I am CONFUSED about Lordship theology

[Havensdad]

And your point is? Where is obedience here? Their faith resulted in action, it is true, but that does not mean that faith, ergo, means action.

The text says He SAW there faith. "Belief" is not observable. Only action is...

It does NOT say "He observed the result of their faith." It says He "SAW" (eido..."observed") their actual faith.

My bad. You're right. But again, peitho plus the dative means "obey," that's in all the lexicons. But pisteuo is not said to mean "obey" in any lexicon, and that's the question at hand. Pisteuo and peitho have overlap in meaning ("believe" versus "trust"), but are not really synonyms. Trench does not list anything (including "obey") as a synonym for pistis except elpis. He doesn't list anything as a synonym for hupakoe ("obedience") or upakuo ("obey").

First, you are making a distinction between pistis and peitho that does not exist. In two different lexicons, pistis is also said to include trust.

Second, peitho in the dative can also mean believe. So to be "believing" (this is a participle form, in this instance), is to be "obeying."

Studying nuance is more exegesis than lexicography. But we digress.

I disagree. Nuance of word meaning is not exegesis. But yes, lets digress.

Again, obedience is a result of faith, not a synonym. Note that Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). In that statement, obedience is a result of love, not congruent with love, since tereo is in the future.

But the word for love is not actually used for obedience or "faithfulness." Peitho, and pistis, both are. Jesus could well have said, "If you love me, be faithful to me..."

 

[DHK]

"For what does it profit a man. . . if he loses his soul" is not salvation language?!

It is a motivational statement for his disciples.

Let's take a parallel passage where the same things were said. Look at Matthew:
Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
--He is definitely speaking to his disciples here, just before he sends them out.
Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
--The context is still the same. The same disciples. They are his sheep.
Matthew 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
--They were to speak by the power of the Holy Spirit, only the words of a saved individual could do this.

Matthew 10:30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
--More assurance is given to them.
Matthew 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
--This is the same verse given in Mark 8:38--spoken to his disciples. The context here is obvious.

Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
--This is a condition of discipleship, not salvation.

Matthew 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
--A condition of discipleship, not salvation. He is still speaking only to his disciples.

Matthew 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
--These are the same words found in Mark. He is speaking only to his disciples. It is discipleship, not salvation.

Matthew 11:1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.
--The context is clear. He was sending his disciples out and giving them specific instructions. These commands were given to his disciples, not to the crowds.

Not so. Everything he HAD been saying was to the disciples. Then, the text tells us, Jesus STOPPED, and called the "Crowds" to himself before talking about picking up one's cross. This is clearly salvation language. You don't "Lose your soul" if you are saved.

It was a hyperbole. Not that they would lose their salvation; not that they would gain the world. There was no person there (including the unsaved) that would ever gain the world. And the disciples would not lose their souls. Their aim was to please Christ, not the world.

Not so. He specifically shifted his focus to the crowds. That is who he was addressing.

Not so, his address was to the disciples.

Mar_8:34 And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

The entire sermon on the mount, three chapters in Matthew (5-7) was addressed only to his disciples. But great crowds came to hear him. This is a similar situation. He allowed the crowds to hear the teaching given to his disciples.

He was already talking to His disciples. He called the crowd to here what he said next. It was salvific.

That is a ridiculous assumption. Just because he is addressing his disciples does not automatically mean it is about salvation. Look again in Matthew.

Not adding to it. You are subtracting from it, by redefining the word "faith" into the modern day word for mental assent. That is not what the word means. It is used in the New Testament synonymously with obedience. With submission and trust. Using the word "faith" the way you are using it, is of recent invention, and is completely foreign to the text.

I didn't write the Bible. But you are re-writing it.
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Acts 16:30-31 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Where do you think the word "Faithful" comes from? To be "full of faith" is to do what one is supposed to do. Faith is directly correlative to following.

To be faithful is a work. It comes only after salvation. Faith or trust, confidence in the word of another is what one must do before he is saved, as evidenced in the above Scriptures. Faithfulness to Christ comes after justification.
Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God.

Over and over in scripture, people who disobey are said to be lacking faith.

They lack faith because they lack confidence in the promises of the word of God.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom.10:17).

That is why Paul says of his preaching the Gospel:

Act 26:19 "Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,
Act 26:20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.

That is a works salvation. Deeds, in keeping with their salvation. Salvation is by grace through faith. It is not by deeds or works.

