The Rejection of Obedience

[Delvianna]

No, I have not heard of this. It sounds like many other religions have moral accounting systems.

They actually do. Even pagan ones have moral systems.

 

[Mem]

Nazir vows were a very strict vow taken before God with very strict conditions attached, that included sacrifices in the temple upon conclusion. Part of the conditions involved active avoidance of a dead body, including gravesites, no exceptions even for family or accidental contact, not consuming even as much as a single grape seed of any grape based food or liquid, and not cutting one's hair until the vow was finished, and then shaving one's head as part of the actions of completion. The length ranged from 30 days up to a lifetime and violations could mean a total reset from the beginning. Queen Helene of Adiabene reportedly took a 7-year vow, and had two resets close to the end which meant virtually 21 years before finishing.

There are more specifics, but since the necessary temple sacrifices are no longer possible, the vow has become a historical thing, no longer a current option.

I Cor 9:20

 

[Soyeong]

So, you think that the new covenant is the old covenant written on our hearts even though God said it will not be the covenant they broke? Jeremiah 31:32

No. The New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31;33), so while it is not like the Mosaic Covenant, the way that it is not like it is not in regard to following the Torah.

And you think that the manner that Christ walked is speaking about the "Torah," and that as you see it, even though the subject of the chapter is about the gospel and the new commandment which is the "old commandment which you have had from the beginning," that is, "the message that you have heard." (1John 2:7-8).

Never mind the question, this answers it.

The Bible repeatedly calls for God's children to walk in obedience to the Torah (Deuteronomy 5:33). It is by the Torah that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20) and Jesus was sinless, which means that he set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Torah, which was a told to follow (1 Peter 2:21-22, 1 John 2:6).

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentile, and the Torah was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to the Torah is a central part of the Gospel message. Everything in the Torah is either in regard to how to love God or our neighbor, so love is not doing something that isn't in accordance with the Torah.

Surely you don't mean to imply any of God's law to be unrighteous? Yet there are some you no longer need to pay any attention to? Psalm 119:160 says, "The entirety of Your word is truth, and all your righteous judgments endure forever." God has judged to make the render the law obsolete, with those that walk by it rather than walking in Christ, however much you's like to 'judge' that you are walking in Him. You've judged that you keep Him by keeping the Sabbath. But I keep the Sabbath by abiding in Him. But it's okay, I know you don't get that any more than I get your idea.

No, I was not implying that. God has not given any unrighteous laws. There are some laws that we can't currently follow, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't delight in getting to follow the laws that we can follow. For example, Deuteronomy 17:18 specifically instructs the king of Israel to write a copy of the Torah, so everyone who is not the king of Israel has a legitimate reason for not following that law.

The Hebrew word "mishpatim" used in Psalm 119:160 is one of the main categories of law in the Torah that refers to laws in regard to righteousness and justice. The only way to abolish instructions for how to embody God's righteousness and justice would be by abolishing God's righteousness and justice. The Torah is God's Word (Deuteronomy 5:31-33) and Jesus is God's Word made flesh, so he perfectly embodied the Torah by walking in sinless obedience to it and it is contradictory to walk in God's Word instead of walking in God's Word made flesh. It is contradictory to abide in Christ instead of following his example of obedience to the Torah.

Your equating zealous for the law with zealous for good deeds, did you not continue reading after Acts 21:20? about Paul being persecuted by the Jews and his defense to the crowd of how he "was just as zealous" (Acts 22:3) and called the high priest a "whitewashed wall" being unaware that he was the high priest while fully aware of the law of Exodus 22:28? He was a Pharisee of Pharisees, after all, that knew the law better than the high priest! (Acts 23:3)

The Torah is God's instructions for equipping us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:15-17). In Acts 21:20-24, Paul planned to take steps to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against obeying the Torah and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it.

And you ignore the reference to the law of sin and death which Christ set you free from to go back to it so that you will,

In Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul said that he served the Law of God with his mind in contrast with serving the law of sin with his flesh and he said that the Law of the Spirit has freed us from the law of sin and death. Moreover, in Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk n the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God, so the law of sin and death does not refer to the Law of God, but rather they are opposites. We need to be set free from the law of sin and death in order to obey the Law of God, not the other way around.

ultimately, be rendered obsolete along with it, decaying, growing old, and ready to vanish away (Hebrews 8:13).

