I am CONFUSED about Lordship theology

[DHK]

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.

I don't the testimony of a LS advocate yet who has:

"gone, sold all that they own, given it to the poor, taken up their cross, and followed Jesus" (for example to the foreign mission field).

Show me some one who has that testimony. What about you Havensdad? Have you sold all that you have and given it to the poor?
What about FAL?

Thus my comment, "Isn't it ironical that those who preach LS don't practice it themselves." They are hypocrites.

 

[Iconoclast]

I don't the testimony of a LS advocate yet who has:

"gone, sold all that they own, given it to the poor, taken up their cross, and followed Jesus" (for example to the foreign mission field).

Show me some one who has that testimony. What about you Havensdad? Have you sold all that you have and given it to the poor?
What about FAL?

Thus my comment, "Isn't it ironical that those who preach LS don't practice it themselves." They are hypocrites.

Look up Trevor Johnson on facebook.....
he is here...and he believes in Gods grace....a calvinist.....

http://www.worldteampapua.org/


That does not mean everyone has to go to that place,and live in Bamboo huts...but God sends the best there.

 

[DHK]

Look up Trevor Johnson on facebook.....
he is here...and he believes in Gods grace....a calvinist.....

http://www.worldteampapua.org/


That does not mean everyone has to go to that place,and live in Bamboo huts...but God sends the best there.

This mission is not even Baptist, much less Calvinist. They are ecumenical.

 

[John of Japan]

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 ).

Then you are not really an evangelical, correct? (I don't mean this as an attack, but rather an observation.)

Concerning the perfect tense, look at your grammars again. The usual explanation is that it is an event that happened in past time (depending on your view of aspect), the results of which continue until now. The perfect does not describe a continuing event or process. That would require an imperfect or present tense.

So I counter with the fact that many, many times in the NT pisteuo is in the aorist with reference to salvation. I don't have time to be sure exactly how many times it refers to salvation, but pisteuo in the aorist occurs 99 times in the NT. So salvation was considered a one time event in these passages.

Edited in: By contrast, pisteuo in the perfect occurs only 18 times in the NT.

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.

That faith produces works is exactly what I've been saying. That is not the same as saying that they are the same by a long shot.

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.

All I can say is that modern semantics as practiced by most lexicologists doesn't allow for what you are calling eastern thinking, unless you follow Eugene Nida and his existential theology and methodology. The NT writers were still bound by Greek semantics and grammar, whatever their thinking was.

 

[freeatlast]

I don't the testimony of a LS advocate yet who has:

"gone, sold all that they own, given it to the poor, taken up their cross, and followed Jesus" (for example to the foreign mission field).

Show me some one who has that testimony. What about you Havensdad? Have you sold all that you have and given it to the poor?
What about FAL?

Thus my comment, "Isn't it ironical that those who preach LS don't practice it themselves." They are hypocrites.

There is no command to go and sell all and give to the poor. 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.

 

[DHK]

There is no command to go and sell all and give to the poor. 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.

You are simply avoiding the truth of what Jesus says, and what he commands, according to LS advocates.
Does he not command:

Go, sell all that you have, give to the poor, take up your cross, and follow me. That command is given in Mark 10, and is used by LS advocates. If you read the above discussion with Havensdad, you will see that he used in defense of his position.
That was one of his commands.

Another straight forward command of Jesus is simply this:
Whosoever forsakes not all that he has cannot be my disciple.
Have you obeyed that command? Have you forsaken all?

Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
--Do you obey this one?

Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

Have you done that? If not, why not?

 

[freeatlast]

You are simply avoiding the truth of what Jesus says, and what he commands, according to LS advocates.
Does he not command:

Go, sell all that you have, give to the poor, take up your cross, and follow me.
That was one of his commands.

Have you done that? If not, why not?

No He never made that command. Are you doing this;
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.

 

[Greektim]

Then you are not really an evangelical, correct? (I don't mean this as an attack, but rather an observation.)

I'm extremely evangelical. I don't see anything in that statement that says otherwise. Certainly not a fundamentalist though. I fear you misunderstand what I am saying about continuous faith and repentance.

Concerning the perfect tense, look at your grammars again. The usual explanation is that it is an event that happened in past time (depending on your view of aspect), the results of which continue until now. The perfect does not describe a continuing event or process. That would require an imperfect or present tense.

We have the same sense of understanding for the perfect tense. However, I would ask what the continuous result would be if not faithfulness???

So I counter with the fact that many, many times in the NT pisteuo is in the aorist with reference to salvation. I don't have time to be sure exactly how many times it refers to salvation, but pisteuo in the aorist occurs 99 times in the NT. So salvation was considered a one time event in these passages.

I think you are abusing the aorist tense (now that we are talking greek grammar). I'm almost positive you've read Stagg's article "Abused Aorist" (Stagg, Frank. 1972. "Abused Aorist." Journal Of Biblical Literature 91, no. 2: 222-231.). I think you are making the same mistakes he mentions. But I will grant you that I am not sure which tense is used more. But I know the imperfect and perfect tenses are both used for the salvific faith experience.

