The Mangling of Ephesians 2:8-9

[glorydaz]

In the first place...the "he will give" portion of that verse has been added by the translators. It is not said that way by Paul and it totally misleads anyone who hasn't been paying adequate attention to the argument in progress.

I am stunned to the point of disbelief.

You are making the same kind of argument that MM is making - claiming that you have knowledge of the original greek of these texts that has, mysteriously, been denied to the hundreds, if not thousands, of professional scholars who have given us the following translations, all of which include the phrase that you believe has been "added":

NET: He 1 will reward 2 each one according to his works: 3 eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality,

NIV: God "will give to each person according to what he has done". To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honour and immortality, he will give eternal life

NASB: who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

NLT: will judge all people according to what they have done. He will give eternal life to those who persist in doing what is good, seeking after the glory and honor and immortality that God offers.

BBE: Who will give to every man his right reward: To those who go on with good works in the hope of glory and honour and salvation from death, he will give eternal life:

NRSV: For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

NKJV: who "will render to each one according to his deeds": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality

All these texts say the same basic thing, albeit in different words, namely that God will give eternal life according to what people have done.

And, like MM, you are telling us that you have special privileged knowledge to the effect that all these scholars are incorrect. Here is the greek of 2:6 that you apparently believe has been somehow doctored by the scholars:

Ov apodwsei ekastw kata ta erga autou

The key word is apodwsei – which is, of course, “will give†– the very thing you deny.
Now please, tell us exactly why we should believe that you have knowledge about what was in the original manuscripts that the scholars have missed.

Simple, it wasn't in the original Scripture, and it doesn't fit with all the verses that surround it. Even more, it is absolutely contrary to the whole of Scripture, which is why you have to rely so heavily on this one verse. You also have to explain away "works" as always being the works of the law. Too much explaining going on, and too much ignoring of the bulk of the Word. Works of any kind by anyone do not earn us eternal life. It's a GIFT.

Here's a literal translation...

to those, indeed, who in continuance of a good work, do seek glory, and honour, and incorruptibility -- life age-during;

And here's the authorized version...

To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

And here's the American Standard...

to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:

I suggest instead of basing your entire doctrine on one verse, you look to the whole Word and see exactly how one is saved. It's the work of the cross...not man's efforts or man's doing in any way. We are saved by grace through faith...and that not of ourselves, but it's a GIFT. We are saved before we can ever produce any fruit, and in spite of what you claim, we are saved for all eternity when we are born of the Spirit. Why you ignore all the verses that tell us that quite plainly and hang on to those verses that are not as clear is a mystery to me. What is your gain? Does it edify the body to make them think they have to help Christ save and keep us...that the work of the cross was not sufficient in some way?

 

[glorydaz]

You are making the same kind of argument that MM is making - claiming that you have knowledge of the original greek of these texts that has, mysteriously, been denied to the hundreds, if not thousands, of professional scholars who have given us the following translations, all of which include the phrase that you believe has been "added"

I worry about the mental capacity of people who make these claims. Such claims, of course, question the entire veracity of Sacred Scriptures. This is clearly a case of text twisting the Scriptures to fit a particular interpretation that one brings to the table.

Clearly, Romans 2 tells us that even PAGANS can become Jews, spiritually. This has very little to do with "all men are wicked". Because of that faulty interpretation and focus, (because they don't know the OT) they completely lose sight of the FACT that the POINT is to knock the national Jews off their pedestal - showing how Jews with the Law are as uncircumcised, while some pagans without a written Law are as the circumcised, BECAUSE of their actions!

Regards

If I were you, I'd be more worried about claiming man isn't saved except when works or good deeds are added to the cross. Christ was all alone on that cross and man is forever seeking the glory. The work that saves IS the cross. Christ is the Redeemer, we are the recipient of the Gift. The work of saving is His...the work of keeping is His, and the fruit He produces in our lives is His. And, yes, even our righteousness is His. "Our" righteousness is not perfect and it would have to be perfect in order to save us. It's such a simple message...timeless, and you two are simply leaning on your own understanding.