In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so the Mosaic Covenant becoming obsolete does not mean that followers of Christ should not continue to follow His example of obedience to the Torah.

 

[rewriter]

I Cor 9:20

I Cor 9:20

And therein is part of why I think we misunderstand much of Paul. Paul was addressing gentiles for the most part, not Jews, thus Jewish understandings do not necessarily apply when we read Paul. Paul's message would almost be forced to be different than Peter's due to different audiences and understandings.

i have been writing, and getting it checked by other scholars, a much different version of what was taught than is traditional. One key assumption is that Rome won the 1st Jewish war, destroying the Jerusalem temple in 70 and the 2nd Jewish temple in Egypt in 73. But I also look at what is acknowledged in the historic records that differs from what tradition implies. This includes that everybody except mid-level to high-ranking Romans, and not even all of them, seem to have believed that anybody, no matter how despicable, was preferable as a ruler to Rome. The historic record also indicates that some people had numerous previous shortcomings attributed to them if they fell from grace for some reason, even if they had been praised before, so trash talk after someone fell from public grace might well be made up (the Jews rebelled against Rome likely within a few months of the death of Herod the Great for example, almost like they liked Herod and did not like the Romans trashing his reputation).

Also, Mark and John both show signs of having been edited, but with careful study there are also signs as to what they might originally have said, and such signs imply that John said something far different than we commonly see today, things that fit with issues Paul addressed in some letters. These include women's hair in Corinth and how scripture came to be written and the question of the armor of God in Ephesians. Another big hint lies in Luke and Acts where Theophilus might well be a well-known historic figure under a different name, and likely that is not the only person whose historic identity was actively concealed, there appear to be at least two, if not three, others, all concealed to either protect their identities or flatter Romans.

But such covers my first 6 chapters, then 2 more chapters on the reality of the resurrection, again there is more evidence than tradition recognizes, and I am working on the third of three chapters regarding divinity in the OT and NT and beyond.

 

[2Christ]

By Keep, do you mean obey perfectly? That's what the Law requires. I do not keep the ten commandments. Only Jesus fulfilled the Law. You can assume worst case scenarios at this point, but as I said, no believer here is advocating to live by the flesh because of grace.

How about you, did Jesus misspeak when He said 'what is impossible for man is possible for God'? You have two choices. It's either you or Jesus who you trust in. One fulfills the Law for you. One puts you under the Law, guaranteeing that you will be judged by it at the great White throne judgment. Here is us under the Law --"then who can be saved"? "What is impossible for man is possible for God". Jesus came to fulfill the Law for us.

We do not earn, or maintain grace, if that were the case, it would not be grace. We evidence it.

Good Morning Dave;

Dave, I think the question has shifted away from what Jesus actually said. You know, The Jesus who is the son of God, having all authority in Heaven and on earth? Yes that man, the main character in the bible with God whose words are eternal life!
I did not ask whether anyone keeps the commandments perfectly. None of us has, except Jesus. We all need God's mercy.My question was much simpler: Did Jesus teach those who want eternal life to keep God's commandments?

Jesus answered that Himself. "And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:16-17, ASV). That is Jesus' answer, not mine.

Then notice that Jesus immediately began quoting from the Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." (Matthew 19:18-19, ASV). If Jesus believed the commandments no longer mattered, this was the perfect time to say so. Instead, He pointed directly to them. You quoted, "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

Let's read that in context. Jesus was speaking about salvation being impossible by human effort alone. He was not saying obedience no longer matters. In fact, only a few verses earlier He had already told the rich young ruler to keep the commandments.

Jesus also said: If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments. (John 14:15, ASV)

He did not say, "You cannot keep them, so do not worry about them." He said that love for Him is shown by obedience.

Again He said: He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him. (John 14:21, ASV)

And again: If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. (John 15:10, ASV)

Notice that Jesus presents Himself as the example. He kept His Father's commandments and calls us to do the same.

