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

[Jethro Bodine]

The fleshly minded old man was killed with Christ at its "immersion" into Christ's death. (Rom 6:6, Gal 5:24)

And this death that you think Paul is talking about is why the old man still speaks, right?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Now your getting it.
Temptations are usually just memories of what may have appealed to us before being reborn of God.

No, the Bible says it's the flesh.
If it's not that then it has to be the seed of God doing that in a person.

Your theology just doesn't add up. You have to keep inventing illogical answers to get around the obvious fact that in no way does being born again mean you never ever sin, not even once in the slightest of ways, not even in regard to committing sins of omission. You have the testimony, now and of centuries past, of countless born again people that know being a child of God means growing up into sinning less and less vs. the testimony of, what, 300 people I think you said it was in your sinless perfection church.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You got the message, but added your own reasoning to it.

You obviously don't know what Paul means to reckon yourself dead to sin. It doesn't mean you can't sin. It means you are to, by faith, believe that you do not have to give into the corrupt desires of the flesh when they speak to you. That would not be necessary if it was true that born again people can't ever sin. If that were true, Paul, nor anyone in all of church history would have to write anything about the necessity for born again people to resist sin and count themselves dead to it if it were true that they can't sin.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What you attribute to dead flesh, are really temptations from the devil.

Surely, the voice of demons is a source from which the flesh is aroused to sin. But why do we have to be told to resist the devil when he tempts us to commit sin that we are as born again people are utterly incapable of committing?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Sorry you have closed your mind.
If a liar cannot be saved, not telling lies will save him.
Your hypothetical reasoning perfectly describes the false faiths, but when seen from the perspective of the "new creature", it is the truth.
Most here say they have their salvation already.
The think falsely that telling lies won't impact their eventual judgement.
In that light you are correct in your assumption.
But in reality, the final day's judgement will determine our fate, and not telling lies, or murdering, or committing adultery, etc., will prove our conversion to God.
What did Jesus say in Matt 7:23..."And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Even as a Christian with the Holy Spirit inside of you, you will NEVER be righteous enough in thought and deed to enter into the kingdom of God. No one becomes righteous enough to enter the kingdom by being righteous. That is the works justification gospel condemned in scripture.

The only righteousness that will qualify you to enter the kingdom of God is the righteousness of God given to you as a free gift of his grace when you believe in the gospel message, apart from and without your works of righteousness. The ever-increasing traits of the Spirit will be used as the evidence that you have received this righteousness that is not of yourself and which comes from outside of yourself. But those traits are not the righteousness by which you become righteous. That is the theology of the son born according to the flesh, the son of Hagar. That son has no inheritance with the son born as the result of a promise. Galatians 4:23-30.

 

[RBDERRICK]

We humans can theorize about perfection but that's as close to understanding it as we can get.

For you theorizers yes. I don't theorize but teach the normal meaning of words in the Bible.

The Bible says God cannot be tempted with sin. Jesus is God come in the flesh. Jesus was tempted with sin.

The simple difference between sinless perfection of the man Jesus on earth, and that of God the Spirit, is being tempted.

The Bible teaches 2 kinds of sinless perfection at this time: that of overcoming all temptation on earth, and that without temptation in heaven.

If someone can see a flaw in this reasoning, then they can point it out. Otherwise, reverting to theorizing is just a device of justifying unbelief.

 

[RBDERRICK]

This is exactly why I used the word "nonsense" in reference to the idea of human sinless perfection.

Rejecting Jesus Christ coming in the flesh, and not being human, is not the doctrine of Christ.

You simply assert that there are two kinds of sinless perfection without defining what it is you mean by "sinless perfection."

The teaching the two kinds of sinless perfection from the words of the Bible, defines what sinless perfection is in heaven and on earth.

But before you can assert that there are two kinds of sinless perfection - which is a very problematic assertion on its face - you ought to explain what, exactly, you're talking about.

