairly conspicuous fact that no person who should expect to be taken seriously in the discussion makes such a claim anymore.

Indeed.

There are those who wish to appear as one of us in order to refute the words of God that mean everything to us.

 

[BarneyFife]

Indeed.

There are those who wish to appear as one of us in order to refute the words of God that mean everything to us.

I'm not here to play "Us And Them." I'm here for nuanced, meaningful discussion about faith in a personal Christ.

Indeed

 

[Sister-n-Christ]

I'm not here to play "Us And Them." I'm here for nuanced, meaningful discussion about faith in a personal Christ.

Indeed

As are we all.
My post wasn't a play of us and them. It was the observation of that nuance that isn't here for a meaningful discussion about faith in a personal Christ.

 

[BarneyFife]

As are we all.
My post wasn't a play of us and them. It was the observation of that nuance that isn't here for a meaningful discussion about faith in a personal Christ.

Okay, "Us And Those," if you prefer accuracy.

 

[BarneyFife]

I haven't thrown the Bible away. I just view it differently.
Anyone who has honestly looked into it should have a modicum of concern.
Which stands in contrast to the pedestal most put the book on.

Do you make any distinction between the theory of dynamic inspiration of the Bible and the various extremes such as verbal plenary/dictation theory, biblical infallibility, etc.?

The view I personally hold is dynamic (i.e., the writers' thoughts were inspired, but the expression, while perfectly, so to speak, reliable was the responsibility of the writers, themselves). It's not an easy view to defend but, then, neither is the incarnation of the Word made flesh.

The Bible is quite an exercise in paradox for me. I believe God made it simple enough that barely educated folk could bask in it and, yet, it exercises the minds and hearts of men with even rocket scientist-level intelligence. It saddens me that anyone might view the latter as idolatry.

I care nothing for arguments about transcript reliability on either side of the dividing line. I have no interest in team sports of the kind that handle sacred things. Teams take up all the oxygen in any discussion.

I want nuanced thinking and discussion. Party lines bore me (and not the "Hello... hello... hello!" kind, either). Short and long answers don't do much for me. Meaningful is just the right length for me.

I want to know how the mourners on the road to Emmaus felt when Jesus opened to them the Scriptures and showed them all things concerning Himself.

If folks don't have anything to say about the very person of Christ, rather than argumentative doctrine for doctrine's sake or even argumentative anti-doctrine, I lose interest quickly. I can't even post more than one or two defenses of doctrine I hold peculiarly because of the futility of it. Asking someone who demonstrably hates the idea of a literal, weekly Sabbath observance to consider it again and again is like offering a life-long vegan a juicy, medium rare steak.

Folks believe what they want to believe commensurate with the amount of work they've allowed Jesus to do on their hearts. As for me, I've allowed too little.

I think we very much win converts to doctrine rather than to Christ in the way we do the business of evangelism—even the type we presumably do on social media. That is, if we win anyone at all.

I want to know more and more fully the Man who suffered and died for me and my billions of neighbors. I hunger and thirst after HIS righteousness and the righteousness of modern-day Pharisees of every stripe has lost its appeal to me.

 

[Helen]

Respectfully, in effect, you're simply pitting one passage against another, both by the same author:

Consider 1 John 2:7 NKJV — Brethren, I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which you heard from the beginning.


What he very precisely died for is to afford us a probation and a chance to have our hearts transformed. Wrangling about the perpetuity of the law is foreign to the Bible.

Man can't commend himself to God by keeping the law because he begins to break it before he even knows what it is. No amount of life-saving can undo a murder.

The arguments against the ten commandments that permeate online Christian communities simply didn't exist outside of radically liberal seminary study halls just a few decades ago. No Christian churches or Sunday Schools failed to teach that the ten commandments were the moral standard for Christians when I was growing up. My dad was in the Navy and I went to churches across half of the world. I was there. Law-objecting simply didn't exist, except as a means of merit toward salvation, which was rare because it was a moot point that no one raised anyway.

I've repeatedly asked for evidence that law objection was a popular teaching before the days of the Internet and have yet to see any.