Jesus also warned that merely calling Him "Lord" is not enough. And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? (Luke 6:46, ASV)

Jesus concluded the Sermon on the Mount with these solemn words: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 7:21, ASV)

The apostles whom Jesus personally chose taught exactly the same: And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (1 John 2:3-4, ASV) So no, I am not saying we earn salvation by perfect obedience. Jesus never taught that.

I am saying exactly what Jesus taught: We are sinners who need God's grace, and those who truly believe in Him repent, follow Him, and keep His commandments. Obedience is not the cause of salvation, but neither is it optional. Jesus made obedience one of the marks of a true disciple.

My concern is very simple. Whenever there seems to be a conflict between someone's interpretation and the plain words of Jesus, I choose to stay with Jesus, I explained why at the beginning of my reply to you. What we have to do is simple Dave, it's to try to keep them as best we can and Ask God to help and he certainly will.

 

[2Christ]

We don't travel in the same circles. However, I've heard the same claims you are making in this forum many times. I think you are confusing the old and new testaments and people basically object to being told they have to keep the law when Jesus fulfilled it.

Now, the misunderstanding comes when people assume that means we can just keep sinning. It does not mean that. We recently had a thread with hundreds of pages and thousands of post and some people are still posting there. It's interesting in the bent towards the law that it has and the disregard for anything written past the gospels.

I think the following post sums it up quite well.

was Jesus confused when he repeatedly told people to keep the ten commandments and explained all of them in detail during his ministry?

 

[2Christ]

For good measure, I will just post again this really great response to your op. I agree with the statement completely and really, there is nothing more to be said about it

i did ask Dan this question,, post no 27 but I dont remember seeing a reply.
mailmandan said: No genuine Christian would reject authentic obedience in the Christian life. What Christians reject is legalism masked as obedience, which culminates in works salvation and self-righteousness. (Matthew 7:22-23; Luke 18:9; Romans 10:1-4)


Perhaps one of you could answer? @pinebeach @mailmandan ?

can you give an example of legalism masked as obedience so I can understand what you mean? thank you.

 

[Roger316]

So, you think that the new covenant is the old covenant written on our hearts even though God said it will not be the covenant they broke? Jeremiah 31:32

The Torah will be written on the hearts of the Jewish people, according to Jeremiah. Contrary to what some people believe, he wasn't talking about Christians in that passage.

And you think that the manner that Christ walked is speaking about the "Torah," and that as you see it, even though the subject of the chapter is about the gospel and the new commandment which is the "old commandment which you have had from the beginning," that is, "the message that you have heard." (1John 2:7-8).

John's letter is written to second-generation Christian children to assure them that what they heard about Jesus Christ from their parents is true. In that context, the word "commandment" is synonymous with "teaching." The new teaching is found in the following verses 1 John 2:9-11. That is new information that they hadn't yet heard from John.

 

[mailmandan]

I really liked your saying, "No genuine Christian would reject authentic obedience". That would be so beautiful. I just don't think it is always the case. In my understanding, even genuine Christians could reject obedience.

For example - As an ex-Hindu, if I give in to the pressure of having food offered to idols when I know in my heart God doesn't want me to have it, so I could be a witness for Him, I am being disobedient. I may repent later, but when I needed to be obedient, I wasn't.

Another example: A Christian that loves the Lord may fall into temptation and do something he/she shouldn't have done. The Word tells us to flee from temptation, but this person chose not to flee but fight it.

By saying no genuine Christian would reject authentic obedience, I was not implying that a genuine Christian is 100% obedient 100% of the time. Genuine Christians are not sinless, absolutely perfect, 100% of the time. (1 John 1:8-10) Only Jesus Christ was without sin. (2 Corinthians 5:21) Yet genuine Christians (children of God) practice righteousness and not sin (1 John 3:7-10) and do not accept legalism over genuine obedience.

 

[mailmandan]

i did ask Dan this question,, post no 27 but I dont remember seeing a reply.
mailmandan said: No genuine Christian would reject authentic obedience in the Christian life. What Christians reject is legalism masked as obedience, which culminates in works salvation and self-righteousness. (Matthew 7:22-23; Luke 18:9; Romans 10:1-4)


Perhaps one of you could answer? @pinebeach @mailmandan ?

can you give an example of legalism masked as obedience so I can understand what you mean? thank you.

