SPLIT: Once Saved Always Saved? (Revisited)

[tqualey]

Hi UnityofTrinity,

You hve some interesting ideas here…

First, since God is all powerful (assuming God exists at all), we would say God could supernaturally make those believers believe?

I am not really convinced that such an approach would square with God’s Plan that we have a Free Will. Making believers believe sounds like there was a bit of coercion here.

If we could assume if at once no one in the world want to evangelize anymore, and the internet for some reason dead (probably too many people are on facebook), then what would happen?

Those are major assumptions! But, just to go along with your idea … no one to evangelize and the net is permanently down … I would say that His Church - you know, the one founded by Christ on Peter - before the days of the net - would still be ministering to those who need God and the Sacraments He provided as like rivers of Grace. God will find a way - and it will involve His Church.

Since God’s will is perfect, and since He has predestined these certain people to be saved, then no matter what God will shove down the word about Christ down these people throat, right?

As far as I can tell, that is NOT right. While every attribute of God is perfect - He has a Perfect Will, and He created us with a Free Will so that we could freely chose Him or chose ourselves as the Devil chose himself. I really do not know about the idea of shoving the Word of God down anyone’s throat. Look at John 6 - this group was told that they must eat the Flesh of Christ and they rejected that idea and they walked away. They were free to choose and they chose.

There is no way these people will reject Him.

I really can not handle any more of this imagination … sorry … rached my limit… There were several ways that Christ was rejected: King Herod wanted Him dead from birth, the Pharisees and Saducees rejected Him outright for doctrinal reasons, the Scribes and Lawyers rejected Him for practical reasons - they would be out of job! The Jews rejected His teachings (John 6) and the Gentiles (like Pilate) found Him a curiosity that they would rather not have to deal with. The Apostles apparently rejected Him when they fled from the Garden. The crowd rejected and taunted the dying Christ on the Cross. And, 1500 years later, those who revolted rejected His Church and developed traditions of men (like OSAS) to reduce the burden of Discipleship. Each of us reject Him when we sin. You know, He has been rejected by different people for the past 2,000 years. So, I would say that there are an abundannce of ways.

Then of course there are the unfortunate souls who will never be able to accept God no matter how earnest they are in seeking Him. They will forever remains in the cloud of ignorance til the day the rot in the earth and their soul rots in the fiery fire of hell. If you still believe predestination allows for freewill, then please demonstrate how?

I would be interested in the answer to that!

Second, because of the Great Commission. Well, why did Jesus commission His disciples to risk their lives to spread the Gospel? Surely He understood that His Father predestine only a certain to accept His Gospel, so spreading the Gospel to everyone is pointless and to some extent dangerous. But He commissioned it anyway. Or maybe there’s an another reason behind His action. Maybe because He believes that ALL could hear and have equal chance to accept or reject the Gospel?

Hey - a real chance … now that sounds like you have something there! One of the things that has always bothered me about OSAS is that this is not something that a “little child” could accept! (Mark 10:15) I think God damning people to eternal torment because He just wanted to … could not sit well with any child I have every know. Such behavior would do violence to a little child’s sense of justice ('play fair, play nice). Little children see their parents as loving them (in the majority of cases) so when it comes to God the Father - there should be Total Love. Ah, but little children can understand when someone does not want to play with them or be with them - and they are uncomfortable with this, too.

God bless

 

[Sig]

Either go back and answer my questions, and provide proof that “disqualified = loss of salvation,” and that “falling = loss of salvation,” or tell me that you cannot answer those questions. This conversation is stopped until you either answer those questions, or until you tell me you cannot answer them.

First, since God is all powerful (assuming God exists at all), we would say God could supernaturally make those believers believe? If we could assume if at once no one in the world want to evangelize anymore, and the internet for some reason dead (probably too many people are on facebook), then what would happen? Since God’s will is perfect, and since He has predestined these certain people to be saved, then no matter what God will shove down the word about Christ down these people throat, right? Either through a friendly next door neighbor or through somekind of supernatural apparition. There is no way these people will reject Him. Then of course there are the unfortunate souls who will never be able to accept God no matter how earnest they are in seeking Him. They will forever remains in the cloud of ignorance til the day the rot in the earth and their soul rots in the fiery fire of hell. If you still believe predestination allows for freewill, then please demonstrate how?

Second, because of the Great Commission. Well, why did Jesus commission His disciples to risk their lives to spread the Gospel? Surely He understood that His Father predestined only a certain to accept His Gospel, so spreading the Gospel to everyone is pointless and to some extent dangerous. But He commissioned it anyway. Or maybe there’s an another reason behind His action. Maybe because He believes that ALL could hear and have equal chance to accept or reject the Gospel?

