Salvation by grace through faith; not through works / law-keeping.

[Tenchi]

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts.

2 Peter 2:1
1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

See? We can all misquote Scripture at each other, thinking we are right and sanctified in doing so because our words are God's word. Are you a false prophet, though? Is this how you see yourself? I doubt it. But I've quoted the above passage at you - like you did at me - so you must be a false prophet, right? That's how your thinking goes, apparently.

Anyway, a misapplied quotation from God's word is not an effective argument for your view, nor is it anything like a rebuttal of mine.

A scoffer: condemning something he knows nothing about.

Your simply saying so doesn't make it so. Have you got anything else but raw, unfounded assertions and ad hominem?

Particularly believing it's not possible for himself, and so not for anyone else either. A judge of others based upon his own stated ignorance and failure.

Try actually reading my posts. Goodness. Everything I've asserted about the silly sinless perfection view I've grounded in Scripture. But, I understand it's easier for you to fallaciously attack the man - ad hominem - though doing so doesn't advance your view in the slightest.

The scoffing is about God's written word.

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

Well, let's see how you're mishandling God's word here...

Matthew 5:48 (NASB)
48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

When did Jesus say this? After his atonement at Calvary? No, before.

Was Jesus speaking to born-again Christians? No, primarily to Jews still under the Old Mosaic Covenant.

Did Jesus speak of the indwelling Holy Spirit empowering his listeners to right living? No. Did he say anything about being born-again by the Spirit? No.

So, in the verse from Matthew 5, Jesus was speaking to spiritually-unregenerate Jews within an Old Covenant context, setting before them the unachievable standard of the law plus his many standard-increasing "but I say to you" statements. How does verse 48 apply, then, to people under the New Covenant, free from the death-dealing letter of the law (Romans 7:6; Galatians 3:23-27), reconciled to God through the saving work of Christ (Colossians 1:20) and operating on the basis of the life of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5; Philippians 2:13; Philippians 4:13; 2 Corinthians 3:16, Romans 8:13, etc.)? Well, obviously, it doesn't. At all. The New Covenant believer is made entirely righteous - justified - by the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to them by faith. Christ has met the impossible standard for them, he has fulfilled the law, and has, as the perfect Beloved of God (Ephesians 1:6), become the born-again believer's very life (Colossians 3:4; John 14:6).

Your poor handling of Matthew 5:48 has led you to think it applies to you and all born-again believers when it clearly doesn't. It is this poor handling of Scripture that plagues all of your sinless-perfection "doctrine."

What about the verse from Philippians 3 that you quoted? Let's see...

Philippians 3:12-16 (NASB)
12 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.
13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead,
14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
15 Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you;
16 however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained.

Paul says in verse 12 that he had not "obtained" nor had he "already become perfect." That's the very opposite of what sinless-perfection folk like yourself are asserting! Paul was an apostle, the second greatest contributor to the New Testament after the apostle John, but he hadn't yet "become perfect". He goes on to say that he hadn't yet "laid hold of it" but continued to press on toward the "prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." But this all indicates that you are wrong RBDERRICK: Paul had not arrived morally, or spiritually; he was in process, moving toward an end-goal yet to be achieved. You, though, are contending that such cannot be the case for a born-again person; they must be perfect in their conduct, or they're not saved. Who's got it right, then? You? Or one of the most-recognized apostles of Jesus Christ and the second greatest contributor to the New Testament? I'm not going with you, that's for sure.

What did Paul mean in verse 15? "Let us therefore, as many as are perfect..." he wrote, though he had just indicated that he wasn't perfect. Well, in verse 15, "perfect" is, in Greek, "teleios" which means "mature," or "complete." In verse 12, however, "perfect" in Greek is "teleioo" which conveys the idea of being "completed, accomplished, fulfilled, or brought to an end." So, Paul wrote in verse 12 that he had not yet been completed, fulfilled, or brought to an end which end was:

- knowing Christ (vs. 8).
- gaining Christ (vs. 12).
- being found in Christ, not having a righteousness derived from the law but from faith (vs. 9).
- knowing the power of Christ's resurrection, his sufferings, and death (vs. 10).