Twice is enough for any normal reader.

What does "without temptation" mean?

He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings.

They do so only to try and change the meaning of words into something else entirely different.

Why should perfection be connected to temptation and not something else?

And so it is agreed that sinless perfection on earth pertains to being tempted to sin, vs that of heaven where there is no temptation to sin at all.

The difference being one of location: being in natural flesh on earth, and in spiritual body in heaven.

When God became a man in the flesh, He gave up His sinless perfection without temptation, to be tempted in all points as men, to prove once for all, that the first Adam had no excuse, as well as no man since.

Not sinning in the flesh is proven possible by the human man Jesus, and so it is for His human man brethren living by Him.

How does perfection relate to the absence or presence of a thing? Isn't divine perfection its own thing, not improved or diminished by anything else, impervious to adjustment?

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

I don't do theory nor philosophy, when teaching the Bible.

These are just some of the many questions that need answering on the subject of perfection,

Not for me. The sure answer of Scripture is always better than unnecessary questions to endlessly theorize and philosophize over.

but you haven't even begun to explain any of them. And so, it's silliness to talk about living in sinless perfection.

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

While enjoying their own philosophical arguments and other such mental gymnastics.

You have no idea what it is you're talking about.

Whole lot of words just to say nah-ah.

On what grounds have you decided this verse from Hebrews is legitimate grounds for your idea about "sinless perfection of man on earth"? Jesus was the God-Man (Colossians 1:15-20; Colossians 2:9; John 1:1-4), not merely a man like you or I.

I.e. not really a man. Not really human.

He sets the ideal example,

This is the Christian religion of idealism only, not the pure religion of Jesus Christ. It makes an idol of Jesus as The "God-man", but not really a man.

His life and words are made to be 'idealistic' only. High ideals to talk about, but never do. Like other idols of the world, Jesus is put on a pedestal of worship and adoration, but not a man that can be followed and walk as He walked.

Faith without works is the faith of ideals only. Idealists that never do what they idolize.

The faith of Jesus is not for idealists only, but only for doers of His word.

which we all try in our finite, sin-corrupted, ignorant humanness to emulate.

The Bible says it's foolish and sinful to judge others according to our own selves.

Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

The main error is saying 'we', when it's only 'me'. Unless it's others that agree with me, but still is not all men.

What did it mean for Jesus to be "without sin"? What was his temptation like in type and strength, exactly? How was he able never to yield to temptation?

When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

More useless questions gendering only confusion. It's the smokescreen of sophists to divert from what we are doing.

What part in his sinlessness did his virgin birth and divine nature play?

Virgin birth nothing. Divine nature everything.

Lay it all out for us since you know what it is to be sinlessly-perfect as the God-Man was.

As I said, already did so twice.

I'm all ears (or eyes, actually).

For your own ideas certainly.

By not refuting anything, but only diverting with useless questions, it shows the wisdom of the Bible not to continue after the first or second teaching of the same thing.

Until you do, you're just theorizing on something you have no proper understanding of.

As I said, I don't theorize. I teach. If someone can show any error of the reasoning, then I will be corrected.

I seek answers of Scripture, not theories and philosophies of men. I've already been there and done that, and it was of no practical use.

 

[Tenchi]

For you theorizers yes. I don't theorize but teach the normal meaning of words in the Bible.

You may actually really believe this, but it isn't true. As the many rebuttals to your posts have illustrated.

The Bible says God cannot be tempted with sin. Jesus is God come in the flesh. Jesus was tempted with sin.

As was already explained to you, Jesus was God taking on the flesh of Man. He set aside his heavenly glory and power in doing so, but was still God, which is why Jesus never succumbed to the fleshly impulses that move you and I into sin. In his flesh, Jesus was tempted; but being deity, he could not be tempted by evil and so remained sin-free. Your thinking doesn't take into account the duality of Christ's incarnation properly and so doesn't ascribe the temptation he faced to the correct nature (his flesh nature). As a result, you've taken up the erroneous reasoning above. Again, the fleshly part of Jesus was tempted, but his divine nature, just like God the Father in Heaven, could not be tempted with evil. In other words, being perfect in his divine nature, Jesus would not sin; he was not made perfect by not sinning.