Wow. Way to try to avoid what the text says. Are you honestly trying to say that John is telling his readers, that there are some SAVED BELIEVERS who are "children of the devil" and only SOME that are "children of God"? Honestly?

Where did I say that?

I agree with you. If you don't know the meaning of the verses, it is better not to refer to them. Take your own advice.

I do know the meaning of the verses.

 

[DHK]

Sorry, I won't presume to answer DHK. He is perfectly capable of answering for himself. Please address this to him.

You said:

"do you see Jesus ever making "new believers" or does he make disciples off the gate??? "

In Matthew 4:19 Jesus said:
Matthew 4:19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

He said that to Peter and Andrew. The only thing that they realized at that time was that Christ was the Messiah, and even then they were not fully convinced. Peter's confession came much later on. But they followed Jesus, nevertheless. Jesus took these two, gradually added others, and began to teach them. Little by little he molded them into men who eventually would become the 12 apostles. They had much to learn before that would ever take place. They were not automatically "disciples" per se, right out of the gate.
Look what happened to Thomas. Very early on he was a "disciple." But he was not convinced that Christ was Lord until after the resurrection when he could thrust his hand in the side of Christ and see the marks on his hands and feet. Only then was he convinced who Christ really was. The growth was slow.
Every believer's growth is slow. Lordship Salvation denies the entire process of sanctification.

 

[freeatlast]

True repentance/faith is tied into the surrender to the Lordship of Christ.

 

[DHK]

True repentance/faith is tied into the surrender to the Lordship of Christ.

Yet the ironical thing about this FAL, is that most people who preach this have never practiced it themselves. They are hypocrites.

 

[percho]

I started a new thread for you Greek folks,

 

[John of Japan]

Here is my logic. We are called to believe in Jesus (pistis and cognates). We are also called to repent. Since pistis means faith and faithfulness, then the faithfulness side is similar to repentance. Repentance is a turning away from sin to Jesus and godliness. What is that if not obedience?

Sorry, I don't buy this. Faithfulness is continued, but belief unto salvation is a thing of the instant. You repent and believe and are saved. Faithfulness however is a function of the Christian life. You cannot be faithful for only an instant; it's contrary to the whole meaning of the word.

I didn't actually say "belief and obedience were the same in meaning." I will grant that the implication and connotation of pistis is faithfulness. That coupled w/ repentance seems like obedience.

You said in Post #53, "I am saying dedication to Jesus is exactly what "faith" in Jesus means. The dedication or "faith" is bestowed upon the person by God. It is monergistic IMO. Therefore, forsaking all to follow Jesus is the equivalent to faith in Jesus." How is that different from saying that faith (belief) and obedience have the same meaning?

As for Heb. 11:1, I'm not sure that calling it a definition is accurate. Heb. 11 is what faith does, what faith looks like. In that case, faith is acting out faithfulness to God. Even if 11:1 is a definition, it is meaningless if action is not implied in it. What good is a hope if it does not change the way we live?

You're still not proving LS. I have agreed that faith changes the way we live, as many others who oppose LS also teach. And I do disagree with your statement that "faith is acting out." No, as James teaches if you have faith you will act, but that is not the same as saying faith is ergo, "acting out." You then make faith a work, and I know you do not want to do that.

Read carefully. I said the Christian confession (from a historic standpoint and even Pauline) is Jesus is Lord. That speaks volumes to me. That "lord" is a title often attributed to Jesus (and "savior" not so much) is big. Jesus' messiahship and lordship are most prominent of his titles.

The argument that Jesus as Lord means Jesus is God in the Gospel message is very strong. See "Jesus as Lord in Acts and in the Gospel Message," by Darrell Bock (BibSac 143, 570, Apr. 1986). I would certainly agree that the deity of Christ is central to the Gospel message. However, the Gospel message in Acts is never given by the disciples with the caveat that you must accept Him as Lord as well as believe in Him to be saved (which is not to say that repentance is not involved).

See above on works. Faithfulness is implicit in pistis. Faith and repentance together = obedience in my mind. But this has to be a theological as well as a semantical discussion considering how they overlap. And I still think there is some credence in recognizing the etymological origin of pistis although it doesn't seal anything. At the least, it demonstrates ably that faithfulness is a large part of the word bound up within it.

"Faith" and "faithfulness" are two definitions of pistis. Simply because a word is polysemous doesn't mean that one meaning is "implicit" in the other. You simply cannot prover that faithfulness is implicit in faith.