Examples of legalism are found in those passages of scripture that you highlighted in blue and is summed up in works righteousness. Legalism is the belief that people can earn God's favor, righteousness, salvation by strictly following a set of rules, laws, which culminates in salvation by works.

 

[2Christ]

Examples of legalism are found in those passages of scripture that you highlighted in blue and is summed up in works righteousness. Legalism is the belief that people can earn God's favor, righteousness, salvation by strictly following a set of rules, laws, which culminates in salvation by works.

there are NO examples in these links you think i did not check? you probably just Cannot give me one. am I right?

Those verses don't show that obedience is legalism.

In Matthew 7:22-23, Jesus condemns those who practiced lawlessness while claiming to serve Him. In Luke 18:9, He condemns self-righteousness, not obedience. Neither passage says that keeping God's commandments is legalism.

So I'll ask again: what specific command of Jesus would become "legalism" if someone simply obeyed it? Jesus said, "If thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:17, ASV) and "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments." (John 14:15, ASV)

 

[Roger316]

there are NO examples in these links you think i did not check? you probably just Cannot give me one. am I right?

Those verses don't show that obedience is legalism.

In Matthew 7:22-23, Jesus condemns those who practiced lawlessness while claiming to serve Him. In Luke 18:9, He condemns self-righteousness, not obedience. Neither passage says that keeping God's commandments is legalism.

So I'll ask again: what specific command of Jesus would become "legalism" if someone simply obeyed it? Jesus said, "If thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:17, ASV) and "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments." (John 14:15, ASV)

I can assure you that @mailmandan did check. The passages you presented are indeed examples of "legalism" as Mailmandan defined it. Legalism isn't a critique of obedience as such; it is a critique of those who obey for the wrong reason. Those in Matthew 7:22-23 were doing things in Jesus' name, but Jesus never knew them. They were serving themselves, not Jesus. They were attempting to do God's will apart from being in a relationship with Jesus.

In the Luke passage, we see men who had contempt for others and trusted in themselves. They were practicing what God instructed them to practice, but they had the wrong motives. They thought that following the rules made them better than other men. They defined "righteousness" in terms of keeping the rules, but in their hearts, their contempt revealed a darker side of their character.

In Romans 10, Paul addresses the case of those who practice the law on the one hand, but on the other hand they dismiss what the law reveals about them personally. Granted, whenever they misstep, they take an offering to the temple in accordance with what the law demands, but do they ever stop to think about the implications? Do they never stop to think, "I am a sinner in need of God's grace?" Or do they think to themselves, as many do, that they are good because they keep the rules?

A legalist is one who keeps all the rules, but draws the wrong conclusion from that, holds the wrong attitude about it, and thinks he serves God when he is actually serving himself.

 

[GWH]

No one is disputing that OT moral laws have value as preparation for the NT Gospel.

The issue per NT teaching is that obedience of laws is the old/childish/immature/inferior way of describing the relationship between God and believers.

The NT/mature/Christian/superior and thus superseding way (per Heb. 7:11-10:10) is cooperation/consensus/
mutual submission/love of the Holy Spirit.

If Torahists would speak of walking in the Spirit instead of obeying the Torah, there would be no problem (apply John 3:30).

Bumped for @BenAvraham.

 

[HeIsHere]

Explain yourself what do you mean, no one can do what he did and you know this very well.

I doubt you will understand until you abandon the doctrine of "insecure salvation."

 

[Mem]

The Torah will be written on the hearts of the Jewish people, according to Jeremiah. Contrary to what some people believe, he wasn't talking about Christians in that passage.

John's letter is written to second-generation Christian children to assure them that what they heard about Jesus Christ from their parents is true. In that context, the word "commandment" is synonymous with "teaching." The new teaching is found in the following verses 1 John 2:9-11. That is new information that they hadn't yet heard from John.

IMO, the word "Torah" has been habitually thrown out and misrepresented as the law. I've engaged in a light study of The Hebrew and even the introductory exposure to it reveals a great deal. Each letter is also a picture as well as a number and no other written language offers this 'three that perfectly agree' component to it so that, if understood correctly, the meaning of "Torah" encompasses so much more than just the law. This is the "picture of it" that I see, roughly translated considering the clumsiness of translating spirit into the natural; the righteous cross the ruler breathed out.