The simple difference between sinless perfection of the man Jesus on earth, and that of God the Spirit, is being tempted.

This isn't a "simple difference"; it's simplistic thinking arising from a mistaken understanding of the nature of The Incarnation.

The Bible teaches 2 kinds of sinless perfection at this time: that of overcoming all temptation on earth, and that without temptation in heaven.

Nope. And why your thinking here is grossly in error has been explained repeatedly to you in this thread. Clearly, you just don't care what anybody says; you're here to teach and only to teach, not to learn. Well, I'm done leading this particular horse to water.

If someone can see a flaw in this reasoning, then they can point it out. Otherwise, reverting to theorizing is just a device of justifying unbelief.

There is no man so blind as he who will not see.

 

[RBDERRICK]

But this doesn't take into account God the Father's omniscience. He knows everything -

This is another teaching than that of the Bible, which would make the Son not God while a man.

The Bible says otherwise, that the Son was God in the flesh, who did not know all the Father knows, such as the hour and time of His coming again to earth.

Sinless perfection in the flesh does not include knowing all things to the end, from the beginning.

Neither the babe, child, nor man Jesus knew all things of all times, as He did as the Word with God in the beginning, and does now on the throne in heaven.

However, He did learn all things of Scripture as a child, and He knew and believed and did all things the Father told Him while a man.

Therefore, omniscience is not necessary for sinless perfection on earth, but only faith with obedience to God, rather than to the devil.

including what it is to be tempted by sin, and to the fullest possible degree.

The Father nor the Spirit has ever known what it is to be tempted, since God and the Spirit cannot be tempted. Only the Son in the Godhead knows what it is to tempted like any other man.

And only the sons of God walking with the Son now know what it is to be tempted like Jesus, yet without sinning by it.

To say that Jesus, who is God, knew something by way of his earthly experience that God the Father did not know is to deny God's omniscience.

This is faith without works ideology only.

The Bible teaches it's one thing to know of something, and entirely different to know it by experience.

Men of action know the difference.

But if there is anything God does not know, He is not God.

This is a type of gnosticism, to worship knowledge only.

God does not know what it is to sin. He is God. The Son does not know what it is to sin, He was God in the flesh.

He was the God-Man, not the Man-God.

He is both: the man Christ Jesus is God.

And so, when he was tempted in the flesh, he possessed a divine nature that mitigated against temptation such that he never succumbed to it.

His divine nature does not 'mitigate' temptation, as though the devil never really tempts.

By His divine nature we, like He, resist and endure temptation, until the devil flees.

In other words, Jesus wasn't perfect because he resisted temptation successfully;

he resisted temptation successfully because he was perfect.

It's both with Him and His obedient people.

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

We begin perfectly new in Him, whereby we can overcome all temptation, and we remain perfectly new in Him, by overcoming all temptation to sin.

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

The imperfect gospel preaches continued sinning from cradle to grave, and a faith never made perfect by works.

 

[Tenchi]

Rejecting Jesus Christ coming in the flesh, and not being human, is not the doctrine of Christ.

Strawman. Read my remarks more carefully, please.

The teaching the two kinds of sinless perfection from the words of the Bible, defines what sinless perfection is in heaven and on earth.

Nope. I already explained why this is silly.

Twice is enough for any normal reader.

??? Twice? Nope. You haven't even properly explained it once.

He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings.

They do so only to try and change the meaning of words into something else entirely different.

This is a convenient maneuver: Squirming out of explaining yourself by misapplying Scripture. Neat. But a very obvious deflection, too.