In these things, Paul was in process, coming into a fuller and fuller experience of them over time and so could not claim to have already attained to them, as sinless-perfection advocates do.

In verse 15, when Paul wrote of "as many as are perfect," he was not referring to those who had arrived at the "upward call of God in Christ Jesus" and were living in a perfect experience of what Paul had given up all to obtain. No, what Paul meant was that those who were mature should have the attitude of persistence, of "pressing on," so that they might obtain the fullest experience of Christ possible.

Your second quoted verse, then, doesn't make your sinless-perfection case for you at all but actually, in context, argues against your faulty view.

 

[Tenchi]

And the verse from the epistle of James that you quoted? Does it help your case any?

James 1:2-5 (NASB)
2 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials,
3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance.
4 And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.

James encouraged his "brethren" in the faith to be joyful and enduring in the face of the testing of their faith so that they might enjoy the "perfect result" of such testing and "lack nothing." But it is implied in what James wrote that they would obtain by testing what they didn't yet possess, or possessed in a degree that could be improved. Such a condition spiritually isn't possible for the sinlessly-perfect person, though, is it? Sinless perfection would preclude the absence of any lack, of any need to be made "perfect and complete." James is very plain, though, that the "brethren" would be tested and could be improved by such testing so that they could, in time, after they had endure testing, arrive at place spiritually where they were "lacking in nothing."

The verse from James' letter, then, that you quoted, RBDERRICK, doesn't help your sinless-perfection view, either, but actually indicates its opposite.

The faith of the double hearted: perfect but not perfect.

The delusion of faith alone without works: perfect in heart but sinful in life.

Just Strawman rhetoric, here, nothing more.

The man Jesus was not perfect like God on the throne, because like us when He became a man in the flesh, He was tempted in all things, but without sinning.

This remark of yours here is, on its face, nonsensical. Was Jesus on earth just like God on His throne? No. But this isn't what divine perfection entails. Divine perfection has to do with the nature of deity, not the location of deity. This is obvious to anyone not having to argue for false doctrine... See Colossians 1:15, 19 and 2:9. See John 1:1-4.

We are called to the same virtue of Jesus on earth, to endure temptation without sinning unto the end.

You are making the end goal the means to it. You are also locating salvation in corrupt, flawed human righteousness rather than in the perfect imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Clearly, you don't understand God's truth very well.

The lie of scoffers, is that walking virtuously as Jesus, is being as God in heaven. Since that's not possible, then they conclude neither is it possible to walk as Jesus walked on earth.

Just more Strawman arguing here.

It also accuses Jesus as being a sinner like themselves, because unlike God in heaven, He was tempted to sin.

They make having a perfect and whole heart toward God, into a perfection of mind that cannot be tempted.

I don't.

They do so in order to declare having the virtue of Jesus and always pleasing God, to be impossible 'perfectionism'. This they do in order to justify walking after the flesh, as being inevitable.

See above. See my earlier posts. We are perfectly justified in and by Jesus Christ and ONLY in and by him. It is ONLY because this is so that God accepts any of us.

2 Corinthians 5:21 (NASB)
21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

1 Corinthians 1:30-31 (NASB)
30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,
31 so that, just as it is written, "Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord."

Romans 3:24-27 (NASB)
24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.

Acts 4:12 (NASB)
12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I have concluded in another thread, that arguing with another gospel of dead faith alone without works, is as useless as debating other kinds of dead faiths, that are not the faith of Jesus, whether Buddhist, Muslim, New Age, etc...

The saints in Christ Jesus can only reconfirm His faith is never without doing God's will, and move on.

You're not the first one to misunderstand, both, James' 'faith alone' argument, and Paul's 'righteousness apart from works' argument (they are not one and the same argument). And you've made it all the worse with this 'sinless perfection' theology. But that's where you're at, and you can stay there if you want.