Already answered.

 

[hunter123]

If you can’t tell me in your own words, to me that means you don’t know what you’re talking about. My discussion is with you, and not with the person to whom you’ve linked.

Notice first that it is HIS salvation he’s working out. He possesses it now, as I’ve been saying! What the verb means is to continually work to bring something to fulfillment, or completion. That’s not salvation by works (Rom 3:21-24; Eph 2:8ff), but the believer’s responsibility in sanctification, and the believer is to do that with a healthy fear and respect for God, who is working in the believer to will and to work (v13).

Duh.

I thought you were looking for truth, not pridefully wishing to win an argument with me! Than again the Duh comment speaks volumes about your pride. But I forgot you are already saved, so you have no need to be humble.

And what happens if he does not “bring it to fulfillment” as you state? In your opinion he is already saved so why would he have to bring it to fulfillment??

Were the Jews already saved when Jesus stated he came to fulfill the Law, or did they need to wait for his redemptive crucifixion?

I have an obligation to fulfill have I already done it before I fulfilled it???

 

[Lisa44]

Reminder: Attack ideas not people.

 

[Lisa44]

What constitutes being saved? Once you can determine what it means to be truly saved, then you can determine if there is something a person can do that would put them from the state of “SAVED” to “DOOMED”. Once “SAVED” what would a person have to do to change them to “DOOMED”?

And has or would a saved person ever commit something so terrible to choose Eternal Torture over the Knowledge that they will be in eternal Bliss?

And why would some one who has been saved even commit an act condemning them to hell if that act is against their morals?

Once Saved always Saved? Who does this refer to? People baptized and therefore have a “free pass” to heaven, or at least know they are not doomed to hell?

Are they people that God has decided “I refuse to let this person go to hell no matter what because I know despite their whole life where their heart truly lies?”

Once Saved Always Saved are they people who have inherited a special privilege?

Don’t you choose to go to HEAVEN or HELL so that OSAS is a choice you make and not a privilege granted to you?

Hi Ian,
It’s not a “free pass”. You are injecting your own assumptions into the debate.
Let me put it this way, do you believe God is omniscient? Yes or No?

 

[Lisa44]

Hi, Ian Ward,

I think this will go a long way to answering your first question:

John 5: 24 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes in the one who sent me has eternal life and will not come to condemnation, but has passed from death to life. 25Amen, amen, I say to you, the hour is coming and is now here when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.p 26For just as the Father has life in himself, so also he gave to his Son the possession of life in himself. 27And he gave him power to exercise judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not be amazed at this, because the hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs will hear his voices 29and will come out, those who have done good deeds to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked deeds to the resurrection of condemnation.

St. Paul condemns those who, after apparently knowing Christ, return to their sinful ways. I think Hebrews 10 answers your second question. Here is a link that will provide additional information and go on to answer your third question: saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html

As long as we have Free Will - something denied by the OSAS crowd - then it is possible to refuse the Grace of God, willfully sin, refuse to repent and die in that state and go to Hell as a just judgment. There was a question if Peter had died immediately after he denied Christ 3x - would he go to Hell. We do not know the condition of Peter’s mind or his intention when this took place as recorded in Matthew 26:74 and Mark 14:71 - so the question can not be definitively answered because of this unknown.

But let’s see what we do have:
In order for a sin to be mortal, it must meet three conditions:

Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter
Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner
Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner

Denying Christ is grave matter - and doing so with an oath may have involved blasphmey.
The assumption is that no one forced Peter to deny Christ so Peter knew what he was doing

• AND IF THIS ACTION WAS DELIBERATE - AND HE HAD DIED … he would have gone to Hell. Admittedly, it was a highly speculative question - but, the answer as it applies to Peter, applies to all of us: if we die in the state of mortal sin, we go to Hell. And, this is straight from Catholic teaching:

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.” scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#1023

God bless

John 5:24-30.
(27)Who passes judgement? Jesus.
Does he judge those who were already in the grave? Yes.

Heb 10:26 Speaks to those who deliberately sin.
Heb 10:36 “For you need endurance, so that after you have done God’s will, you may receive what was promised.”
In this context to “draw back” means to deliberately sin.
Heb 10:39 “But we are not those who draw back and are destroyed, but those who have faith and obtain life.”