When God became a man in the flesh, He gave up His sinless perfection without temptation, to be tempted in all points as men, to prove once for all, that the first Adam had no excuse, as well as no man since.

Nope. Already well-rebutted, which rebuttals remain firmly intact under such weak and faulty responses.

Not sinning in the flesh is proven possible by the human man Jesus, and so it is for His human man brethren living by Him.

Nope. There was only one man who was ever perfect and he was the God-Man. It was his deity that made him perfect, not his resistance to temptation.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

I don't do theory nor philosophy, when teaching the Bible.

Though you don't seem to realize it, what you're actually saying here is that you refuse to think hard and carefully, which is what it means to "do philosophy." I must correct you - again - by pointing out that your ideas are not only theoretical, they are blasphemous and deeply false.

Since you've resorted to "sanctified" ad hominem by making personal attacks by way of Scripture, here's one for you:

Jude 1:4
4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Consider also the plain declaration of Scripture to the full deity of Jesus Christ while in human form:

Colossians 1:15-18
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

Colossians 2:8-9
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

John 10:30-31
30 I and the Father are one.”
31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.

I.e. not really a man. Not really human.

No, not merely a man. A man who is married with children is not merely a husband and not merely a father; he is both. So, too, the God who was also a Man. He was not only God; he was not only Man; he was both. But Jesus was God, the Word, long before he took on flesh. Thus, he is God taking on flesh, not Man taking on deity. Christ's humanity was the addition to his essential, not his deity. And so, being God, when he encountered temptation to his flesh, he did not sin. This isn't that hard to understand...

This is the Christian religion of idealism only, not the pure religion of Jesus Christ. It makes an idol of Jesus as The "God-man", but not really a man.

His life and words are made to be 'idealistic' only. High ideals to talk about, but never do. Like other idols of the world, Jesus is put on a pedestal of worship and adoration, but not a man that can be followed and walk as He walked.

Faith without works is the faith of ideals only. Idealists that never do what they idolize.

The faith of Jesus is not for idealists only, but only for doers of His word.

I've no idea why you think just asserting these things somehow makes them so... It's all a lot of ungrounded silliness, as far as I can see, just more Strawman deflection.

The Bible says it's foolish and sinful to judge others according to our own selves.

Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

The main error is saying 'we', when it's only 'me'. Unless it's others that agree with me, but still is not all men.

No, the "main error" is denying the repeated, plain declaration of God's word. This is the basis form using "we." You are not exempt from those things that plagued the first Christians in the Early Church about which we read over and over in the New Testament. I've already pointed out where in earlier posts. Look 'em up and refresh your apparently very short memory.

When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

More useless questions gendering only confusion. It's the smokescreen of sophists to divert from what we are doing.

Just more obvious deflecting of points that are made to which you have no effective answer. Slapping a verse on to the deflection doesn't make it any less a deflection.

Oh, and please stop the sanctimonious personal attacks. Being obnoxious via Scripture is still being obnoxious.

Virgin birth nothing. Divine nature everything.

If you don't know, just say so.

For your own ideas certainly.

And for yours, too. It's just yours stink, theologically and rationally. I hold out hope for better, though that hope is fading very rapidly...

As I said, I don't theorize. I teach. If someone can show any error of the reasoning, then I will be corrected.

The man who teaches lies must first deceive himself. Sir, you are enormously self-deceived, which has been proved in the many instances in this thread when your error has been exposed and you've simply denied, deflected and/or Strawmanned in response.

 

[Tenchi]

This is another teaching than that of the Bible, which would make the Son not God while a man.

The Bible says otherwise, that the Son was God in the flesh, who did not know all the Father knows, such as the hour and time of His coming again to earth.

Read again what I actually wrote. Yikes. You're just knee-jerk reacting to what you read, not addressing my remarks with anything like careful consideration. What's the point of doing this? You might as well be replying to a tree, or your pet cat (if you have one), for all the difference it would make to the pertinence of your replies to what I wrote.