And of course you don't want to commit the root fallacy here with your etymological origin of pistis, do you? So what is the relevance of the etymology with this discussion? I see no connection.

 

[John of Japan]

The text says He SAW there faith. "Belief" is not observable. Only action is...

It does NOT say "He observed the result of their faith." It says He "SAW" (eido..."observed") their actual faith.

I can't see faith since I can't see the heart. But surely you are not suggesting that Christ cannot see the faith in a person's heart are you? Surely you don't mean that Christ is ignorant of a person's faith unless He sees their action! Au contraire, He is omniscient, and can see the faith in a person's heart before they ever act.

First, you are making a distinction between pistis and peitho that does not exist. In two different lexicons, pistis is also said to include trust.

Second, peitho in the dative can also mean believe. So to be "believing" (this is a participle form, in this instance), is to be "obeying."

I don't make the distinction without reference to the scholars. If you want to convince me, name a single scholarly source who says what you do, that there is no distinction between pistis and peitho. (First off, they are a noun and a verb, so I assume you mean pisteuo and peitho. :smilewinkgrin: )

I disagree. Nuance of word meaning is not exegesis. But yes, lets digress.

So exegesis does not include studying nuance? :type:

But the word for love is not actually used for obedience or "faithfulness." Peitho, and pistis, both are. Jesus could well have said, "If you love me, be faithful to me..."

You miss my point. "We love Him because He first loved us." So when we are saved we become able to love Christ. And then, according to John 14:15 we are to obey His commands--future tense, meaning after the love and therefore after the salvation.

 

[Havensdad]

It is a motivational statement for his disciples.

No, it is not. He was already talking to the disciples. he could have continued to talk to the disciples. He specifically stops, and calls the "crowd" over to him and His disciples so they could hear the gospel.

--This is the same verse given in Mark 8:38--spoken to his disciples. The context here is obvious.

Obvious that you are really reaching. Are you saying that there are saved people who will be DENIED by Jesus at the throne of God? How on earth are they saved then?!

You are REALLY reaching!

Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother...
--This is a condition of discipleship, not salvation.

Not according to Jesus!

Mar 10:17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

Mar 10:21 And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
Mar 10:22 Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
Mar 10:23 And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!"


The context is clear. The man wanted eternal life. He asked how to get it. Jesus told him he lacked one thing: he had to be willing to give up everything.

The text is very clear he then went away WITHOUT eternal life! :tonofbricks:

Matthew 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
--A condition of discipleship, not salvation. He is still speaking only to his disciples.

No, he is not. He WAS talking to His disciples. Then the text plainly says (at least in the parallel account), that he called the crowd over to Him AND His disciples! He was preaching the Gospel.

Matthew 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
--These are the same words found in Mark. He is speaking only to his disciples. It is discipleship, not salvation.

What a lie from Satan. "Life?" Hello?

Matthew 11:1 ...
--The context is clear. He was sending his disciples out and giving them specific instructions. These commands were given to his disciples, not to the crowds.

Not so. He called the crowd to Him and His disciples. The commands were given to the crowds, who Jesus specifically called over.

It was a hyperbole. Not that they would lose their salvation; not that they would gain the world. There was no person there (including the unsaved) that would ever gain the world. And the disciples would not lose their souls. Their aim was to please Christ, not the world.

Explain it away however you wish. The fact is, that Jesus is teaching that if one does not pick up their cross and follow Him, then they will "forfeit their soul." The statement is clear.

Not so, his address was to the disciples.

Maybe according to you. Not according to the text.

The entire sermon on the mount, three chapters in Matthew (5-7) was addressed only to his disciples. But great crowds came to hear him. This is a similar situation. He allowed the crowds to hear the teaching given to his disciples.

Jesus went to teach the Sermon on the Mount, specifically because of the multitudes (Matthew 5:1). Jesus was teaching them how to be His apostles and spread His message. Thus they were observing His proclamations, and getting explanations of the things Jesus was proclaiming to the crowds. This is clear throughout the NT (see for example the Parable of the Sower in Matthew 13).

You are imagining a division that is not there. "Disciple" just means a learner. One can hardly be called a believer of Jesus if they are not "learning" from him. Also, according to you and your ilk, we apparently don't even have to tell others about Jesus. The great commission says nothing about making believers....

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations...