 

[RBDERRICK]

See? We can all misquote Scripture at each other, thinking we are right and sanctified in doing so because our words are God's word. Are you a false prophet, though? Is this how you see yourself? I doubt it. But I've quoted the above passage at you - like you did at me - so you must be a false prophet, right? That's how your thinking goes, apparently.

I don't mind being called a false teacher, prophet, nor apostle, especially if it is proven accurate, so that I can repent. False teaching isn't as much a problem as refusing to be corrected of it. Every Christian, including the apostles have been shown to teach wrongly at one time or another. Peter needed the rebuke of Paul to his face, in order to cease his Judaizing hypocrisy once for all. Peter repented and honored his beloved brother Paul for doing so.

There is of course a plain difference between rebuking someone's plain words, than just childish name-calling.

Scripture several times rebukes them scoffing at being perfect with God

For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Jesus often showed by Scripture how the words of others were contrary to doctrine of God. The unrepentant ones just started name-calling in return.

Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

 

[Tenchi]

Every Christian, including the apostles have been shown to teach wrongly at one time or another.

Well, Paul confronted Peter's fear of the Jews (which was not a teaching issue, but a personal issue), but there is no biblical record of Paul, John, Peter, or any of the other apostles, "teaching wrongly."

I don't mind being called a false teacher, prophet, nor apostle, especially if it is proven accurate, so that I can repent.

The slippery, disingenuous thing about this remark is that you retain the ultimate "deciding vote" about what you ought to repent of. In this thread, you've been shown much from Scripture that defies your view, but there is no hint of repentance from your view in your posts. Instead, you contend that your critics are in error. Why, then, would you mind being accused of being a false teacher, or prophet, by them? You can just do as you have in this thread and say that the views of your opponents are unconvincing, or simply mistaken, and thus require no repentance on your part. So, you aren't really open to being criticized and repenting of your errors; you're your own Final Arbiter and will always come down in your favor even when you've been shown to be in error. There's nothing noble, or virtuous, then, in what you wrote above.

There is of course a plain difference between rebuking someone's plain words, than just childish name-calling.

Says the person who's done a fair number of ad hominem attacks in this thread...

The unrepentant ones just started name-calling in return.

As you've done in a roundabout way in this thread.

 

[RBDERRICK]

You're not the first one to misunderstand, both, James' 'faith alone' argument,

and Paul's 'righteousness apart from works' argument (they are not one and the same argument).

Since you've decided to return, let's compare the faith with works gospel and the faith without works gospel, because they certainly are not the same gospel.

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

The faith with works gospel says faith without works is dead, being alone. What does the faith without works gospel preach? Faith without works is alive, because it's alone?

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

The faith with works gospel says faith having not works cannot save a man. What does the faith without works say? A faith having not works can save a man?

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

The faith with works gospel says a man is justified by works and not by faith only. What does the faith alone without works gospel say? A man is justified by faith only and not by works?

As I said, I no longer argue with the faith alone gospel, but just make comparison between the faith with works gospel and the faith without works gospel. They're not only not the same, but exactly the opposite of one another.

I preach the faith with works gospel.

and Paul's 'righteousness apart from works' argument (they are not one and the same argument)

Since Paul the apostle of Jesus Christ never speaks of faith being alone, nor faith only, nor even says the words faith apart from works, then such a gospel is not Paul's but that of another.

And you've made it all the worse with this 'sinless perfection' theology.

The sinless perfection theology is worse than the sinful imperfect one? The perfect gospel of not sinning is worse than the imperfect gospel of sinning?

I disagree. I say the perfect faith with works gospel far exceeds in righteousness, holiness, and godly virtue, the imperfect faith without works gospel.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Doing righteousness lawfully is always better than doing unrighteousness unlawfully, at least so far as the doers of God's word are concerned.

What does the faith only hearers not doing the word say? Doing unrighteousness at times is better than doing righteousness at all times?

Blessed are they that keep judgment, and he that doeth righteousness at all times.