I’m going to try using Trent again to demonstrate that those who have God’s help, cannot fail to persevere:
Canon 22.
If anyone says that the one justified either can without the special help of God persevere in the justice received,[123] or that with that help he cannot, let him be anathema.

Would you care to explain how it is that a person can “refuse the help of God”?

Do you want to say that Trent is in error or that it contradicts itself?

 

[Lisa44]

**“If anyone says that the one justified either can without the special help of God persevere in the justice received, or that with that help he cannot, let him be anathema (especially dedicated to evil).” **
twenty-second Canon of the Decree Concerning Justification of the Council of Trent (Sixth Session, 13 January 1547

Sig what exactly are you arguing or trying to be convinced or persuaded of? Do you want someone to show you that you are wrong? Or is this something you have your mind set on?

Ian, you are using canon 22 to demonstrate what?

 

[TinaG]

Hi!

This thread is moving so fast it is hard for me to keep up, as I cannot devote a whole lot of time to it.

I posted material regarding Aquinas’ Summa Theologica Question 23 in which he affirmed the decision for salvation is in God not in man (i.e man’s will does not decide this) and he also affirmed reprobation - some men are created for hell. It is not clear to me that the Catholics on this thread are not attacking Thomist statements from a Molinist viewpoint, or perhaps more precisely, statements in common between STA and “OSAS” proponents, rather than separating out those ideas that are NOT shared between STA and OSAS.

The argument I am making, and I think Sig is also, is that the “OSAS” position has been with us from the foundation of the Church. I am not convinced that it was particularly discussed that much before the Reformation, as other issues (the Trinity, Eucharist, etc.) were at play in the Church, and so the Catholic claim that the church has always denied OSAS is specious - because if it has always denied it, that means there was something to deny, and hence it cannot be some innovation of the 1500s. I suspect the Catholics are trying to have their cake and eat it too here.

-Tina “Still Not a Thomist” G

 

[fhansen]

Hi!

This thread is moving so fast it is hard for me to keep up, as I cannot devote a whole lot of time to it.

I posted material regarding Aquinas’ Summa Theologica Question 23 in which he affirmed the decision for salvation is in God not in man (i.e man’s will does not decide this) and he also affirmed reprobation - some men are created for hell. It is not clear to me that the Catholics on this thread are not attacking Thomist statements from a Molinist viewpoint, or perhaps more precisely, statements in common between STA and “OSAS” proponents, rather than separating out those ideas that are NOT shared between STA and OSAS.

The argument I am making, and I think Sig is also, is that the “OSAS” position has been with us from the foundation of the Church. I am not convinced that it was particularly discussed that much before the Reformation, as other issues (the Trinity, Eucharist, etc.) were at play in the Church, and so the Catholic claim that the church has always denied OSAS is specious - because if it has always denied it, that means there was something to deny, and hence it cannot be some innovation of the 1500s. I suspect the Catholics are trying to have their cake and eat it too here.

-Tina “Still Not a Thomist” G

The problem is that the OSAS position is always tied to ones knowing with absolute certainty that they’re saved-otherwise there’d be no reason to bother mentioning it. Catholicism strictly denies one can have such a degree of certainty. I mean, we put the cart ahead of the horse when we claim to know the outcome ahead of time.

Connected to this doctrine is Calvin’s perseverance of the saints. It goes without saying that saints will persevere, which means there’s nothing gained by saying it-because *we can’t know who they are. *Canon 216 of Trent:

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

We can lose salvation:
**980 It is through the sacrament of Penance that the baptized can be reconciled with God and with the Church:
Penance has rightly been called by the holy Fathers “a laborious kind of baptism.” This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn.525
**

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Sig:
post #181, the last red paragraph

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Either go back and answer my questions, and provide proof that “disqualified = loss of salvation,” and that “falling = loss of salvation,” or tell me that you cannot answer those questions. This conversation is stopped until you either answer those questions, or until you tell me you cannot answer them.

Post #181, thrd paragraph in red

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Hi UnityofTrinity,

You hve some interesting ideas here…

I am not really convinced that such an approach would square with God’s Plan that we have a Free Will. Making believers believe sounds like there was a bit of coercion here.

Those are major assumptions! But, just to go along with your idea … no one to evangelize and the net is permanently down … I would say that His Church - you know, the one founded by Christ on Peter - before the days of the net - would still be ministering to those who need God and the Sacraments He provided as like rivers of Grace. God will find a way - and it will involve His Church.