That is a ridiculous assumption. Just because he is addressing his disciples does not automatically mean it is about salvation. Look again in Matthew.

He was speaking to the crowd.

I didn't write the Bible. But you are re-writing it.

No, I just accept what it says.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Jas 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Rom 16:26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith--

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Woa! Out of CONTEXT. So I guess we don't even have to have faith now, right? The text says nothing about belief or faith...

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

1Co 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,
1Co 15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain

...

1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

Acts 16:30-31 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Acts 26;20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

I thought it was just belief? Are you now adding a work? Namely, confessing?

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Thought it was just "belief?" Now we have to actually call on Him, too? Isn't that works?

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Now we have to hear AND believe? How many things you adding? I thought it was just "belief"?

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Define "belief" in first century terms, please. Jesus said that those who acted contrary to him, did not, in fact, believe. He told those who were scared on the boat, that they did not have faith... He said He "saw" the faith of those who brought the man sick of the palsy...

Faith is NOT just mental assent. It is wholehearted devotion and trust. Which is another way of saying "Pick up your cross..."

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

And then he goes on to detail a bunch of things that show that a person has not believed. Hatred for ones brother. Continually living in sin. Etc.

To be faithful is a work. It comes only after salvation. Faith or trust, confidence in the word of another is what one must do before he is saved, as evidenced in the above Scriptures. Faithfulness to Christ comes after justification.

All of the quotes you give above use the word "pistis" (translated by you, "belief". According to the Lexicon, "pistis" means:

"belief with the predominate idea of trust whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same, fidelity, faithfulness, the character of one who can be relied on"

Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God.

Faith, not "belief." Faith means more than belief. For instance, when a man cheats on his wife, he is said to have "broken the faith."

They lack faith because they lack confidence in the promises of the word of God.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom.10:17).

Faith.

That is a works salvation. Deeds, in keeping with their salvation. Salvation is by grace through faith. It is not by deeds or works.

Where did I say that?

I do know the meaning of the verses.

Are you saying Paul taught a works salvation? Any gospel message that does not include a faith of repentance of sin, and dedication to Christ, ALWAYS RESULTING IN "deeds" is not the same message Paul preached.

 

[Havensdad]

Yet the ironical thing about this FAL, is that most people who preach this have never practiced it themselves. They are hypocrites.

I have never met a single LS guy who was not fully committed to Christ.

I have, however, met many a cheap grace proponent who were "Sunday Christians"...probably because there theology encouraged such.

Seeing discipleship as some second step after salvation is nothing but bondage back to the law. "Yeah, Jesus accepts you. But if you want to be a "Super Christian" you have to do X, Y, and Z"...

Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith.

 

[webdog]

I have never met a single LS guy who was not fully committed to Christ.

I have, however, met many a cheap grace proponent who were "Sunday Christians"...probably because there theology encouraged such.

Seeing discipleship as some second step after salvation is nothing but bondage back to the law. "Yeah, Jesus accepts you. But if you want to be a "Super Christian" you have to do X, Y, and Z"...

Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith.

To the above bolded, can it have something to do with the upfront commitment in exchange for salvation? Not to say it isn't genuine for all, but could some be "working" to achieve that status?

 

[John of Japan]

I started a new thread for you Greek folks,

Sorry, I can't participate. I have a seminar Fri-Sat, have to prepare for that now, then travel 5 hours tomorrow. Can't start something new on the BB.:type:

 

[freeatlast]

Yet the ironical thing about this FAL, is that most people who preach this have never practiced it themselves. They are hypocrites.

Just because a person preaches the truth it does not make them saved. Likewise just because a person who preaches the truth and is not part of it does not negate that truth. Keep in mind that MANY will say Lord, Lord and hear I never knew you.
If a person is not doing what 1John says then according to the bible they are lost no matter what they preach or believe.
1John 2:3,4
And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

 

[percho]

Sorry, I can't participate. I have a seminar Fri-Sat, have to prepare for that now, then travel 5 hours tomorrow. Can't start something new on the BB.:type:

Take a look in the future if you can and thanks for the reply.

 

[Havensdad]

To the above bolded, can it have something to do with the upfront commitment in exchange for salvation? Not to say it isn't genuine for all, but could some be "working" to achieve that status?

I have no doubt that there are many, many Christians who appear to be Christians, on both sides of this issue, that if we could see how they lived their private life, the vanity of their faith would soon become apparent.