That faith produces works is exactly what I've been saying. That is not the same as saying that they are the same by a long shot.

This may be more nuance than anything else. It almost seems like a distinction without much of a difference. I'm neither saying faith is the work or is a work but that true faith coincides with or produces faithfulness. If you are more comfortable w/ terms like "result", then that's no problem by me. But LS teaches that faith w/out works is dead.

All I can say is that modern semantics as practiced by most lexicologists doesn't allow for what you are calling eastern thinking, unless you follow Eugene Nida and his existential theology and methodology. The NT writers were still bound by Greek semantics and grammar, whatever their thinking was.

I have a feeling as we see more and more the trend to interpret the GNT like OT scholars have been for a while, this may be stressed much less. And I still don't see why it can't be considered that "faith" and "faithfulness" are not distinct definitions but both are part and parcel to the pist- root. Can one definition be stressed more than another? Sure. But that does not remove the other less stressed implicit nuance of the word that makes it such a loaded word (kinda like the word "gospel").

 

[DHK]

No He never made that command. Are you doing this;
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.

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

 

[freeatlast]

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

That was for one man, not for everyone. If you read on the disciples were shocked and questioned it and the Lord made it clear that his riches was what was keeping him from surrendering all. It would be different for each person but unless we surrender to Him being Master/Lord over us we will not be saved
You did not answer my question;
Are you doing this;
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.

 

[DHK]

That was for one man, not for everyone. If you read on the disciples were shocked and questioned it and the Lord made it clear that his riches was what was keeping him from surrendering all. It would be different for each person but unless we surrender to Him being Master/Lord over us we will not be saved
You did not answer my question;

I do not accept a question as an answer to a question, so no I will not answer your question. I have asked you a question that you refuse to give a straight forward answer.

The answer was for all according to most LS advocates. For proof of that read Havensdad answer to me. It is typical. It goes this way:

Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

The answer to the question "What must I do that I may eternal life," is given by Jesus:
"Go, sell all that you have, give to the poor, take up your cross and come and follow me."

Most LS advocates use the verse in this context. Yes Jesus commanded it, just like I gave you the other Scriptures from Luke which you have failed to address.

Have you forsaken all and followed Jesus? If not why not?

 

[freeatlast]

I do not accept a question as an answer to a question, so no I will not answer your question. I have asked you a question that you refuse to give a straight forward answer.

The answer was for all according to most LS advocates. For proof of that read Havensdad answer to me. It is typical. It goes this way:

Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

The answer to the question "What must I do that I may eternal life," is given by Jesus:
"Go, sell all that you have, give to the poor, take up your cross and come and follow me."

Most LS advocates use the verse in this context. Yes Jesus commanded it, just like I gave you the other Scriptures from Luke which you have failed to address.

Have you forsaken all and followed Jesus? If not why not?

I do not accept a question as an answer to a question
Are you doing this;
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.

 

[DHK]

I do not accept a question as an answer to a question
Are you doing this;
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.

You first started questioning me from this post:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1851381&postcount=101

I had made an original remark to you in post #85, but it wasn't until after 101 that you began answering questions already asked with other questions.

 

[freeatlast]

You first started questioning me from this post:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1851381&postcount=101

I had made an original remark to you in post #85, but it wasn't until after 101 that you began answering questions already asked with other questions.

.I answered, you just did not like the answer and now I am asking a question;
Are you doing this;
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.

 

[DHK]

.I answered, you just did not like the answer and now I am asking a question;
Are you doing this;
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.

I don't (have a) testimony of a LS advocate yet who has:

"gone, sold all that they own, given it to the poor, taken up their cross, and followed Jesus" (for example to the foreign mission field).

Show me some one who has that testimony. What about you Havensdad? Have you sold all that you have and given it to the poor?
What about FAL?

Thus my comment, "Isn't it ironical that those who preach LS don't practice it themselves." They are hypocrites.

That is the original question FAL, which also quotes post #85, my first remark to you on this thread. I await your answer. Otherwise I have no further need to discuss anything with you. I regard LS theology a sham and hypocritical for they cannot practice what they preach, they, like the Pharisees lay burdens on new believers which they themselves cannot keep. Jesus said of them: "Woe unto you."

 

[freeatlast]

That is the original question FAL, which also quotes post #85, my first remark to you on this thread. I await your answer. Otherwise I have no further need to discuss anything with you. I regard LS theology a sham and hypocritical for they cannot practice what they preach, they, like the Pharisees lay burdens on new believers which they themselves cannot keep. Jesus said of them: "Woe unto you."

Here is what you asked/stated in #85
# 85
Yet the ironical thing about this FAL, is that most people who preach this have never practiced it themselves. They are hypocrites

I answered you in 93
# 93
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.



now I am asking a question;
Are you doing this;
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.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm extremely evangelical. I don't see anything in that statement that says otherwise. Certainly not a fundamentalist though. I fear you misunderstand what I am saying about continuous faith and repentance.