Additionally, and most conspicuously, objection to the law of ten commandments as a moral standard for Christians seems only to apply to the 4th commandment. Even when stealing, lying, etc. are being defended by Christians, it's never done in the form of objecting to the ten commandments in principle, but always about making an exception or equivocation/justification.

Hi Barney

So are you are trying to tell me that you can and have been living your life to the letter of the law , ..and that you keep the ten commandment given to Moses , perfectly.
Sorry , balderdash …

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Here's an interesting video for everyone's viewing pleasure....

SDA Says Sabbath Breakers Will Be DAMNED

 

[Sister-n-Christ]

Do you make any distinction between the theory of dynamic inspiration of the Bible and the various extremes such as verbal plenary/dictation theory, biblical infallibility, etc.?

The view I personally hold is dynamic (i.e., the writers' thoughts were inspired, but the expression, while perfectly, so to speak, reliable was the responsibility of the writers, themselves). It's not an easy view to defend but, then, neither is the incarnation of the Word made flesh.

The Bible is quite an exercise in paradox for me. I believe God made it simple enough that barely educated folk could bask in it and, yet, it exercises the minds and hearts of men with even rocket scientist-level intelligence. It saddens me that anyone might view the latter as idolatry.

I care nothing for arguments about transcript reliability on either side of the dividing line. I have no interest in team sports of the kind that handle sacred things. Teams take up all the oxygen in any discussion.

I want nuanced thinking and discussion. Party lines bore me (and not the "Hello... hello... hello!" kind, either). Short and long answers don't do much for me. Meaningful is just the right length for me.

I want to know how the mourners on the road to Emmaus felt when Jesus opened to them the Scriptures and showed them all things concerning Himself.

If folks don't have anything to say about the very person of Christ, rather than argumentative doctrine for doctrine's sake or even argumentative anti-doctrine, I lose interest quickly. I can't even post more than one or two defenses of doctrine I hold peculiarly because of the futility of it. Asking someone who demonstrably hates the idea of a literal, weekly Sabbath observance to consider it again and again is like offering a life-long vegan a juicy, medium rare steak.

Folks believe what they want to believe commensurate with the amount of work they've allowed Jesus to do on their hearts. As for me, I've allowed too little.

I think we very much win converts to doctrine rather than to Christ in the way we do the business of evangelism—even the type we presumably do on social media. That is, if we win anyone at all.

I want to know more and more fully the Man who suffered and died for me and my billions of neighbors. I hunger and thirst after HIS righteousness and the righteousness of modern-day Pharisees of every stripe have lost their appeal to me.

Then,you will find with that high minded testimony and its self righteous nuance intended to condemn posters here in full, you are wasting your time online in social media Christ forums.

The anonymous nature of these discussions insures you will never know to whom you are speaking. If you want genuine discourse go where you can look people in the eyes and then know if they're telling the truth or not.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

The anonymous nature of these discussions insures you will never know to whom you are speaking

Why does it matter?

Having a discussion back and forth thru the internet does not require that we know the identity of others.

That's what real life interactions are for to know who it is you are speaking to and know their name, and home address in case you want to follow them home and do something bad to them just because they disagree with you.

In our day and age there are those that want to know who people are and where they live for nefarious purposes.

 

[BarneyFife]

Then,you will find with that high minded testimony and its self righteous nuance intended to condemn posters here in full, you are wasting your time online in social media Christ forums.

The anonymous nature of these discussions insures you will never know to whom you are speaking. If you want genuine discourse go where you can look people in the eyes and then know if they're telling the truth or not.

Perhaps this is a radical view of the situation, but I was thinking of proceeding at least somewhat as I have for nearly six years before you arrived less than a month ago to inform us all as to how things should be.

I don't mean to be unkind, but aren't you presuming just a bit?

 

[BarneyFife]

Here's an interesting video for everyone's viewing pleasure....

SDA Says Sabbath Breakers Will Be DAMNED

Exactly what does the very New Covenant promise of writing God's law on the heart of man mean to you? Salvation by works?