 

[Yeshua1]

Think that you and I would be rejecting the oft stated line that "Unless jesus is Lord of/over ALL, then he is Lord on NONE!"

ALL christians at the moment of being reborn have Him placed over them as their Lord at that time forward, but that some do NOT allow Him to be that, as still have those areas that he needs to get his "hand on!"

And we will NEVER be fully submitted to him as our Lord every waking moment, not unless we hold to attaining sinless perfection, but can get more into his image by allowing God to have more and more of us on a daily basis!

 

[Greektim]

Sorry, I don't buy this. Faithfulness is continued, but belief unto salvation is a thing of the instant. You repent and believe and are saved. Faithfulness however is a function of the Christian life. You cannot be faithful for only an instant; it's contrary to the whole meaning of the word.

This is another problem I have with something that is not LS. Belief unto salvation is not an instanteous thing. It is an ever-going thing. One's repentance and faith continues and grows in the life of the believer. Otherwise, the gospel is not something you live out and grow into but simply something you do and believe in once and that's it. I would argue that you cannot legitimately believe and repent in an instant either. It is something that continues. That's probably why you have so many perfect tenses used to describe the experience of salvific faith. So that completely fails. What you have is a very monergistic system (being a Calvie that makes me happy ).

You said in Post #53, "I am saying dedication to Jesus is exactly what "faith" in Jesus means. The dedication or "faith" is bestowed upon the person by God. It is monergistic IMO. Therefore, forsaking all to follow Jesus is the equivalent to faith in Jesus." How is that different from saying that faith (belief) and obedience have the same meaning?

It may not be much different, but I still stand by what I said. To follow Jesus as Jesus called for people to do takes dedication. So to see continuity between Jesus' gospel and Paul's gospel, you have to see this monergistically or make a tacit distinction between salvation and discipleship.

You're still not proving LS. I have agreed that faith changes the way we live, as many others who oppose LS also teach. And I do disagree with your statement that "faith is acting out." No, as James teaches if you have faith you will act, but that is not the same as saying faith is ergo, "acting out." You then make faith a work, and I know you do not want to do that.

I don't feel like it needs to be proven since that was the gospel call of Jesus. What is repentance if it is not related to his lordship? As far as faith being a work, evangelicals only shy away from that b/c of a over-reaction to the reformation and what christendom was before it. The over-reaction is that we want a faith without works and I am saying Jesus called for a faith THAT works.

The argument that Jesus as Lord means Jesus is God in the Gospel message is very strong. See "Jesus as Lord in Acts and in the Gospel Message," by Darrell Bock (BibSac 143, 570, Apr. 1986). I would certainly agree that the deity of Christ is central to the Gospel message. However, the Gospel message in Acts is never given by the disciples with the caveat that you must accept Him as Lord as well as believe in Him to be saved (which is not to say that repentance is not involved).

I'll try to read the article later. But even if it is a statement to his deity, it has to be more than that. The very title "lord" ascribed to God was more than deity. Otherwise, you are saying that "lord" is a synonym with the semantic meaning of deity. But God was called "lord" b/c he is deity and b/c he is in control as the sovereign lord.

"Faith" and "faithfulness" are two definitions of pistis. Simply because a word is polysemous doesn't mean that one meaning is "implicit" in the other. You simply cannot prover that faithfulness is implicit in faith.

Isn't this typical western thinking (juxtaposition and dualities)? Why can it not be a both/and situation (considering the eastern thinking of the biblical writers)? That seems to make sense in the "faith of Jesus" debate. Good words are usually loaded with meaning. Good literature (OT & NT are both great literature) uses loaded words. I think it is quite observable that "faithfulness" is very much implied in the pist- root considering the very nature of what Jesus calls his followers to do.

And of course you don't want to commit the root fallacy here with your etymological origin of pistis, do you? So what is the relevance of the etymology with this discussion? I see no connection.

I am trying to be careful and not saying that. I only mention it because it helps to demonstrate that the pist- root certainly has the "faithfulness" meaning bound up within it.

 

[DHK]

No, it is not. He was already talking to the disciples. he could have continued to talk to the disciples. He specifically stops, and calls the "crowd" over to him and His disciples so they could hear the gospel.

Are you going to ignore the context of Matthew where time and time again he emphasizes the fact that he is speaking to his disciples and only to his disciples just before he sends them out? Many of the exact same verses are repeated in that same passage. The fact that the crowd was "invited" as well is irrelevant.