 

[Mem]

No. The New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31;33), so while it is not like the Mosaic Covenant, the way that it is not like it is not in regard to following the Torah.


The Bible repeatedly calls for God's children to walk in obedience to the Torah (Deuteronomy 5:33). It is by the Torah that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20) and Jesus was sinless, which means that he set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Torah, which was a told to follow (1 Peter 2:21-22, 1 John 2:6).

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentile, and the Torah was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to the Torah is a central part of the Gospel message. Everything in the Torah is either in regard to how to love God or our neighbor, so love is not doing something that isn't in accordance with the Torah.


No, I was not implying that. God has not given any unrighteous laws. There are some laws that we can't currently follow, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't delight in getting to follow the laws that we can follow. For example, Deuteronomy 17:18 specifically instructs the king of Israel to write a copy of the Torah, so everyone who is not the king of Israel has a legitimate reason for not following that law.

The Hebrew word "mishpatim" used in Psalm 119:160 is one of the main categories of law in the Torah that refers to laws in regard to righteousness and justice. The only way to abolish instructions for how to embody God's righteousness and justice would be by abolishing God's righteousness and justice. The Torah is God's Word (Deuteronomy 5:31-33) and Jesus is God's Word made flesh, so he perfectly embodied the Torah by walking in sinless obedience to it and it is contradictory to walk in God's Word instead of walking in God's Word made flesh. It is contradictory to abide in Christ instead of following his example of obedience to the Torah.


The Torah is God's instructions for equipping us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:15-17). In Acts 21:20-24, Paul planned to take steps to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against obeying the Torah and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it.


In Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul said that he served the Law of God with his mind in contrast with serving the law of sin with his flesh and he said that the Law of the Spirit has freed us from the law of sin and death. Moreover, in Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk n the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God, so the law of sin and death does not refer to the Law of God, but rather they are opposites. We need to be set free from the law of sin and death in order to obey the Law of God, not the other way around.


In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so the Mosaic Covenant becoming obsolete does not mean that followers of Christ should not continue to follow His example of obedience to the Torah.

This is an example of throwing the word Torah around while misrepresenting it. I don't have the energy to expend at the moment to address all the error. I'll leave that fun for someone that might have the time to spare.

 

[2Christ]

I can assure you that @mailmandan did check. The passages you presented are indeed examples of "legalism" as Mailmandan defined it. Legalism isn't a critique of obedience as such; it is a critique of those who obey for the wrong reason. Those in Matthew 7:22-23 were doing things in Jesus' name, but Jesus never knew them. They were serving themselves, not Jesus. They were attempting to do God's will apart from being in a relationship with Jesus.

In the Luke passage, we see men who had contempt for others and trusted in themselves. They were practicing what God instructed them to practice, but they had the wrong motives. They thought that following the rules made them better than other men. They defined "righteousness" in terms of keeping the rules, but in their hearts, their contempt revealed a darker side of their character.

In Romans 10, Paul addresses the case of those who practice the law on the one hand, but on the other hand they dismiss what the law reveals about them personally. Granted, whenever they misstep, they take an offering to the temple in accordance with what the law demands, but do they ever stop to think about the implications? Do they never stop to think, "I am a sinner in need of God's grace?" Or do they think to themselves, as many do, that they are good because they keep the rules?

A legalist is one who keeps all the rules, but draws the wrong conclusion from that, holds the wrong attitude about it, and thinks he serves God when he is actually serving himself.

There is a serious danger in the definition you have given because it quietly changes what Jesus actually taught.

No one disagrees that pride, self-righteousness, and trusting in yourself are wrong. Jesus repeatedly condemned those things. But He never called obedience "legalism." In fact, He consistently taught that obedience is the evidence of genuine faith and love for God.

You say those in Matthew 7 were "doing God's will apart from a relationship with Jesus." That is not what Jesus said. Jesus gave the reason for rejecting them: "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:23, ASV). Their problem was that they practiced lawlessness, not that they obeyed too much.

