Can you be a Christian but not a disciple?

[John of Japan]

As I quoted Him earlier from the Gospel of Luke, He said, "Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:27). If one is not willing to repent, surrender him/herself, follow Him, take up his/her cross, not only is that person not a disciple, that person is not a Christian. Period. End of story.

Here is the parallel passage in Matthew 16:24--"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Here it is clear that Jesus was giving this challenge to people who were already disciples, not inviting people to trust Him as Savior.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm not sure why people are ignoring the posts of John of Japan on this topic.

Thanks. I'll keep trying as long as people continue to treat each other with Christian respect on this thread. :wavey:

 

[kyredneck]

Apparently some people do not know what a disciple is.

Please tell us what a disciple is and how one can be a disciple while not attracting attention to it.

And after these things Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked of Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took away his body. And there came also Nicodemus, he who at the first came to him by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. Jn 19:38,39

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is the parallel passage in Matthew 16:24--"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Here it is clear that Jesus was giving this challenge to people who were already disciples, not inviting people to trust Him as Savior.

That is the proof that many have confused and mixed together sayings of Jesus and the Apostles regarding salvation at the beginning, and how to live and act once already saved!

As there seems to be two errornous messages being taught today in many churches...

One extreme is to be saved, and yet don't try to become his disciple, just take Him for fire insurance policy, while other is that you must be willing and do give everything up to Him before even can get saved!

 

[John of Japan]

That is the proof that many have confused and mixed together sayings of Jesus and the Apostles regarding salvation at the beginning, and how to live and act once already saved!

As there seems to be two errornous messages being taught today in many churches...

One extreme is to be saved, and yet don't try to become his disciple, just take Him for fire insurance policy, while other is that you must be willing and do give everything up to Him before even can get saved!

I agree with this. And to me it is clear that my comments about the word "disciple" occurring nowhere after Acts is extremely important in this discussion, since all will agree that Romans gives us the theology of salvation--but nowhere mentions discipleship.

 

[John of Japan]

More about carrying one's cross: in the first century Roman Empire, to take up one's cross was to carry an instrument of capital punishment, not the symbol of Christ, Who of course had not yet died. So what Jesus was saying was a metaphor for being willing to die for the cause. In 1st century Rome this was a necessary challenge, because those who followed Jesus, calling Him the Son of God rather than the emperor, faced actual death by capital punishment on a cross.

Now, my question is, if Jesus was calling people to discipleship (with the meaning of salvation) with His "bear your cross" statement, then who among you does evangelism by making literal this metaphor and saying, "Are you willing to die for Christ? Because if you aren't you can't be saved." Anyone? I daresay none of you do. And John MacArthur does not either, yet that is exactly what the cross statement (Matt. 16:24, Mark 18:34, 10:21, Luke 9:23) is saying if it is talking about salvation, once you understand the metaphor.

 

[Revmitchell]

You offer no proof for this statement.

Proof that the Greek word pisteuo has a wide range of meaning, so that context is needed to determine the meaning in any one usage:

Matt. 9:28--And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.

Matt. 24:23--Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

Matt. 24:26--Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

This is just the book of Matthew, but there are many more examples.

"Saving faith in the New Testament is explained by the three prepositions used to elucidate the Greek verb “believe.” The Greek verb “believe” is pisteuein. It is followed by three different Greek prepositions, which explain the true nature of saving faith, proving that it must be more than intellectual belief and outward confession of same. For example, John 3:15 asserts, “Whosoever believes in [pisteuon en] Him should not perish but have eternal life.” The preposition “in” in this sentence simply means “in.” However, the preposition used in John 3:16 is pisteuon eis, meaning “believing into Him” or “union with Him.” Acts 16:31 reads like this, “Believe on [pisteuon epi] the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” The preposition in this context means to “believe upon, to rely, rest, to commit.” Thus we can see that saving faith means to believe in, to believe into (union), to rest or rely upon, which add up to the total surrender and personal trust which result in a changed life. To say that John 3:15, John 3:16, and Acts 16:31—classic texts on how to be saved—teach that only intellectual faith is necessary for salvation is to deny the clear meaning of the Greek text."