Obvious that you are really reaching. Are you saying that there are saved people who will be DENIED by Jesus at the throne of God? How on earth are they saved then?!

No. I will ask you the same question Jesus asks his disciples.
If Jesus were to come right now, would you be ashamed or ready for his coming? Are there things that you think that you ought to get done first before he comes, or if he comes wish you had gotten done like witnessed to some loved ones? Or are you perfectly right with God so you will not be ashamed if he should come right now?

You are REALLY reaching!

Not at all. Will you be ashamed or not? That is not reaching.

Not according to Jesus!

If you believe that:
That: Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother...
--This is a condition of discipleship, not salvation.

That this is a condition of salvation then you believe in a works based salvation which is a heretical position. For salvation is by grace through faith and not of works. Your position is salvation is by works, as you just stated.

Mar 10:17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

Mar 10:21 And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
Mar 10:22 Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
Mar 10:23 And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!"

The context is clear. The man wanted eternal life. He asked how to get it. Jesus told him he lacked one thing: he had to be willing to give up everything.

The context is clear, but the answer Jesus gave is not clear to you. Is Jesus answer the way to salvation? No! Jesus was demonstrating the folly of following after riches. The young man lied when he said he kept the Ten Commandments. He coveted his riches more than he desired Jesus. Jesus demonstrated this. He went away sad for he desired riches more that he desired God. Jesus was not giving him the way of salvation.

The text is very clear he then went away WITHOUT eternal life!

Your understanding is not so clear.

No, he is not. He WAS talking to His disciples. Then the text plainly says (at least in the parallel account), that he called the crowd over to Him AND His disciples! He was preaching the Gospel.

So you are making the Bible contradict itself? Either he is talking to his disciples or the crowd which is it? The answer: He was talking to his disciples and the crowd at one point was allowed to listen to his teaching to the disciples as they were on the sermon on the mount.
Example:
Matthew 5:1-2 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
--Those are the beginning verses of the Sermon on the Mount.

What a lie from Satan. "Life?" Hello?

Matthew 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
Mark 8:35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
--I said the verses are the same, and basically they are.
You accuse of telling a lie of Satan. I expect an apology. They are written and addressed to his disciples and speak of discipleship. Do you have any common decency?

Not so. He called the crowd to Him and His disciples. The commands were given to the crowds, who Jesus specifically called over.

That is not what it says in Matthew 11:1. To even suggest that is ludicrous.
Matthew 11:1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.
--He made an end of commanding his 12 disciples.
That is when they departed and were sent out. There were no others present. Don't read into Scripture that which is not there.

Explain it away however you wish. The fact is, that Jesus is teaching that if one does not pick up their cross and follow Him, then they will "forfeit their soul." The statement is clear.

Has it ever crossed your mind that unsaved people do not pick up the cross of Jesus and follow him. It is impossible for them to do that. The same teaching is given by Paul in Gal.2:20. He is writing to believers. In 1Cor.15:31, Paul says "I die daily." This is something to be done daily. It has nothing to do with salvation. Have you ever heard of the "crucified live"? Taking up one's cross is a daily action. Salvation is not.

Maybe according to you. Not according to the text.

According to the text in Matthew it is very clear that the only ones being addressed were his disciples.

Jesus went to teach the Sermon on the Mount, specifically because of the multitudes (Matthew 5:1). Jesus was teaching them how to be His apostles and spread His message. Thus they were observing His proclamations, and getting explanations of the things Jesus was proclaiming to the crowds. This is clear throughout the NT (see for example the Parable of the Sower in Matthew 13).

You didn't even read Mat.5:1,2 did you? I have already quoted them for you.

You are imagining a division that is not there. "Disciple" just means a learner. One can hardly be called a believer of Jesus if they are not "learning" from him. Also, according to you and your ilk, we apparently don't even have to tell others about Jesus. The great commission says nothing about making believers....

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations...

Yes, a disciple is a learner. One cannot be a learner until he first comes to Christ, unless he first becomes a Christian, a believer in Christ. Making disciples includes first witnessing to them, then bringing them to Christ. The word "teach" or "disciple" is the verb. It is defined by three other participles in the passage, defining what it is to disciple. And that includes baptizing, and teaching them all things. The very first item would be salvation of course, which must precede baptism.

He was speaking to the crowd.
No, I just accept what it says.