 

[francisdesales]

If I were you, I'd be more worried about claiming man isn't saved except when works or good deeds are added to the cross.

You are yet again confused on salvation and its various definitions. Why must you continue with these misrepresentations?

Furthermore, I don't "add" anything to the cross. The Cross makes my good deeds salvific in the first place! Why? Because it is Christ who lives within me when I love. It's not me alone.

And, yes, even our righteousness is His. "Our" righteousness is not perfect and it would have to be perfect in order to save us.

Only someone under the Law. I'm not under the Law, so God, in His wonderful graciousness, does not require me to be absolutely perfect.

It's such a simple message...timeless, and you two are simply leaning on your own understanding.

I have laid out my arguments and you provide THIS???

Please...

 

[glorydaz]

If I were you, I'd be more worried about claiming man isn't saved except when works or good deeds are added to the cross.

You are yet again confused on salvation and its various definitions. Why must you continue with these misrepresentations?

Furthermore, I don't "add" anything to the cross. The Cross makes my good deeds salvific in the first place! Why? Because it is Christ who lives within me when I love. It's not me alone.

And, yes, even our righteousness is His. "Our" righteousness is not perfect and it would have to be perfect in order to save us.

Only someone under the Law. I'm not under the Law, so God, in His wonderful graciousness, does not require me to be absolutely perfect.

It's such a simple message...timeless, and you two are simply leaning on your own understanding.

I have laid out my arguments and you provide THIS???

Please...

Your arguments seemed to be concerned with my "mental capacity". Just how much would you like me write about that? :biglaugh

It's Christ's faith that justified you, too. So since He justified you, saved you, and lives through you, where's the beef?

 

[francisdesales]

Your arguments seemed to be concerned with my "mental capacity". Just how much would you like me write about that? :biglaugh

I am not conerned with your mental capacity, but your incorrect or incomplete definitions...

You have not responded, except the usual simple denial without evidence, while the Bible points out various useages of the word "save".

It's Christ's faith that justified you, too. So since He justified you, saved you, and lives through you, where's the beef?

Christ's WORK justified me. I am also waiting for a response to what Christ had faith IN?

The beef is improper understanding of Scriptures that proclaims that we cannot lose our saved status with God. This can lead others to major mistakes.

Regards

 

[Drew]

Simple, it wasn't in the original Scripture,....

How do you know this gd? How do you know what was in the original manuscripts? If you have a greek version of the letter to the Romans that all the scholars do not have access to, then I suggest you immediately present yourself to the nearest reputable university and you will shortly be on CNN.

Let's not mince words here. You are asserting one of the following:

1. I, glorydaz, have access to an earlier version of the letter than do the scholars who have all generated the phrase "he will give";

2. The scholars are all conspiring to add something that is not in the greek manuscripts.

Please.

 

[Drew]

I suggest instead of basing your entire doctrine on one verse, you look to the whole Word and see exactly how one is saved. It's the work of the cross...not man's efforts or man's doing in any way.

I have been crystal clear about this: the good works justify us at the Romans 2 judgement are generated by the action of the Holy Spirit.

Are you not reading my posts? Are you projecting your ideas about what I believe onto me, instead of taking me at my word?

To imply that I believe that "man's efforts" save is a complete and total distortion and misrepresentation of what I have said over and over and over and over.

Please stop.

 

[Vic C.]

Ok, time out.

The problem with classic Protestantism is that it equates "work" with ALL things we do, to include good deeds without the INTENT to earn a reward! Thus, the "total depravity" concept, that man can do absolutely nothing, EVEN when vivified by the Holy Spirit. The often carted-out "filthy rags" taken out of context. Thus, the invention of imputed righteousness, rather than infused righteousness. We are not "really" righteous, we are "covered", it is pretend righteousenss.

Joe,

What you stated about total depravity is not taught by those who believe in total depravity. They teach that no one can do what God deems as righteous in HIS eyes, unless they are vivified (regenerated, born again, etc.) They teach that with God, man can not and would not choose God.