Nah, don't bother. You're cup's way too full to take in anything else - even if it's the truth. God's going to have to empty your cup of its falsehood and corruption before anything better can replace it. Watch out: That emptying can be VERY unpleasant.

Signing off.

Whew.

 

[RBDERRICK]

This is what happens when you have a poor conception of God and an unbiblical view of His nature. God cannot be tempted by evil whether in human form on earth,

And here we have Docetism. It denies the soul of Jesus was tempted like the souls of all men in the flesh.

It says Jesus was God untempted to sin, while only in human form on earth.

Docetics make this argument also to justify sinning by temptation. They say Jesus did not sin, only because He was God in human form. And so it is impossible for other men not to sin like He.

Temptation is to the soul. The soul of Jesus was tempted to sin with the body, like all men in the flesh.

He was not God above it all on earth, but God in the flesh, just like any man, yet without sinning.

or seated on a throne in heaven.

True. Neither God nor the Word were ever tempted in heaven, nor God and the Lamb in heaven.

But while God in the flesh, His soul was tempted like us.

Christ was tempted in the flesh, as a man, but as God, he was never tempted.

Docetism. Separating the soul of Jesus from the body He only 'inhabited' for a season.

It is precisely because this was so that he never yielded to temptation like you and I do.

More Docetism, saying Jesus was not a man in the flesh like us, so His soul wasn't tempted like us.

There is no 'I' nor 'we' here, only 'you'.

But the apostle James never made the location distinction you are.

No he didn't. Paul with James does.

The verse of his that you cited does not qualify that God cannot be tempted with evil only in heaven.

God before the earth, on earth in human form, and in heaven is never tempted.

I think a person is saved by trusting in Christ as their Savior.

This gospel falls short of the gospel of the cross, by thinking it is so without doing His will.

Faith and trust without works, is not the faith and trust of Jesus.

But I don't think that being tempted to sin is sin.

Many people don't believe things they are teaching, when the end of their teaching is made clear to them.

Teaching blameless living in Christ without sinning, as the sinless perfection of God in heaven, is teaching temptation is sinning also.

Because he was the God-Man, not just a man.

Docetism again. Not really a man.

??? Who has ever contended for such thinking on this thread? I sure haven't.

Those who teach that the only sinless perfection, is God in heaven.

But you have no idea what it was for Jesus, the God-Man, to encounter and overcome temptation.

And so now it's being taught that no man, other than Jesus Himself, can overcome temptation.

Jesus is made an ideal to idolize but not walk as.

You aren't God in the flesh.

True. I have God in the flesh.

Those sinning in the flesh have not God.

Whosoever is born of God is not commiting sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

 

[RBDERRICK]

You can only imagine what being without sin is and do your best to love God as you should.

This is Christian idealism and secular humanism of self-improvement, where men are only doing their best, not God's.

You would have to see sin in all its myriad forms and subtleties as God does in order to be sinlessly-perfect as He is.

This is more gnostic teaching. As though knowledge itself is the way to be as God.

It's the promise of the serpent in the garden for man to become as gods through knowledge alone.

Faith alone without works is knowledge alone without deeds.

Knowledge alone is nothing itself, to be holy as God is holy. Doing the truth is the only way to be and walk like Jesus.

But this would require being Him, which you aren't.

Doing His will and walking as He walked is required to being as Him.

Only Jesus can be Jesus.

The gnosticism of being as God by knowledge alone is the promise of be as gods by faith alone.

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

All throughout a person's life God shows them how to love Him better and better,

More of the imperfect gospel, where being born again is not as the newborn babe, where all things are now good and of God.

It's the gospel of man's will and strength to be better and better, but never good and holy as God at any time on earth.

It teaches Jesus was never tempted as we, because He was only in human form, and so only He could live without sinning on earth.

with fuller and fuller devotion and singleness of mind and heart.

