I am CONFUSED about Lordship theology

[Havensdad]

But someone who knows Greek like you do, who has studied under top scholars as you have, should know that "faith" and "obedience" are not lexically similar. So how do you get that "dedication to Jesus is exactly what 'faith' in Jesus means"? To do that, you have to change the meaning of faith from the definition BAGD, Friberg and other lexicologists give it, not to mention how the writer of Hebrews defines it. How in the world do you get that faith is obedience from "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"?

Pistis is used interchangeably with trust and obedience. That is why fidelity and/or faithfulness is included in many lexicons as secondary definitions.

Frequently we see the Bible juxtapose "obedience" and "disbelief" (different root words) OR "belief" and "disobedience."

For instance

Rom 2:6 He will render to each one according to his works:
Rom 2:7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
Rom 2:8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

Here, words for "obedience" are placed in opposition to the word for "unbelieving." In biblical terms, a person who does not obey, is a person who does not believe. A person who DOES obey, is a person who does believe.

This even translates into every day living. Why do we sin? We sin because in the moment we are tempted, we trust (have faith in) ourselves and our own desires and reason, rather than having faith (trust) in God.

 

[percho]

But someone who knows Greek like you do, who has studied under top scholars as you have, should know that "faith" and "obedience" are not lexically similar. So how do you get that "dedication to Jesus is exactly what 'faith' in Jesus means"? To do that, you have to change the meaning of faith from the definition BAGD, Friberg and other lexicologists give it, not to mention how the writer of Hebrews defines it. How in the world do you get that faith is obedience from "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"?

Rather than, "that faith is obedience."

Is the resurrected Jesus Christ, the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen, the for, εἰς in the phrase εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ; for obedience of faith, found twice in the word of God.

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Is the resurrected Jesus the epitome of obedience of faith, being the substance of things hoped for (hope of eternal life), the evidence of things not seen (in any man born of woman,) The Son of God.

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Is that why Paul was an apostle to the nations? To make this known.

Can that be seen in the Greek? I know, no Greek.

 

[DHK]

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.
Mar 8:35 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.
Mar 8:36 For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?

This is not salvation language but rather the type of language Christ would give his disciples. Look at more of the context.

Jesus had been alone with his disciples. Peter had just rebuked him.
Mark 8:33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

Mark 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
--Others are invited to hear him, but the message is still mainly to his disciples.

Mark 8:35-38 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. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
--This is not a message for the unsaved.

The same discourse, the same message, and the same audience is continued in the first verse of chapter nine. Remember there were no chapter breaks in the originals.
Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
--Who is he speaking to, and what is speaking about?
He is speaking about the Transfiguration, which after the three had seen it, he commanded them to tell no one about. The "them" refers to the disciples. Everything that he had said was primarily to the disciples.

For an example one might think of a church where the pastor is teaching his flock, but there are a few unsaved people privileged enough to hear the message as well. But the pastor's primary function is to feed the flock. That is what Jesus was doing. He was teaching his disciples; others were listening in.

That is salvation language. "Follow me" or "lose your soul." How anyone can deny that, I do not know. There is not some special class of Christian. "Disciple" just means a saved person.

Salvation is simple: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
That is what the Bible teaches; nothing more, nothing less. It is the simple message of the gospel. There is no need to add to it.

3Jn 1:11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

1Jn_3:10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

Both of these epistles were written to believers, not unbelievers. They are not speaking of salvation, per se. If you don't know the meaning of the verses it is better not to refer to them.

 

[freeatlast]

This is not salvation language but rather the type of language Christ would give his disciples. Look at more of the context.

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.
Mar 8:35 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.
Mar 8:36 For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?

Look more at the wording.
For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?

That is about salvation.

 

[Greektim]

But someone who knows Greek like you do, who has studied under top scholars as you have, should know that "faith" and "obedience" are not lexically similar. So how do you get that "dedication to Jesus is exactly what 'faith' in Jesus means"? To do that, you have to change the meaning of faith from the definition BAGD, Friberg and other lexicologists give it, not to mention how the writer of Hebrews defines it. How in the world do you get that faith is obedience from "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"?