The faith with works gospel says them doing righteousness at all times are blessed. What does the faith without works gospel preach? Them doing righteousness at all times is not blessed? Them doing unrighteousness at times are the blessed ones?

 

[Hopeful 2]

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (ESV)

Is Paul not saying that no works, at all, are involved in our salvation? Works are the evidence of our faith, not a means of salvation, or more properly, justification.

Paul is referring to the works of the Law.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Since you've decided to return, let's compare the faith with works gospel and the faith without works gospel, because they certainly are not the same gospel.

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

The faith with works gospel says faith without works is dead, being alone. What does the faith without works gospel preach? Faith without works is alive, because it's alone?

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

The faith with works gospel says faith having not works cannot save a man. What does the faith without works say? A faith having not works can save a man?

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

The faith with works gospel says a man is justified by works and not by faith only. What does the faith alone without works gospel say? A man is justified by faith only and not by works?

As I said, I no longer argue with the faith alone gospel, but just make comparison between the faith with works gospel and the faith without works gospel. They're not only not the same, but exactly the opposite of one another.

I preach the faith with works gospel.



Since Paul the apostle of Jesus Christ never speaks of faith being alone, nor faith only, nor even says the words faith apart from works, then such a gospel is not Paul's but that of another.



The sinless perfection theology is worse than the sinful imperfect one? The perfect gospel of not sinning is worse than the imperfect gospel of sinning?

I disagree. I say the perfect faith with works gospel far exceeds in righteousness, holiness, and godly virtue, the imperfect faith without works gospel.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Doing righteousness lawfully is always better than doing unrighteousness unlawfully, at least so far as the doers of God's word are concerned.

What does the faith only hearers not doing the word say? Doing unrighteousness at times is better than doing righteousness at all times?

Blessed are they that keep judgment, and he that doeth righteousness at all times.

The faith with works gospel says them doing righteousness at all times are blessed. What does the faith without works gospel preach? Them doing righteousness at all times is not blessed? Them doing unrighteousness at times are the blessed ones?

You are on the right track, but keep mentioning that the "works" in question are those of the Mosaic Law...ie. circumcision, dietary rules, feast keeping, sabbath keeping, etc.
None of them makes a man righteous.

The real goal of the "without works" theology is the abandonment of repentance from sin and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins.
How devilish is that...

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What does the faith without works gospel preach? Faith without works is alive, because it's alone?

No.

It says a person receives the imputation of God’s righteousness apart from works.

 

[Deidr]

I define "salvation" as finding my name is in the book of life on the last day.
Until then, I will work out my salvation with fear and hope.
What you call "salvation", I call "conversion".

Cool explain the difference between conversion and salvation...tks

 

[Deidr]

Just noting that the Salvation in Ephesians is being quickened to life.

A dead person can't quicken themselves they need something existing outside of them to awaken them.

 

[Deidr]

"...either were already perfect..."

he is not only speaking of the resurrection of the dead.

1Jo 1:8, If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Gal 3:22, But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Rom 11:32 (nlt), For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone.

My question is they have sin in them, BUT DOES THAT MEAN THEY MUST SIN?

And if they all aRe under sin does that mean after receiving the Spirit they have to continually sin after that?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What does the faith without works say? A faith having not works can save a man?

No.

It says righteousness comes by faith apart from works.

You don’t become righteous with the righteousness that is from God by being righteous. You receive it by having faith in God’s promise of a Son.

 

[Free]

Paul is referring to the works of the Law.

Is he? First, there is no mention of the Law in the first two chapters, at least. Second, notice in verse 10 that he mentions good works which we are to walk in after we are saved. That comparison alone suggests Paul is not talking about works of the Law in verse 9, but all works in general. Third, salvation “is the gift of God … so that no one may boast.” If we had to do works to be saved (justified), then it wouldn’t be a gift, it would be merited, and we could boast. Fourth, it would remove any assurance of salvation.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Is he? First, there is no mention of the Law in the first two chapters, at least.

Of Ephesians?
Paul doesn't mention the Law until Eph 2:15, but he does mention it.
"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"

Second, notice in verse 10 that he mentions good works which we are to walk in after we are saved.