As far as I can tell, that is NOT right. While every attribute of God is perfect - He has a Perfect Will, and He created us with a Free Will so that we could freely chose Him or chose ourselves as the Devil chose himself. I really do not know about the idea of shoving the Word of God down anyone’s throat. Look at John 6 - this group was told that they must eat the Flesh of Christ and they rejected that idea and they walked away. They were free to choose and they chose.

I really can not handle any more of this imagination … sorry … rached my limit… There were several ways that Christ was rejected: King Herod wanted Him dead from birth, the Pharisees and Saducees rejected Him outright for doctrinal reasons, the Scribes and Lawyers rejected Him for practical reasons - they would be out of job! The Jews rejected His teachings (John 6) and the Gentiles (like Pilate) found Him a curiosity that they would rather not have to deal with. The Apostles apparently rejected Him when they fled from the Garden. The crowd rejected and taunted the dying Christ on the Cross. And, 1500 years later, those who revolted rejected His Church and developed traditions of men (like OSAS) to reduce the burden of Discipleship. Each of us reject Him when we sin. You know, He has been rejected by different people for the past 2,000 years. So, I would say that there are an abundannce of ways.

I would be interested in the answer to that!

God bless

My imaginations are based on the assumption that the Catholic theology would be wrong (there is not really a physical church Christ established) and that once saved always saved is true

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Sig:

Already answered.

Pardon me but I think your answer does not satisfy the conditions. Again you did say that God determines the end but also determines that there is a mean for it. But what if no one evangelize? Then God must does something to fulfill his predestination, since no one he has chosen will fall. This also comes off as perplexing since you count anyone who chooses God as “predestined”. That mean God creates certain man with the knowledge that He Himself predestines for them to goes unsaved. A God like that is not necessarily pure good is He?

Also the fact that Christ commissioned for His disciples to spread the Gospel to all is an indicator. Why didn’t Christ say: “Preach my words to whom my Father chooses”?

 

[TinaG]

Connected to this doctrine is Calvin’s perseverance of the saints. It goes without saying that saints will persevere, which means there’s nothing gained by saying it-because *we can’t know who they are. *Canon 216 of Trent:

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

Here Trent says it is POSSIBLE for someone to learn that they have the gift of perseverance by special revelation. You then are contradicting Trent with your assertion that no one can know this. Here Trent says some specifically know this - otherwise there would be no point in making the statement. By the way, I find this whole statement ludicrous - “If you say this, you are anathema - unless God told you.”

-Tina “All In Favor of Special Revelation to Everyone - Except that it Seems Reserved for Protestants” G

 

[TinaG]

Pardon me but I think your answer does not satisfy the conditions. Again you did say that God determines the end but also determines that there is a mean for it. But what if no one evangelize? Then God must does something to fulfill his predestination, since no one he has chosen will fall. This also comes off as perplexing since you count anyone who chooses God as “predestined”. That mean God creates certain man with the knowledge that He Himself predestines for them to goes unsaved. A God like that is not necessarily pure good is He?

Also the fact that Christ commissioned for His disciples to spread the Gospel to all is an indicator. Why didn’t Christ say: “Preach my words to whom my Father chooses”?

You fail to understand the difference between Calvinism and hyperCalvinism. I discussed this earlier in this thread (or the previous one?). This is easily answered and has been.

-Tina “Not a HyperCalvinist” G

 

[UnityofTrinity]

You fail to understand the difference between Calvinism and hyperCalvinism. I discussed this earlier in this thread (or the previous one?). This is easily answered and has been.

-Tina “Not a HyperCalvinist” G

Tina, I did read your article on hyperCalvinism and Calvinism and again it still leaves the question unanswered as well as failing to reconcile freewill and predestination. If God indeed has predestined for some to goes unsaved, then no amount of freewill can save that soul

 

[TinaG]

Tina, I did read your article on hyperCalvinism and Calvinism and again it still leaves the question unanswered as well as failing to reconcile freewill and predestination. If God indeed has predestined for some to goes unsaved, then no amount of freewill can save that soul

We all recognize that the sinful soul will not choose God: prevenient grace is required for the soul to turn to God. This has been repeated ad nauseum. We are not saved by our free will, we are saved by God’ election (see Aquinas, et al). Some are not chosen for salvation.

Free will and predestination have been reconciled. I get the impression there is an unhealthy, un-Traditional and unScriptural overemphasis on free will going on here among the Catholics.
Please explain the difference between your position and Pelagianism. I think Augustine would rebuke you sharply.

