Yeah, But here is the difference.
God gave you the keys, and the address, THEN TOOK YOU THERE ON HIS BACK.
You did not drive anywhere.
This summarises the difference between the ethics.
Listening, obeying, understanding, doing, walking is not actions, Jesus is actually doing
it all, we are just passive participants.
Now this is obviously not true. Look at one owns experience. You have to put effort
in, let the words and ideas soak through you.
So this must be religious language, talking about justification or something.
But what we are talking about is our walk, the effects of healing, purification, the
renewing of our minds. These things change us.
Paul himself says if we sow the flesh we reap destruction, is we sow to the Spirit
we reap eternal life.
So part of our walk is us. And we are saved so we can walk.
The real question is does this walk effect our status, or threaten our salvation.
It appears that salvation is a promise or hope of the destination of the journey, but
it is not a certainty or guarantee.
Now EG & G7 believe you cannot loose election once received, we would hold you
can. Paul expresses this uncertainty in his letters, suggesting the preaching could
be in vain, even though he knew at one point the audience he is writing to responded
in faith.
But this is too insecure for some, because they want to know, to be safe, to not
have a question over our relationship. Once you have uncertainty, they want to analyse
and setup rules, and make sure they are within them, which is legalism. But it is love that
is our foundation, upon which we are immovable.
But our opponents do not have this foundation or understand its language. Which explains
why they have such insecurity and want to have a doctrine of eternal security.