Bennett, Bill "The Greatest Heresy Plaguing Southern Baptists Today" Faith and Mission FM 17:2 (Spring 2000)

 

[DHK]

Revmitchell posted:

"Saving faith in the New Testament is explained by the three prepositions used to elucidate the Greek verb “believe.” The Greek verb “believe” is pisteuein. It is followed by three different Greek prepositions, which explain the true nature of saving faith, proving that it must be more than intellectual belief and outward confession of same. For example, John 3:15 asserts, “Whosoever believes in [pisteuon en] Him should not perish but have eternal life.” The preposition “in” in this sentence simply means “in.” However, the preposition used in John 3:16 is pisteuon eis, meaning “believing into Him” or “union with Him.” Acts 16:31 reads like this, “Believe on [pisteuon epi] the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” The preposition in this context means to “believe upon, to rely, rest, to commit.” Thus we can see that saving faith means to believe in, to believe into (union), to rest or rely upon, which add up to the total surrender and personal trust which result in a changed life. To say that John 3:15, John 3:16, and Acts 16:31—classic texts on how to be saved—teach that only intellectual faith is necessary for salvation is to deny the clear meaning of the Greek text."

There is no such thing as "saving faith." Faith is faith. Whether it be faith in your dog, your wife, child, car, etc. Faith is faith. It is confidence, trust in another.
What is it that differentiates faith is the object. Faith always has an object. Faith in your dog won't get you to heaven. The object of your faith must be in Christ. Your faith in the Greek language and your ability to differentiate between different nuances of words won't get you there either. You must have faith in Christ. Unless the object of your faith if Christ one cannot enter into the kingdom of God. It is not the definition of faith that is at stake here, but the object of faith. What is the object of your faith?

 

[Revmitchell]

Revmitchell posted:

There is no such thing as "saving faith." Faith is faith. Whether it be faith in your dog, your wife, child, car, etc. Faith is faith. It is confidence, trust in another.
What is it that differentiates faith is the object. Faith always has an object. Faith in your dog won't get you to heaven. The object of your faith must be in Christ. Your faith in the Greek language and your ability to differentiate between different nuances of words won't get you there either. You must have faith in Christ. Unless the object of your faith if Christ one cannot enter into the kingdom of God. It is not the definition of faith that is at stake here, but the object of faith. What is the object of your faith?

The term saving faith is a term used to communicate the type of faith that leads to salvation. If you do not like the term do not use it.

 

[DHK]

The term saving faith is a term used to communicate the type of faith that leads to salvation. If you do not like the term do not use it.

I don't use it; neither does the Bible use it. Neither do most Baptist statements of faith use it.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
I can't imagine what it would be like in evangelism if you had to define faith to an unsaved person.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't use it;

Ok then. nothing more needs to be said.

 

[DHK]

Ok then. nothing more needs to be said.

Good, then neither should you.
Shall I close the thread then. Or do you want to get back on topic:

Can you be a Christian but not a disciple?

 

[kyredneck]

Oh no, don't close the thread, I want him to answer my question first:

Originally Posted by Revmitchell
Apparently some people do not know what a disciple is.

Please tell us what a disciple is and how one can be a disciple while not attracting attention to it.

And after these things Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked of Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took away his body. And there came also Nicodemus, he who at the first came to him by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. Jn 19:38,39

 

[Yeshua1]

Revmitchell posted:

There is no such thing as "saving faith." Faith is faith. Whether it be faith in your dog, your wife, child, car, etc. Faith is faith. It is confidence, trust in another.
What is it that differentiates faith is the object. Faith always has an object. Faith in your dog won't get you to heaven. The object of your faith must be in Christ. Your faith in the Greek language and your ability to differentiate between different nuances of words won't get you there either. You must have faith in Christ. Unless the object of your faith if Christ one cannot enter into the kingdom of God. It is not the definition of faith that is at stake here, but the object of faith. What is the object of your faith?

faith does not save ANY sinner, but the One in whom faith has been placed into does!