Likewise, the Pharisee in Luke 18 was not condemned because he obeyed God's commandments. He was condemned because he trusted in himself and despised others. Humility was missing, not obedience.

The greatest danger is that the word "legalism" becomes so broad that anyone urging Christians to obey Jesus can be dismissed as a legalist. Jesus never did that. Instead, He said, "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments." (John 14:15, ASV), and, "Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46, ASV).

Even Romans 10 does not teach that obedience is the problem. Israel's error was seeking righteousness while rejecting the Messiah to whom the Law pointed. Faith in Christ and obedience to Christ are not enemies. Jesus joined them together.

The warning is simple: be careful not to invent a definition that Jesus never used. If obedience to Christ can be labeled "legalism," then people may begin to fear the very thing Jesus commanded. Scripture warns against practicing lawlessness, not against obeying the Lord.

 

[Vucesa]

I've noticed over the decades such a negative reaction to the idea of obedience which tends to stem from the OSAS crowd.

For sake of argument, let's take salvation off the table because I don't want to turn this into a salvation debate. I want the sole focus to be about obedience.

Why, is there such a rejection for obedience? Like, if you bring it up, people just get auto-defensive and start yelling about works. But what happened to not doing something you shouldn't do, because you literally just shouldn't do it?

If God is likened to the aspect of a Father, why do we grow up as kids following our parents, but when it comes to the Father, it's like.. "I don't have to follow the rules."

Throughout scripture from old testament to new, God has been the same. He HATES sin. The message for repentance is prevalent from start to finish in scripture. Hell, the tribulation period is literally due to sin and how abundant it is everywhere. So why the reaction? Why such a distinct defensive response to something that God wants/likes? Why such the overt rejection of it?

I am of the ISAS crowd, If saved always saved. The reason for this negative reaction is because most of Christianity is stuck in romanism till this day. You must perform for your salvation and if you do enough good works you may make it, then again maybe not and maybe you will have to go to purgatory for a while. The pentecostals, methodists and many others aren't romanists but they side with the RCC on the core topic of the reformation which was justification.

I can only speak for myself, there is no rejection of obedience but a concern for the Gospel. If you have no promises but only warnings, you are going to burn yourself out and go full force into the world. I have seen it happen many times.

 

[2Christ]

I doubt you will understand until you abandon the doctrine of "insecure salvation."

I don't believe salvation is insecure. I believe what Jesus taught.

Jesus never said, "Once saved, always saved." Instead, He repeatedly said we must continue in Him, keep His commandments, do the Father's will, and endure to the end. Dont you see that If salvation could never be lost, then Jesus' warnings about branches being cut off, servants being cast out, and believers needing to endure would have no purpose. Yet He said so.

My confidence is not in myself but in Christ. As long as I abide in Him, He is faithful to keep me. That's the security Jesus taught:
"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved."(Matthew 10:22, ASV)
"Abide in me... If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered." (John 15:4, 6, ASV)
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21, ASV)

These passages don't describe salvation as fragile. They describe it as a living relationship that must continue. Jesus' emphasis is not "once believed, always saved," but "abide in Me," "follow Me," and "endure to the end." these are His words.

 

[HeIsHere]

I don't believe salvation is insecure. I believe what Jesus taught.

Jesus never said, "Once saved, always saved." Instead, He repeatedly said we must continue in Him, keep His commandments, do the Father's will, and endure to the end. Dont you see that If salvation could never be lost, then Jesus' warnings about branches being cut off, servants being cast out, and believers needing to endure would have no purpose. Yet He said so.

My confidence is not in myself but in Christ. As long as I abide in Him, He is faithful to keep me. That's the security Jesus taught:
"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved."(Matthew 10:22, ASV)
"Abide in me... If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered." (John 15:4, 6, ASV)
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21, ASV)

These passages don't describe salvation as fragile. They describe it as a living relationship that must continue. Jesus' emphasis is not "once believed, always saved," but "abide in Me," "follow Me," and "endure to the end." these are His words.

"Endure to the end" sounds like I finish what Jesus started.

Along with the fact that verse is about the coming siege of Jerusalem, the end of the age of the law and the Temple and surviving it physically.