We have the same sense of understanding for the perfect tense. However, I would ask what the continuous result would be if not faithfulness???

I was convinced that you believed salvation was a process rather than a single event (the evangelical view). Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I think you are abusing the aorist tense (now that we are talking greek grammar). I'm almost positive you've read Stagg's article "Abused Aorist" (Stagg, Frank. 1972. "Abused Aorist." Journal Of Biblical Literature 91, no. 2: 222-231.). I think you are making the same mistakes he mentions. But I will grant you that I am not sure which tense is used more. But I know the imperfect and perfect tenses are both used for the salvific faith experience.

I'm only misusing the aorist if you follow Stanley Porter and gang, who I think are all wet. :saint: I'm a traditionalist. Where I do not agree with the traditionalists is that the aorist must be always be past, but I do believe it points to a singular event in the indicative, otherwise it would serve little purpose in koine.

This may be more nuance than anything else. It almost seems like a distinction without much of a difference. I'm neither saying faith is the work or is a work but that true faith coincides with or produces faithfulness. If you are more comfortable w/ terms like "result", then that's no problem by me. But LS teaches that faith w/out works is dead.

Well, LS teaches a lot more than that, but let it pass. The thread is on p. 12.

I have a feeling as we see more and more the trend to interpret the GNT like OT scholars have been for a while, this may be stressed much less. And I still don't see why it can't be considered that "faith" and "faithfulness" are not distinct definitions but both are part and parcel to the pist- root. Can one definition be stressed more than another? Sure. But that does not remove the other less stressed implicit nuance of the word that makes it such a loaded word (kinda like the word "gospel").

I'll try to keep an eye on this development, but I recently read Dr. Black's edited Linguistics and NT Interpretation, and don't remember anything there on it. Also, Cotterell & Turner (Linguistics an Bible Interpretation) doesn't seem to have anything.

 

[Havensdad]

I do not accept a question as an answer to a question, so no I will not answer your question. I have asked you a question that you refuse to give a straight forward answer.

The answer was for all according to most LS advocates. For proof of that read Havensdad answer to me. It is typical. It goes this way:

Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

The answer to the question "What must I do that I may eternal life," is given by Jesus:
"Go, sell all that you have, give to the poor, take up your cross and come and follow me."

Most LS advocates use the verse in this context. Yes Jesus commanded it, just like I gave you the other Scriptures from Luke which you have failed to address.

Have you forsaken all and followed Jesus? If not why not?

Actually, you are misquoting me. I specifically said that one must "be willing to give up everything." There obviously is a sense when someone is saved, that everything they have is turned over to the Lord, but it is not necessarily in a physical manner.

And yes, actually, I did do this. However, that is another story.

 

[Greektim]

I was convinced that you believed salvation was a process rather than a single event (the evangelical view). Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Definitely not. What I am saying is that faith and repentance is ongoing and continuous. The result of the perfect tense perhaps.

I'm only misusing the aorist if you follow Stanley Porter and gang, who I think are all wet. :saint: I'm a traditionalist. Where I do not agree with the traditionalists is that the aorist must be always be past, but I do believe it points to a singular event in the indicative, otherwise it would serve little purpose in koine.

This is before the Porter debate. If you have not read the article, I think you would enjoy it. It is a standard in aorist discussions. Also, I'm not sure within the indicative, but Dr. Black likes to think that non-indicative aorist emphasize the lexical meaning over kind of time. I would think that in didactic style writing, this would probably be true of the indicative aorist.

Well, LS teaches a lot more than that, but let it pass. The thread is on p. 12.

I'll try to keep an eye on this development, but I recently read Dr. Black's edited Linguistics and NT Interpretation, and don't remember anything there on it. Also, Cotterell & Turner (Linguistics an Bible Interpretation) doesn't seem to have anything.

I might be broadening this farther than semantics, but the trend in exegesis is TIS and making use of inter & intra textuality as well as integrated readings of NT books (especially the gospel accounts). But I've seen that leak into lexical discussions. Much in the world of NT Greek is changing. How up are you on the debate to remove "deponent" from our grammar? Pretty interesting stuff.

 

[DHK]

Actually, you are misquoting me. I specifically said that one must "be willing to give up everything." There obviously is a sense when someone is saved, that everything they have is turned over to the Lord, but it is not necessarily in a physical manner.

And yes, actually, I did do this. However, that is another story.

Willing and doing are two different things. When LS advocates preach that you must forsake all that you have to follow Jesus as a condition to be saved (and some do), and they have never done so themselves, then it is hypocritical. I am not speaking of your particular situation. You may be the exception. If you are praise God. But rarely do I ever find anyone who has kept such a command. It is too demanding on their comfy lifestyle in America; they are not willing to sacrifice.