This is fruitfulness and growth in grace, while not sinning.

The Christian religion of making ourselves better and better with lesser and lesser sinning, is not the born again Gospel of Jesus Christ, where all things are made new and of God all at once.

This is a process that reveals much that is sin in one's life that one once thought was perfectly all right.

This is the gospel of changing the mind only by knowledge.

There is no sin in the soul nor heart, nor blameless living in them newly born of God in the Spirit.

We do not learn what sin is, to stop sinning. We become faithful children that no longer sin against our faith and good conscience in Christ Jesus.

But this is what, in part, it is not to be God, but a fallible, sin-corrupted human being that He is slowly transforming over time into Christ's image.

Perfect example of the imperfect gospel of self-improvement, that never results in not sinning at any time.

It's for them that never repent of dead works once for all.

It's the "ever getting there" gospel, that is never there.

But all human beings commit sin, born-again or not.

And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

About this, as I've shown, the Bible is very clear. Now, the born-again person has been made free from the penalty and power of sin;

Because he's been made from from sinning, even as Jesus was free from sinning.

they never have to sin, as they did before being saved (Romans 6).

This is lip service by them that teaching all men will continue sinning, because it's impossible not to on earth.

Like breathing, eating, and drinking, they also have to sin.

But being so freed doesn't guarantee that the believer will live in that freedom all the time.

No, but teaching it's impossible not to, does guarantee they will never live that freedom all the time.

If someone wants to believe that imperfect gospel of faith alone.

And so, we have Paul's letters to the Corinthian believers, and to the legalistic Galatian believers, and to the confused and sinning believers at Rome,

To some that were in the churches. Not all.

??? I have no idea what "committing an act of temptation" is.

Thanks for the correction. It's poorly worded.

Temptation is not an act, but only the thought to do the act. The sinful thought is not a sin nor an act of sin.

Sinless perfection on earth includes temptation to sin, just not the act of sinning.

And such acts by temptation, include lusting with the heart.

 

[RBDERRICK]

You may want to reword that.
A gospel of lawlessness sounds kind of...criminal.

It is to God.

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Some teach His law was killed on the cross, and even go so far as to say the only sinners are those keeping His law.

Their faith without works doctrine is a misnomer. What they really teach is faith with sinning and transgressing the law of God.

How about "the gospel of Mosaic Lawlessness"?

I see the point, but not accurate.

Before the NT is was lawlessness in Israel not to obey the law of Moses.

The gospel of lawlessness is faith alone while sinning against God's law.

 

[Tenchi]

And here we have Docetism. It denies the soul of Jesus was tempted like the souls of all men in the flesh.

It says Jesus was God untempted to sin, while only in human form on earth.

But, AGAIN, if you'd actually read my posts and had comprehended what you'd read, these sorts of mistaken representations of my views wouldn't happen ALL THE TIME in your responses to my posts. Your entire response from which this quotation is taken is one long Strawman deflection, misrepresenting and/or ignoring what I wrote. I'm not prompted to write any more than these few remarks to the off-point mish-mash you've put forward. Sheesh.

 

[JLB]

Yes, which shows that eternal life abides in those who truly love God and neighbor as scripture commands.

Such a love comes only from the Holy Ghost (Romans 5:5).

We can't "muster it up" in the power of the flesh.

It is the gift of God.

A brother in Christ who hates his brother does not have eternal life remaining in him.

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15




JLB

 

[JLB]

Not sinning in the flesh is proven possible by the human man Jesus, and so it is for His human man brethren living by Him.

Is the apostle John considered to be one of the "sinless men" brothers of Jesus?

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. 1 John 1:8-10

The apostle John didn't claim to be sinless.





JLB

 

[RBDERRICK]

It's not different. Righteousness (by faith) 'apart from works' is the same as righteousness (by faith) 'without works'.

Ok. So, you don't agree with the Bible that faith without works is dead, being alone, nor will you say faith without works is alive.