Jesus death/resurrection means of saving us, and faith the chosen bridge God uses to get us to Him for salvation!

 

[John of Japan]

"Saving faith in the New Testament is explained by the three prepositions used to elucidate the Greek verb “believe.” The Greek verb “believe” is pisteuein. It is followed by three different Greek prepositions, which explain the true nature of saving faith, proving that it must be more than intellectual belief and outward confession of same. For example, John 3:15 asserts, “Whosoever believes in [pisteuon en] Him should not perish but have eternal life.” The preposition “in” in this sentence simply means “in.” However, the preposition used in John 3:16 is pisteuon eis, meaning “believing into Him” or “union with Him.” Acts 16:31 reads like this, “Believe on [pisteuon epi] the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” The preposition in this context means to “believe upon, to rely, rest, to commit.” Thus we can see that saving faith means to believe in, to believe into (union), to rest or rely upon, which add up to the total surrender and personal trust which result in a changed life. To say that John 3:15, John 3:16, and Acts 16:31—classic texts on how to be saved—teach that only intellectual faith is necessary for salvation is to deny the clear meaning of the Greek text."


Bennett, Bill "The Greatest Heresy Plaguing Southern Baptists Today" Faith and Mission FM 17:2 (Spring 2000)

To say that John of Japan believes that "only intellectual faith is necessary for salvation" would be a lie. I don't believe that nor do I teach it nor have I said it here or anywhere else in my 44 years of preaching the Gospel. I believe that salvation involves a trust from the heart in Christ's finished work on the cross, and oppose any idea that it is just mental assent.

Bennett was doing fine until he said used the term "total surrender." He simply stated that as if it were a fact without any proof--just what you did. In order to prove LS from the Greek word pisteuo and the Jewish attitude about it in the 1st century, this is what must be addressed. What in Jewish 1st century culture or the semantics of pisteuo makes it mean "total surrender"? Please address this, or the "total surrender" statement remains only the opinion of Bennett and you--not a semantic fact.

 

[Revmitchell]

To say that John of Japan believes that "only intellectual faith is necessary for salvation" would be a lie. I don't believe that nor do I teach it nor have I said it here or anywhere else in my 44 years of preaching the Gospel. I believe that salvation involves a trust from the heart in Christ's finished work on the cross, and oppose any idea that it is just mental assent.

First, I did not realize there would be anything there to offend you. Not my intent. Having said that I do not believe Bennett is wrong. What Bennett is working to communicate is that there is more to believing than just understand that Jesus died on the cross for our sin and I want salvation that provides.

Bennett was doing fine until he said used the term "total surrender." He simply stated that as if it were a fact without any proof-

No he didn't. He made a clear case for it. What he did not do is just pull this out of the air. I do not think that is a fair assessment. I think it is possible to disagree with his view without making such a claim.

-just what you did. In order to prove LS from the Greek word pisteuo and the Jewish attitude about it in the 1st century, this is what must be addressed. What in Jewish 1st century culture or the semantics of pisteuo makes it mean "total surrender"? Please address this, or the "total surrender" statement remains only the opinion of Bennett and you--not a semantic fact.

While I agree that would also be helpful that is your personal standard that is the only way to do it. I was simply addressing your post on the use of the word "pisteuo". Bennett addressed what you left out.

 

[John of Japan]

First, I did not realize there would be anything there to offend you. Not my intent. Having said that I do not believe Bennett is wrong. What Bennett is working to communicate is that there is more to believing than just understand that Jesus died on the cross for our sin and I want salvation that provides.

I wasn't offended at you, since they were not your words. What is offensive is the straw man that Bennett set up, that opponents of LS all advocate simple mental assent.