-Tina “Not that I am Augustine, Either” G

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TinaG,

Just like Augustine defined adn used the term ‘predestination’ does not mean that Calvin followed him. Calvin just used the term and supplied his own meaning. The entire thrust of Calvin’s OSAS is that man does NOT have a Free Will.

There is NOTHING even vaguely resembling this denial of Free Will and anything written by St. Thomas. Here is the link from the Summa that proves that statement: newadvent.org/summa/1083.htm

Now, if you have another link, where St Thomas is denying Free Will and advancing the idea that we are either saved or damned by a capricious God - as Calvin proposes with his invention of OSAS - then please produce it. Otherwise, trying to make such a claim is what is specious.

I think it would be good to take a clear look at just what Free Will is and that Calvin is denying it. Truly, OSAS is totally hinged on the absence of Free Will - demonstrate that Free Will exists and this heresy is unmasked for the imposter it is. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

I. THE JUDGMENT OF CONSCIENCE

1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:

Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.50
1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection:

Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.51
1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.

1781 Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. The verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it calls to mind the forgiveness that must be asked, the good that must still be practiced, and the virtue that must be constantly cultivated with the grace of God:

We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.52

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

And, here is the link where you can obtain even more information: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm

God bless

Hi!

This thread is moving so fast it is hard for me to keep up, as I cannot devote a whole lot of time to it.

I posted material regarding Aquinas’ Summa Theologica Question 23 in which he affirmed the decision for salvation is in God not in man (i.e man’s will does not decide this) and he also affirmed reprobation - some men are created for hell. It is not clear to me that the Catholics on this thread are not attacking Thomist statements from a Molinist viewpoint, or perhaps more precisely, statements in common between STA and “OSAS” proponents, rather than separating out those ideas that are NOT shared between STA and OSAS.

The argument I am making, and I think Sig is also, is that the “OSAS” position has been with us from the foundation of the Church. I am not convinced that it was particularly discussed that much before the Reformation, as other issues (the Trinity, Eucharist, etc.) were at play in the Church, and so the Catholic claim that the church has always denied OSAS is specious - because if it has always denied it, that means there was something to deny, and hence it cannot be some innovation of the 1500s. I suspect the Catholics are trying to have their cake and eat it too here.

-Tina “Still Not a Thomist” G

 

[Sig]

Hi!

This thread is moving so fast it is hard for me to keep up, as I cannot devote a whole lot of time to it.

I posted material regarding Aquinas’ Summa Theologica Question 23 in which he affirmed the decision for salvation is in God not in man (i.e man’s will does not decide this) and he also affirmed reprobation - some men are created for hell. It is not clear to me that the Catholics on this thread are not attacking Thomist statements from a Molinist viewpoint, or perhaps more precisely, statements in common between STA and “OSAS” proponents, rather than separating out those ideas that are NOT shared between STA and OSAS.

The argument I am making, and I think Sig is also, is that the “OSAS” position has been with us from the foundation of the Church. I am not convinced that it was particularly discussed that much before the Reformation, as other issues (the Trinity, Eucharist, etc.) were at play in the Church, and so the Catholic claim that the church has always denied OSAS is specious - because if it has always denied it, that means there was something to deny, and hence it cannot be some innovation of the 1500s. I suspect the Catholics are trying to have their cake and eat it too here.

-Tina “Still Not a Thomist” G

Thanks Tina. I’ll take a look for your link.

 

[Sig]

I thought you were looking for truth, not pridefully wishing to win an argument with me! Than again the Duh comment speaks volumes about your pride. But I forgot you are already saved, so you have no need to be humble.

Pot, meet kettle.

And what happens if he does not “bring it to fulfillment” as you state?

He will bring it to fulfilment ("for it is God who works in you both to will and to work…" (Php 2:12-13), remember, or have you forgotten?), it’s been established and guaranteed by God (Eph 1:13, 14; 1:21, 22; 1 Pet 1:3-5).

Now, that’s GOOD NEWS!

In your opinion he is already saved so why would he have to bring it to fulfillment??

“Completed in eternity past, worked out in time.” It’s what theologians refer to as the “already/not yet,” ever heard of it? Sure you have, in your little Catholic diddy: “I have been saved in the past, I am being saved in the present, I hope I will be saved in the future.” Pretty much the same idea, but the “already/not yet,” is much more definite than your “I hope so,” hope.

Were the Jews already saved when Jesus stated he came to fulfill the Law, or did they need to wait for his redemptive crucifixion?

Some were, those elect of God (“already/not yet.”)

I have an obligation to fulfill have I already done it before I fulfilled it???

An earthly question. I’m talking spiritual things. Look up.