Ephesians 4:20-23 - Saved Persons

Well, we know from John 6:45 that those men who have heard and learned from the Father shall come to Jesus.

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

So, I actually agree with Biblicist, Ephesians 4:20,21 is speaking of a saved person, because they have heard and learned from the Father, and therefore have come to Jesus. They are saved.

However, Skandelon is correct that an unsaved man can hear and learn and come to Jesus.

Verses in Ephesians 4 before verse 20 are simply describing a man before he was saved.

Eph 4:17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

An unsaved person walks in the vanity of their mind. Their understanding is darkened, they are alienated from the life of God through ignorance in them, and they are spiritually blind. They give themselves over to lasciviousness, living unclean and greedy lives.

But these unsaved, unregenerate men can hear and learn from the word of God. They can learn of Jesus and therefore trust in him, having their sins forgiven. They can also renew their minds by listening to and obeying God's word. That is what Paul is explaining to new converts in this chapter.

 

Wow, you should write your own commentary. You could call it "Biblicist's Fables" or "Biblicist's Perversions of Scripture" or "Biblicist's Personal Interpretation of Scripture- Eisegesis Gone Wild". :thumbs:

 

It is no wonder that strange teachings arise when imperatives of a book like Ephesians (from the last three chapters) are used as a foundation, while the indicatives (in the first three chapters) are ignored. This is what is meant by the word doctrinaire.

 

You are confusing him with the facts:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

Biblicist is trashing your false novelties with sound biblical teaching but you are unable to perceive it. The rest of us see it...you do not.:wavey:

 

Go to your beloved Reformed commentators like Gill or Pink or whoever you worship and see if any of them interpret Eph 4:20-21 the way Biblicist does. NOT.

 

What's the argument here, that those referred to in Eph. 4:20-21 are not saved, or are saved, which is it that is being argued against the OP?

 

Calvinists, idolaters lower than cockroaches.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2070289#post2070289

 

Only the saved person engages in that work of sanctification.

But justification precedes it and the question is not whether a lost person can conduct his own system of sanctification just as easily as the saved - the question is whether the lost person can choose to accept Justification.

If you don't focus on the point that is in question - then you can't prove the case for Calvinism vs something else.

Romans 7 argues that the saved individual sees "sin in the members of my body - at war with the law of my mind". This act of daily "putting to death the deeds of the flesh" Romans 8 is the daily act of the saved man -- putting off the old man - and putting on Christ, a daily walk of sanctification.

The lost person by contrast merely "gives up" and stops "persevering in being lost". The lost person "stops persevering in rejecting the gospel" and does a "turn about" in true repentance and confession.

in Christ,

Bob

 

He often confuses these things, specifically things able to be done by those who are redeemed and those who cannot do those things because they are in their lost state. Mixing up abilities and desires between those who are post conversion and pre seems to be his favorite past time, but he MUST interpret passages that way to hold to his false views of 'ability'.

Here it is in a nutshell according to those of his ideology: Man must enable God, but it is to be repudiated to even THINK that God has to enable man. Man on the throne, God hoping man will 'let' Him do something. It's no different than the false teachings of Hinn, Myer, Savelle, Copeland, DuPlantis &c as their theology is similar to what skan preaches.

Well of course he's switched. There are several on here that will follow his false teaching no matter what he says.

It is immensely clear the passage refers to the saved, after all it was written to the Ephesians, a church, to teach them proper conduct &c. Skandelon must twist this fact, and wrest it in order to support his theological stance. Doesn't Scripture warn against that? By the way I'd like to see some scholars who would agree with skan on this so I can avoid their teaching in the future as well. Perhaps he'll share some quotes.

I am also aware that this epistle was possibly not written to the church at Ephesus and may well be a general letter.

 

Which is why it does not help Calvinism. No one has questioned the ability of the already born again saved saint to pursue sanctification daily.

The Calvinist "speculation" is that the lost cannot accept justification without first being born-again and thereby destroying the sequence given in Romans 10 -- a chapter that Calvinism's version of conversion does not survive.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Yes Bob, you are spot on. The old present a truth concerning born anew folks, and then splice in some Calvinist mistaken doctrine.

Not the effort to claim "in the flesh" only refers to the unsaved, when either group (saved or unsaved) can set their minds on fleshly desires, or some spiritual things (milk). Only a saved person understand spiritual meat.