Semantics.

The point being, a person does not get the righteousness that comes from God by working, but by believing, all by itself,

I.e. alone, which is dead, being without works.

This believing "all by itself" is another gospel of faith without works.

thus the phrase "righteousness apart from works (or, without works)" Romans 4:6 Philippians 3:9.

Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.

The Scripture does not speak of faith without works.

Nowhere does the Bible teach faith without works, except to say it is dead, being alone.

God's righteousness without works is not possible either, since only those doing His righteousness are righteous with Him.

The only works that is without God's righteousness, are works of man's own righteousness without the faith of Jesus.

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Everywhere that the Bible distances God from works having to do with His faith and salvation, are those of man done by His own will without God from the heart.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Faith without works is dead, and works without faith are profitless. It takes both faith and works at the same time, to profit the soul with salvation and justification of God.

That's different than James' 'faith alone' argument, which says no man will be saved by a faith that has no works to validate the presence of that faith, for it is by the evidence of faith - works - that a person is judged as being a sheep or a goat (Matthew 25:31-46).

It is by the evidence of faith, that a man is justified now, not just later judged as sheep.

The faith of God is never without His evidence.

I'm talking about the faith of Jesus, that is never without evidence, for He always pleased the Father.

A faith without works pleasing to the Father at any time, is not the faith of Jesus taught in the Bible.

The evidence doesn't make you a sheep. It merely shows if you are one or not.

This is just doctrinal word play. It has no substance to it.

What shows you are a sheep does not make you a sheep.

This is a carnal minded doctrine of the nature of works in sight of God. Our first works of faith begin immediately with being saved by: resisting temptation and thoughts for sin from the devil.

The Bible says he comes immediately upon hearing the word, to take away the word sown in our hearts.

Faith without works of righteousness is dead on the wayside. It's dead faith that isn't doing the good work of quenching every fiery dart of the wicked.

There is no practical 'time' between the faith that saves and the faith that fights.

Like medicine doing nothing for the body, so is faith without works doing nothing for the soul. Medicine alone doesn't heal, but only the medicine working heals.

Also, faith without the evidence is not the faith of God.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

God's faith is the evidence.

Teaching a faith without evidence is the faith of another gospel.

That is why you cannot be saved by a so-called faith that is not accompanied by works, for no works means no faith is present to produce those works. But most assuredly you are given the righteousness of God apart from and without works.

Now you having righteousness without be saved.

No.
Insofar as what each argument means, 'faith without or apart from works' is not 'faith alone'.

Not in your doctrine.

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

Is in God's doctrine.

Faith, not having works, is faith without works, which is dead, being alone.

Faith alone is dead, being without works.

Trying to say otherwise, is just playing games with words, for the sake of another doctrine.

Paul calls it doting about questions and strifes of words.

You become righteous with the imputation of God's righteousness by faith apart from and without works (Romans 4:6, Phillipians 3:9).

And now 'becoming' righteous is apart from being righteous, which is only with doing righteousness.

Just more word games.

You are shown to posses the faith by which a person becomes righteous, by your works (James 2:18, James 2:24).

Becoming with showing is not God's faith.

And the natural man only sees works on the outside, but God sees all the works on the inside.

Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

The Bible does not teach faith is first without works, but rather that works within are first without being seen outwardly.

The only things first before works outwardly, are works inwardly, and there is no faith first without works in the doctrine of Christ.

And so James' argument about 'faith alone' is not the same as Paul's 'righteousness (by faith) apart from works' argument.

'Apart from works' is your impute. Show one Scripture where the Bible quotes faith 'without works', faith 'apart from works', or faith 'all by itself', as anything but dead and alone.

Until then, all such teaching about faith is not of the Bible, but of another teaching of man.

Along with all the strifes about words.

 

[JLB]

Ok. So, you don't agree with the Bible that faith without works is dead, being alone, nor will you say faith without works is alive.