They don't teach what you suggested. Plus, scripture does indeed teach about righteousness being imputed upon the believer. Those who promote any type of good works based salvation will struggle with this doctrine. But deny it or not, it is not an "invention".

But I didn't post to debate. I posted to address part of your first statement:

The problem with classic Protestantism is that it equates "work" with ALL things we do, to include good deeds without the INTENT to earn a reward!

Just as the idea of all humor being at the expense of someone or something, there may be no such thing as a "selfless act".

But for those of you who interject the belief that Eph. 2 is really suggesting works actually mean works of Moses or works of the law, I want to see a list of these works. Without them, this whole argument is fruitless. So, choose which of the 613 laws apply to this belief.

Thanks.

One more thing; Tone down the negative rhetoric and veiled insults toward each other. Please!

 

[Drew]

The problem with classic Protestantism is that it equates "work" with ALL things we do, to include good deeds without the INTENT to earn a reward! Thus, the "total depravity" concept, that man can do absolutely nothing, EVEN when vivified by the Holy Spirit. The often carted-out "filthy rags" taken out of context. Thus, the invention of imputed righteousness, rather than infused righteousness. We are not "really" righteous, we are "covered", it is pretend righteousenss.

Joe,

What you stated about total depravity is not taught by those who believe in total depravity. They teach that no one can do what God deems as righteous in HIS eyes, unless they are vivified (regenerated, born again, etc.) They teach that with God, man can not and would not choose God.

Vic, there are certainly those in this thread who are indeed taking the position that fds is asserting. One poster, in particular, argues against the possibility of ultimate justification by good works by invoking Romans 3 statements about how man is hopelessly depraved. This amounts to exactly the position that fds is critiquing - it is a denial of the power of the Holy Spirit as described in Romans 8.

Plus, scripture does indeed teach about righteousness being imputed upon the believer. Those who promote any type of good works based salvation will struggle with this doctrine.

Not all of us. I do not struggle with it. Perhaps people think that I do because they import what I say into their model of the nature of justification and see a problem. Well, no kidding.

If you have a model where salvation is a "one - time" event, then, of course, it is not possible to square imputed righteousness with ultimate salvation by good works. But this is not Paul’ s model – Paul’s model is more subtle and speaks of justification / salvation in both present and future tenses.

In Paul’s model, the concept of imputed righteousness coheres perfectly well with ultimate justification by works. How? Its not really that complicated. Paul does indeed teach about “imputed righteousness†but he does not teach that we are imputed with Christ’s righteousness. Here fds may or may not agree. Fine, let’s worry about that later. What we are imputed with is the simple righteousness of the person acquitted in the lawcourt – it is not “somebody else’s†righteousness. Here is how this works: Because God knows that the Holy Spirit will indeed transform the believer into the image of Christ, He (God) can say, in the present, “this person has been imputed righteousnessâ€. It is anticipatory language – God knows that the Spirit will indeed transform the person into one who will pass the Romans 2 “good works†judgement. So there is no conflict at all between imputed righteousness and salvation by good works.

As always, Romans 2:6-7 – Paul means what he says.

 

[Drew]

Simple, it wasn't in the original Scripture, and it doesn't fit with all the verses that surround it. Even more, it is absolutely contrary to the whole of Scripture, which is why you have to rely so heavily on this one verse.

Let me ask a very direct, and I hope very precise question. Are you concluding that, despite how all the scholars translate Romans 2:6-7, that these translations are not true to the original manuscripts because "it is absolutely contrary to the whole of Scripture"?

 

[glorydaz]

Simple, it wasn't in the original Scripture, and it doesn't fit with all the verses that surround it. Even more, it is absolutely contrary to the whole of Scripture, which is why you have to rely so heavily on this one verse.

Let me ask a very direct, and I hope very precise question. Are you concluding that, despite how all the scholars translate Romans 2:6-7, that these translations are not true to the original manuscripts because "it is absolutely contrary to the whole of Scripture"?

In the first place, not all scholars translate Romans the way you do.