No he didn't. He made a clear case for it. What he did not do is just pull this out of the air. I do not think that is a fair assessment. I think it is possible to disagree with his view without making such a claim.

Sorry, Bennett's case is not clear at all. For example, where does he get the idea that eis indicates "union with him"? He doesn't give any reference for this statement. My biggest lexicon, BAGD, says no such thing in five columns of the meanings of eis.

In fact, BAGD confirms my own view that eis and en are sometimes synonyms; the difference when they are used with pisteuo is only one of style: "In these and similar cases eis approaches en in mng" (p. 228). The same goes for Abbot-Smith and my other lexicons. Bennett simply made up the meaning of "union with."

While I agree that would also be helpful that is your personal standard that is the only way to do it. I was simply addressing your post on the use of the word "pisteuo". Bennett addressed what you left out.

No, Bennett simply gave his opinion with no proof. He threw in his own definitions of the prepositions to make it sound scholarly, but it wasn't. In order to prove his "total surrender" definition, he would have had to give examples from 1st cent. extra-Biblical sources, because there are no such unambiguous NT usages; something like a slave saying to to his master, "I believe in you, so I must obey you."

"The best way to determine the meanings of a preposition is to study it in its various contexts and note its various uses" (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, by Dana and Mantey, pp. 98-99). Bennett did not do this, but simply gave his opinion. He made a radical statement about the Greek, but then failed to back it up with lexicons, NT usage or his own research.

 

[JamesL]

More about carrying one's cross: in the first century Roman Empire, to take up one's cross was to carry an instrument of capital punishment, not the symbol of Christ, Who of course had not yet died. So what Jesus was saying was a metaphor for being willing to die for the cause. In 1st century Rome this was a necessary challenge, because those who followed Jesus, calling Him the Son of God rather than the emperor, faced actual death by capital punishment on a cross.

Now, my question is, if Jesus was calling people to discipleship (with the meaning of salvation) with His "bear your cross" statement, then who among you does evangelism by making literal this metaphor and saying, "Are you willing to die for Christ? Because if you aren't you can't be saved." Anyone? I daresay none of you do. And John MacArthur does not either, yet that is exactly what the cross statement (Matt. 16:24, Mark 18:34, 10:21, Luke 9:23) is saying if it is talking about salvation, once you understand the metaphor.

That's good stuff. Also consider:

1Peter 2:
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.

19 For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly.

20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.

21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps,

22 who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth;

23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously;


In verse 21, Peter said that Jesus Christ suffered, leaving an example for us to follow in His steps - Pick Up Our Cross.

But then consider what he also wrote in verse 19 - this finds favor with God. Are we to think that we can "suffer" our way into the kind of charis Paul speaks about in Ephesians 2:8 ??

 

[John of Japan]

That's good stuff. Also consider:

1Peter 2:
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.

19 For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly.

20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.

21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps,

22 who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth;

23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously;


In verse 21, Peter said that Jesus Christ suffered, leaving an example for us to follow in His steps - Pick Up Our Cross.

But then consider what he also wrote in verse 19 - this finds favor with God. Are we to think that we can "suffer" our way into the kind of charis Paul speaks about in Ephesians 2:8 ??

Good points. And Peter was writing to people who were already believers; he wasn't doing evangelism.

 

[Yeshua1]

First, I did not realize there would be anything there to offend you. Not my intent. Having said that I do not believe Bennett is wrong. What Bennett is working to communicate is that there is more to believing than just understand that Jesus died on the cross for our sin and I want salvation that provides.



No he didn't. He made a clear case for it. What he did not do is just pull this out of the air. I do not think that is a fair assessment. I think it is possible to disagree with his view without making such a claim.



While I agree that would also be helpful that is your personal standard that is the only way to do it. I was simply addressing your post on the use of the word "pisteuo". Bennett addressed what you left out.

At the very point of salvation, when I was once a sinner, but now once saved, what did God require me to do in order to receive eternal life?