Semantics.


I.e. alone, which is dead, being without works.

This believing "all by itself" is another gospel of faith without works.




Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.

The Scripture does not speak of faith without works.

Nowhere does the Bible teach faith without works, except to say it is dead, being alone.

God's righteousness without works is not possible either, since only those doing His righteousness are righteous with Him.

The only works that is without God's righteousness, are works of man's own righteousness without the faith of Jesus.

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Everywhere that the Bible distances God from works having to do with His faith and salvation, are those of man done by His own will without God from the heart.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Faith without works is dead, and works without faith are profitless. It takes both faith and works at the same time, to profit the soul with salvation and justification of God.


It is by the evidence of faith, that a man is justified now, not just later judged as sheep.

The faith of God is never without His evidence.

I'm talking about the faith of Jesus, that is never without evidence, for He always pleased the Father.

A faith without works pleasing to the Father at any time, is not the faith of Jesus taught in the Bible.


This is just doctrinal word play. It has no substance to it.

What shows you are a sheep does not make you a sheep.

This is a carnal minded doctrine of the nature of works in sight of God. Our first works of faith begin immediately with being saved by: resisting temptation and thoughts for sin from the devil.

The Bible says he comes immediately upon hearing the word, to take away the word sown in our hearts.

Faith without works of righteousness is dead on the wayside. It's dead faith that isn't doing the good work of quenching every fiery dart of the wicked.

There is no practical 'time' between the faith that saves and the faith that fights.

Like medicine doing nothing for the body, so is faith without works doing nothing for the soul. Medicine alone doesn't heal, but only the medicine working heals.

Also, faith without the evidence is not the faith of God.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

God's faith is the evidence.

Teaching a faith without evidence is the faith of another gospel.



Now you having righteousness without be saved.




Not in your doctrine.

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

Is in God's doctrine.

Faith, not having works, is faith without works, which is dead, being alone.

Faith alone is dead, being without works.

Trying to say otherwise, is just playing games with words, for the sake of another doctrine.

Paul calls it doting about questions and strifes of words.


And now 'becoming' righteous is apart from being righteous, which is only with doing righteousness.

Just more word games.




Becoming with showing is not God's faith.

And the natural man only sees works on the outside, but God sees all the works on the inside.

Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

The Bible does not teach faith is first without works, but rather that works within are first without being seen outwardly.

The only things first before works outwardly, are works inwardly, and there is no faith first without works in the doctrine of Christ.


'Apart from works' is your impute. Show one Scripture where the Bible quotes faith 'without works', faith 'apart from works', or faith 'all by itself', as anything but dead and alone.

Until then, all such teaching about faith is not of the Bible, but of another teaching of man.

Along with all the strifes about words.

Do you understand what "works" James is referring to?

 

[Hopeful 2]

I'm glad you're glad. I wonder, though, if we hold the same understanding of repentance...

To me, it means "turn from' something", in the case of conversion and salvation that turn is from sin.
Like Paul wrote in Acts 26:18..."To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me."
And Peter in Acts 3:26..."Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities."

It appears you didn't understand the analogy.

We have our part to accomplish for our own salvation.

I've already rebutted this notion of yours in other threads. But, you're still trotting out your seed analogy like I haven't, so I'm not going to bother rehashing the obvious problems with it. Your willful blindness can't be remedied merely by repeating the truth.

I can't agree about your rebutting anything.

Uh huh. Scripture says what it says: Christians still sin. 1 Corinthians 3, 5, 6, 11; Galatians; Ephesians 5:1-13; Romans 6:1-11, Revelation 2-3, etc. Let your doctrinal myopia dissolve so that you might see the truth.

Christians are reborn of God's seed.
God's seed cannot bring forth the fruit of the devil.
The sinners you are apparently using as your examples of Christianity are not Christians.

Deflections are reactions, I suppose...

Sure.