I noticed.
An after the fact, situation.
Then Paul goes on to discuss the former separation caused by the Law.

That comparison alone suggests Paul is not talking about works of the Law in verse 9, but all works in general. Third, salvation “is the gift of God … so that no one may boast.” If we had to do works to be saved (justified), then it wouldn’t be a gift, it would be merited, and we could boast. Fourth, it would remove any assurance of salvation.

Cite a couple of "works" you are willing to dispense with.
Hearing?
Believing?
Repentance from sin?
Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins?
Receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost?
Praying?
Studying?
Loving our neighbors as we love ourselves?
Enduring faithfully until the end?

 

[RBDERRICK]

Your simply saying so doesn't make it so.

True.

Have you got anything else but raw,

unfounded assertions and ad hominem?

Simply getting personally upset doesn't make it not so.

Have you got anything else but raw, unfounded assertions and ad hominem?

"Sinless perfection, however, is nonsense - Particularly because no one knows what such perfection actually is practically" (Pg 9, Post 163)

Someone says they don't know what sinless perfection is, and mocks it.

Erego: They mock what they are ignorant of. Raw logic children can understand.

"Particularly because no one knows what such perfection actually is practically" (Pg 9, Post 163)

Since you still don't know what sinless perfection is, after I have already explained it several times, I'll try once more.

The doctrine of sinless perfection in the Bible is, that there are two kinds of sinless perfection, one in heaven and one on earth. One is without temptation in heaven, the other with temptation on earth.

Here is sinless perfection of man on earth, that Jesus had as our example to follow:

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Here is sinless perfection of God in heaven, that Jesus now has and is our hope to arrive at:

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

The one is being tempted without sinning. The other is being without temptation to sin at all.

One is tempted but sinless on earth, and the other is temptation-less altogether in heaven.

By saying all perfection is only as God in heaven, Who cannot be tempted, we make temptation on earth a sin: the sin of imperfection.

Once that is lie is accepted, then we see how faith without works preachers erroneously declare all men sinners. And it is impossible not to be sinning on earth, since all men are tempted on earth.

This false doctrine of course would include Jesus, who also was tempted like all men. In fact, Jesus could well be accused of being the greatest sinner of all times, since He was tempted in all points more than all men. (But then, they also say Paul was the chiefest of sinners as a Christian.)

Scripture of course says otherwise:

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

This declares two things: Jesus was tempted as all men, but did not fall to temptation and sin like all men. And being tempted can yet be without sin: Being tempted is not a sin.

There is no such thing as a 'sin of imperfection', other than not having a heart perfect with God. (1 Kings 11:4, 15:3) Simply by being man in the flesh on earth, and not being God on the throne, is not a sin. Otherwise Jesus was also an 'imperfect sinner' on earth. There are no imperfect sinners, but only double-hearted ones.

And so, the practise of sinless perfection on earth, is by walking as Jesus walked in the flesh, enduring all temptation sinlessly. Sinless perfection on earth is being tempted, but without falling to it and sinning, just like Jesus.

The practise of sinless perfection in heaven is walking as Jesus walks now in heaven after His resurrection, by having no more temptation to overcome at all.

By teaching that walking as Jesus walked in the flesh, is the same as walking as Jesus now walks in heaven, is the crafty device used to declare it is impossible to be perfect with God like Jesus, and walk as He walked and now walks.

Once again Jesus did not walk on earth as He now walks in heaven, without temptation to overcome.

So it is with His saints now enduring temptation without sin as He did. We can be perfect in heart with God and walk as Jesus walked on earth by His Spirit and power within us. But we cannot walk as He walks now in heaven, until our own resurrection from the dead in His likeness.

Conclusion:

We are now called on earth to walk as Jesus walked in the flesh and enduring temptation. We are not called to walk as Jesus now walks in heaven, without temptation. Being tempted is not a sin, nor is it being 'imperfect' toward God.

The accusation against sinless perfection, as claiming to be as God in heaven, is false.