You haven't read Matthew. There is no crowd in Matthew, only the disciples.

I have quoted many Scriptures for you all telling you that salvation is by faith and faith alone. Do you disagree with that great reformation doctrine, "sola fide"?

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

And what has that got to do with "being justified by faith"? Nothing!

Jas 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

And what does that have to do with being justified by faith? Nothing!

Rom 16:26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith--

More evidence that you believe in a works salvation just like Muslims and Hindus. Salvation by faith is what makes Christianity different from all the other world religions.

 

[DHK]

Woa! Out of CONTEXT. So I guess we don't even have to have faith now, right? The text says nothing about belief or faith...

No, it is not out of context. Peter preached a salvation message. 3,000 were saved that day. They called upon the name of the Lord. They called on his name in faith.

1Co 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,
1Co 15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain

1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

This is your response to Acts 10:43.
Does it mean you don't believe Acts 10:43. I don't really understand your posting of these verses. There is no contradiction here.

Acts 26;20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.

And how does this deny what happened to the Philippian jailer. You quote a verse. So what? The Philippian jailer still got saved by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I thought it was just belief? Are you now adding a work? Namely, confessing?

Where did I say that? Are you putting words in my mouth, misrepresenting what I said. I usually call that a lie.
Romans 10:13 teaches salvation is by faith. "Calling on the name of the Lord" is an action of faith.

Thought it was just "belief?" Now we have to actually call on Him, too? Isn't that works?

Have you never called on his name?

Now we have to hear AND believe? How many things you adding? I thought it was just "belief"?

Though I never said belief, and have constantly said that salvation is by faith, "belief" does mean "have faith." Don't put words in my mouth.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

Define "belief" in first century terms, please. Jesus said that those who acted contrary to him, did not, in fact, believe. He told those who were scared on the boat, that they did not have faith... He said He "saw" the faith of those who brought the man sick of the palsy...

It is confidence in the word of another. In each case they had confidence in the word and promise of Christ, whether it was for salvation, healing, physical salvation (in the boat), they all had confidence in the word of Jesus.

Romans 4:20-21 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
--This is one of the best definitions of faith--being fully persuaded that what God has promised he will perform. Abraham was a man of faith. The definition hasn't changed from then until now.

Faith is NOT just mental assent. It is wholehearted devotion and trust. Which is another way of saying "Pick up your cross..."

I never said it was simple mental assent.
But it is not "Picking up one's cross." If it is, then you believe in a gospel of works. That is heresy. Picking up one's cross is a daily action of crucifying the flesh; saying no everyday to the things of the world. The cross is what Jesus died on, an instrument of execution or death. It is putting to death the sinful things of this world. It is done on a daily basis. It is not a one-time action at the time of salvation. If it were every Christian would be sinless.

And then he goes on to detail a bunch of things that show that a person has not believed. Hatred for ones brother. Continually living in sin. Etc.

But that is not what 1John 5:13 teaches is it? So why throw in the red herring? Deal with the truth of 1John 5:13.

All of the quotes you give above use the word "pistis" (translated by you, "belief". According to the Lexicon, "pistis" means:

"belief with the predominate idea of trust whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same, fidelity, faithfulness, the character of one who can be relied on"

I know what pistis means. It simply means faith or trust. You cannot add the rest of that definition on there. Faithfulness is the result of trust, not part of trust. If it is part of trust or faith, then salvation is made of works. Your salvation is no different, therefore than any other religion of the world.

Faith, not "belief." Faith means more than belief. For instance, when a man cheats on his wife, he is said to have "broken the faith."

Here you are using the word faith as a noun instead of a verb. You are using it the same way as Jude uses it when he says that we must "contend for the faith." Here it is used as a body of doctrine that we collectively believe.
As a verb it means "have faith" or believe. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Have faith in him. It is a verb.

Are you saying Paul taught a works salvation? Any gospel message that does not include a faith of repentance of sin, and dedication to Christ, ALWAYS RESULTING IN "deeds" is not the same message Paul preached.

Paul taught: "For by grace are ye saved through faith... and that not of works.
You teach that salvation is through works, using verses that are directly aimed at discipleship and making them requirements for salvation. That is works.

 

[Yeshua1]

isn't the big confusion on that some LSD see those of us not advocating it as saying we hold to believers not having jesus as their lord, or have no use for godly living, as "Just need faith alone?"