In the second place, yes, I would say those translations are incorrect. The King James on the other hand, as written, does read in agreement with the whole of Scripture. It's perfectly clear to me what Paul is saying....especially when taken in context. When you rip it out of context, and insert words that were never there, it is very contrary to the whole of Scripture.

If those words were in the original, I would have to say Paul is being facetious. It certainly wouldn't be the first time Paul says something, tongue in cheek. He is asking and answering his own questions as if he were speaking to a Jew...it's called persuasive argument, and that exactly what he's doing. He does the same to the Corinthian Church, BTW, and I've seen people read him incorrectly there, as well.

The fact remains, when read in context, it make total sense and is in agreement with all the Word. Especially with the verses you claim say something else...Like Eph. 2. I don't agree with your interpretation of that or Romans 4 and 8, either.

 

[Drew]

In the first place, not all scholars translate Romans the way you do.

No. They are all clear in respect to the text in question - there will be a judgement at which eternal life is awarde. In opposition to your postion, all these translations have a "he will give eternal life" sense to them:

NET: He 1 will reward 2 each one according to his works: 3 eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality,

NIV: God "will give to each person according to what he has done". To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honour and immortality, he will give eternal life

NASB: who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

NLT: will judge all people according to what they have done. He will give eternal life to those who persist in doing what is good, seeking after the glory and honor and immortality that God offers.

BBE: Who will give to every man his right reward: To those who go on with good works in the hope of glory and honour and salvation from death, he will give eternal life:

NRSV: For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

NKJV: who "will render to each one according to his deeds": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality

 

[Drew]

In the second place, yes, I would say those translations are incorrect. The King James on the other hand, as written, does read in agreement with the whole of Scripture. It's perfectly clear to me what Paul is saying....especially when taken in context. When you rip it out of context, and insert words that were never there, it is very contrary to the whole of Scripture.

No gd.

Here is the KJV:

Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

This is a clear assertion that God will give eternal life to each person in accordance with their deeds. That is simply the correct reading of this text as two english sentences.

 

[Drew]

If those words were in the original,....

Are you, or are you not, sticking with your claim that, despite how all the scholars have interpreted this text, the expression "he will give" or "he will render" is not in the original text? I really suggest that you back off on this view. It really challenges credulity - implying that you have knowledge about what Paul originally wrote, despite the fact that all the translations have "he will give" or "he will render".

I would have to say Paul is being facetious. It certainly wouldn't be the first time Paul says something, tongue in cheek.

OK. On what basis do you conclude he is being facetious. That's quite something to be facetious about - saying that people will get eternal life based on good works and "just kidding around".

What is your justification for concluding that he is being facetious?

That Paul denies justification by good works? Paul never says anything of the sort. As part of his argument to the church at Rome, he tells the Jewish members that God does not limit justification to them - to those who do the works of the Law of Moses.

That Paul says its impossible for people to do good works? No person who has Romans 8 in their BIble and has read it would draw such a conclusion:

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

So, then, since neither of these arguments works, please tell us precisely why Paul is being "facetious" here as you suggest?


Or do you stick with the "faulty translation" argument?

 

[glorydaz]

In Paul’s model, the concept of imputed righteousness coheres perfectly well with ultimate justification by works. How? Its not really that complicated. Paul does indeed teach about “imputed righteousness†but he does not teach that we are imputed with Christ’s righteousness. Here fds may or may not agree. Fine, let’s worry about that later. What we are imputed with is the simple righteousness of the person acquitted in the lawcourt – it is not “somebody else’s†righteousness. Here is how this works: Because God knows that the Holy Spirit will indeed transform the believer into the image of Christ, He (God) can say, in the present, “this person has been imputed righteousnessâ€. It is anticipatory language – God knows that the Spirit will indeed transform the person into one who will pass the Romans 2 “good works†judgement. So there is no conflict at all between imputed righteousness and salvation by good works.

As always, Romans 2:6-7 – Paul means what he says.

I'm thinking the reason you believe this is because the "faith of Jesus Christ" has been removed from your translation of the Bible. Man's faith is not capable of justifying man before God. And yet we see what the new modern translations have done. They have put our faith in Christ as what obtains the righteousness of God.