The teaching that temptation is sinful, because it is not perfect as God in heaven, is false.

Declaring that all men, which would include Jesus, are sinners by temptation alone, is false.

Declaring it is impossible not to sin on earth, because of being tempted, is false.

And equating temptation to sin, with falling to sin and committing it, is the final artifice for declaring all men will unavoidably commit sin with the flesh, even as we cannot avoid being tempted in the flesh.

This is how the faith without works gospel preaches that it is impossible to be perfect with God and walk like Jesus, since the preach it is 'imperfect sinning' to be tempted of the flesh. Neither Jesus nor any man is guilty of a 'sin of imperfection' by being tempted on earth.

The faith without works gospel is a false accusation against Jesus Christ, as being a sinner like all men, by being tempted as all men, and not being perfect as God on the throne without temptation.

He was tempted, and was not as God in heaven without temptation, but He certainly was not a sinner by being tempted, much less by committing acts of temptation.

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Nor was Paul the chiefest of sinners among 'sin-filled' Christians.

 

[RBDERRICK]

No.

So you agree faith without works is dead, being alone, and not alive to save nor justify any man.

It says righteousness comes by faith apart from works.

I appreciate your honesty. You preach the gospel of faith without works.

Since you agree that faith without works is not alive to save, but dead, being alone.

Then how is faith apart from works different from faith without works?

Is faith without or apart from works, faith alone or only?

You don’t become righteous with the righteousness that is from God by being righteous. You receive it by having faith in God’s promise of a Son.

And so faith apart from works doctrine separates becoming righteous with God, from being righteous with God.

How so?

 

[RBDERRICK]

Just noting that the Salvation in Ephesians is being quickened to life.

A dead person can't quicken themselves they need something existing outside of them to awaken them

The same as a sinner can't save themselves, but need Someone else to forgive them first. The modern feel-good theology of 'forgiving ourselves', is false.

There is no difference between salvation and conversion. The point being made is that in this life, we are still being saved and converted, but only in the next life with resurrection like Jesus, will be forever saved and converted.

Until then we must endure temptation and keep ourselves from sinning, to continue being saved and converted unto the end.
Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.

Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
The end of our faith in Jesus in this life, is eternal salvation by obeying Him in the end.

Also, It's not being perfect of heart with God always unto the end, but being perfect with God in the end.

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

How we are at the end, will be how we are forever.

That's why we should always be watchful and diligent in the faith, never thinking and acting like the end is not near, but rather is always at hand, whether by the grave or by His coming again in the air.

 

[Free]

Of Ephesians?
Paul doesn't mention the Law until Eph 2:15, but he does mention it.
"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"

I noticed.
An after the fact, situation.
Then Paul goes on to discuss the former separation caused by the Law.

Which doesn't have to do with the discussion preceding it. Eph 2:1-10 is all about God's grace. Note especially verses 1 and 2: "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world." And on he goes talking about they once were. But then in verse 4 that changes to God's mercy and love, which he then says is shown in him making "us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved." The first ten verses are all about salvation and that it is a gift. The works he mentions are works in general, as in trying to merit salvation.

Paul changes the discussion in verse 11 to that of the former separation between Jew and Gentile and how they have now been united as one in Christ. But this discussion is based on what was said in verses 1-10--"Therefore remember." He isn't talking about how one is saved in 2:11-22, but what was accomplished between Jew and Gentile based on their common salvation.

Cite a couple of "works" you are willing to dispense with.
Hearing?
Believing?
Repentance from sin?
Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins?
Receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost?
Praying?
Studying?
Loving our neighbors as we love ourselves?
Enduring faithfully until the end?

None of those things justifies a person, which is likely what the discussion is about, although I don't think that was ever clarified (it almost never is).

 

[RBDERRICK]

Hopeful.

I am starting this thread so as not to continue to derail the baptism thread where we began this discussion.

Salvation by grace through faith; not through works / law-keeping.​

The doctrine of faith without works: grace and faith without law.

The gospel of lawlessness.