Our faith is "counted as righteousness" because we are in Christ...not because our faith is good enough to forgive sin, or justify, or sanctify. I'll say this, Drew, about your theory...."simple righteousness" is not capable of justifying us before God. It takes perfect righteousness and even with the help of the Holy Spirit, man cannot achieve his own salvation.

God's righteousness is by the faith of Jesus Christ unto all that believe. From Him to us.
NIV would have you believe that the righteousness of God which is by faith in Christ unto all that believe. From us to us. Christ did what we could never do for ourselves...but man gets all the glory.

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

This is claiming man is justified by our faith in Him......

know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

Fortunately, Young's makes it clear for anyone who hasn't fallen for the error we see all around us.

having known also that a man is not declared righteous by works of law, if not through the faith of Jesus Christ, also we in Christ Jesus did believe, that we might be declared righteous by the faith of Christ, and not by works of law, wherefore declared righteous by works of law shall be no flesh.'

I'm simply aghast and dumbfounded by how the Word has been corrupted. I guess I'm a KJV only person from here on out. I also realize, now, why there is so much error being produced.

 

[glorydaz]

In the second place, yes, I would say those translations are incorrect. The King James on the other hand, as written, does read in agreement with the whole of Scripture. It's perfectly clear to me what Paul is saying....especially when taken in context. When you rip it out of context, and insert words that were never there, it is very contrary to the whole of Scripture.

No gd.

Here is the KJV:

Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

This is a clear assertion that God will give eternal life to each person in accordance with their deeds. That is simply the correct reading of this text as two english sentences.

You don't have to tell me what the KJ says...I've posted it many times. It does not say, "He will give" eternal life. And you can continue to ignore the entire context as well as everything else Paul says, but it will be to your own detriment...not mine. I understand totally what Paul is saying, and it's not that anyone will ever receive eternal life by doing good deeds. We are saved by grace through faith...and not our own. Preaching error is a serious thing, Drew. You're denying the Lord who BOUGHT you...with a price. That price does not include any good deeds you or anyone else is capable of producing, even when filled with the Holy Spirit. A lamb without blemish...and that isn't you.

 

[poohbah]

Re: precisely

Yes this is what he is talking about. And to say that people are not saved by the works of the Law of Moses - which would limit salvation to the Jew - is precisely what Paul should say if he is making the point you assert he is making.

what do you mean by limit here? the Jew has never been saved by works; all throughout history it has always been by 'grace'.

(Ty)

 

[poohbah]

No gd.

Here is the KJV:

Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

verse 7 says 'by' patient continuence; not 'through'.. if it were in ref. to the precede (6) being by deeds, it would have said 'through' to clarify.

Scripture always clarifies itself; our understanding needs to come through the H.S. because language (no matter which one used) will "define" and 'attempt to correct.' So, 'keep reading', it will explain itself if we don't tangle the meanings by our own defining and attempting..

 

[glorydaz]

Are you, or are you not, sticking with your claim that, despite how all the scholars have interpreted this text, the expression "he will give" or "he will render" is not in the original text? I really suggest that you back off on this view. It really challenges credulity - implying that you have knowledge about what Paul originally wrote, despite the fact that all the translations have "he will give" or "he will render".

Suggest whatever you like. I will continue to speak the truth against your false teaching.

Not only that, but you can claim "all the scholars" and "all the translations", but that's simply untrue.


And this is what I've been trying to tell you, Drew. You can't take a verse out of context.

We first must recognize that only Jesus is the righteous one. He walks this path of good works alone. Man always fails. No one can completely carry out God’s ways. We err before we are two years old. Paul will speak more of this later in the book when he speaks of the character of our old nature. In drawing this conclusion, it declares that all men have discredited themselves from this path of good works. Moralists and religionists profess an attempt to do good works but this is clearly not what they have. They smear their lives with a coating of self-righteousness.

The only way to gain these good works is through belief in Christ. Paul is providing us the right perspectives of life so that we have what we need to gain eternal life. He is at this point especially
destroying the confidence of the self-righteous person. Everyone else would easily confess to their lack of a righteous life. Before one can or will claim Christ’s righteousness, though, he must first admit (confess) to his lack of a righteous life and the need to have that righteous life.

In summary, Paul is stating that our eternal state is judged not by what we believe about ourselves but by how we live before God. Paul will amplify this thought in the verses to come. It is important for us to realize that Paul is not addressing the issue as to how to get to heaven (he does this later) but who is going to heaven (no one because they fall short as he will teach in the last part of chapter 2 and the first part of chapter 3). This argument is similar to I John where there exists tests to determine one’s salvation.

Paul is attacking the false security of the men and women who are supposedly saved by their righteous deeds. Paul confronts them right where they feel the strongest, but it is their deception that makes them so blind. Again, one cannot presume to be saved on the basis of who a person is, such as being a Jew, an elder, a faithful church goer, but one’s genuine sense of security is derived from a godly life. Paul has everyone to look at their own behavior rather than on their background, for otherwise, man will be able to hide his sin. Paul further aids us to do this through the following verses.

http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Re ... ntary.html

The possibility of a man being declared righteous on the basis of his own works is mentioned here, but it is only hypothetical as Paul will demonstrate. There is no problem here with Paul speaking of men being rewarded with eternal life for their (own) righteousness, because no man will ever attain this high standard of conduct. No man’s good works are ever sufficient to save him, but every man’s sinful works are sufficient to condemn him.

Just as the self-righteous have judged the “heathen†to be sinners on the basis of their works, so God judges the “righteous†by their works, and they fail the test. The self-righteous fail to live up to the standard which they require of others. And thus, while these “judges†are right in concluding that those they judge are sinners, they are foolish not to see themselves as sinners as well. When the standard for judgment is a man’s works, every man fails to meet the standard.

http://bible.org/seriespage/coming-wrat ... mans-21-29

 

[francisdesales]

The problem with classic Protestantism is that it equates "work" with ALL things we do, to include good deeds without the INTENT to earn a reward! Thus, the "total depravity" concept, that man can do absolutely nothing, EVEN when vivified by the Holy Spirit. The often carted-out "filthy rags" taken out of context. Thus, the invention of imputed righteousness, rather than infused righteousness. We are not "really" righteous, we are "covered", it is pretend righteousenss.

Joe,

What you stated about total depravity is not taught by those who believe in total depravity. They teach that no one can do what God deems as righteous in HIS eyes, unless they are vivified (regenerated, born again, etc.) They teach that with God, man can not and would not choose God.

Not classic Protestantism as invented by Luther and Calvin.

Man can do absolutely NOTHING righteous, not even in Christ. THUS, Christ must "cover" mankind, "hide" him from the wrath of God. Even in this state, man is STILL a sinner, Vic. through and through.

Now, perhaps newer versions of total depravity have changed. But your last sentence speaks volumes about total depravity - EVEN WITH God, we can do nothing! Sins are NOT forgiven, they are just covered. We are not regenerated, God pretends we are by some legal concept. Whatever happened to the New Creation, Vic???

They don't teach what you suggested. Plus, scripture does indeed teach about righteousness being imputed upon the believer.

yes, but it ALSO teaches that we are infused with God's OWN righteousness. We SHARE in the divine nature! This is not just an imputation, where we REMAIN in sin and God pretends WE are righteous.

Those who promote any type of good works based salvation will struggle with this doctrine. But deny it or not, it is not an "invention".

Faith without works is dead, Vic. All the faith to move mountains is NOTHING, without Love. Nothing matters but faith WORKING in love, Vic.

As to not being an invention, please show me a citation from a Church Father that speaks about fiduciary justification. That repentance, obedience, love are not necessary to enter the Kingdom, just a firm belief that Christ's work saved us, and continue to sin, as long as you just believe...

Is it a wonder that even many Protestants rebeled against this separation of religion from ethics?

One more thing; Tone down the negative rhetoric and veiled insults toward each other. Please!

Frustration has a way of bring out the worse in people... We'll try...