Simply because "faith" can just as easily mean "faithfulness" as Havensdad pointed out. It is also etymologically related to the word "to be convinced" (though I don't mean to make an etymological fallacy). So it has the meaning of more than mental assent and trust in a truth but a belief in a truth with a solid conviction that spurs action. Since it is also related to repentance, we are told what this action is.

As for DHK, it is a typical response to juxtapose discipleship and conversion and also disciple w/ new believer. Here is a challenge, do you see Jesus ever making "new believers" or does he make disciples off the gate??? Also, Mark 10 and the rich young ruler account interchange discipleship language and salvific language. It is a mistake to distinguish between discipleship and a Christian. A Christian is a follower of Jesus, as simple as that.

 

[Havensdad]

This is not salvation language but rather the type of language Christ would give his disciples. Look at more of the context.

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

Jesus had been alone with his disciples. Peter had just rebuked him.
Mark 8:33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

Mark 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
--Others are invited to hear him, but the message is still mainly to his disciples.

Mark 8:35-38 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. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
--This is not a message for the unsaved.

The same discourse, the same message, and the same audience is continued in the first verse of chapter nine. Remember there were no chapter breaks in the originals.
Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
--Who is he speaking to, and what is speaking about?
He is speaking about the Transfiguration, which after the three had seen it, he commanded them to tell no one about. The "them" refers to the disciples. Everything that he had said was primarily to the disciples.

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.

For an example one might think of a church where the pastor is teaching his flock, but there are a few unsaved people privileged enough to hear the message as well. But the pastor's primary function is to feed the flock. That is what Jesus was doing. He was teaching his disciples; others were listening in.

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

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.

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

Salvation is simple: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
That is what the Bible teaches; nothing more, nothing less. It is the simple message of the gospel. There is no need to add to it.

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.

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.

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

Both of these epistles were written to believers, not unbelievers. They are not speaking of salvation, per se. If you don't know the meaning of the verses it is better not to refer to them.

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?

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.

 

[webdog]

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

No, its hyperbolic language.

 

[John of Japan]

Pistis is used interchangeably with trust and obedience. That is why fidelity and/or faithfulness is included in many lexicons as secondary definitions.

No, pistis is never ever used interchangeabley with obedience. I defy you to show me a single passage where this is true.

I think you are confusing pistis with peitho, which can mean "obey" when used with a noun in the dative, but this is rare.

Frequently we see the Bible juxtapose "obedience" and "disbelief" (different root words) OR "belief" and "disobedience."

For instance

Rom 2:6 He will render to each one according to his works:
Rom 2:7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
Rom 2:8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

Here, words for "obedience" are placed in opposition to the word for "unbelieving." In biblical terms, a person who does not obey, is a person who does not believe. A person who DOES obey, is a person who does believe.

Um, no word for believe or unbelieving (pistis, pisteuo, peitho, apistos or apeitho) appears anywhere in Romans 2 or the immediate context. Try again.

Anyway, this is not how semantics works. You determine meaning by how a word is used in contemporary documents, not with what words it is compared or used in opposition. Go back to first year Greek or linguistics. :smilewinkgrin:

Your exegesis can make note of the fact that a word is used in oppostion and go from there. Your semantics cannot, otherwise lexicons would give a meaning of "obey" for pistis or pisteuo, and they do not.

This even translates into every day living. Why do we sin? We sin because in the moment we are tempted, we trust (have faith in) ourselves and our own desires and reason, rather than having faith (trust) in God.

So where does "obey" come in this analysis? I don't see it.

 

[OldRegular]

Those who have truly experienced the New Birth, and subsequent Conversion, should have no difficulty understanding that Jesus Christ is Lord and submiting to that Lordship.

Salvation is not the mere intellectual assent to the facts regarding the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Even the devils believe and tremble but they are not saved!

Salvation is a supernatural event, a one on one interaction between God and man. The initial event in Salvation is the New Birth. The New Birth is solely the work of God the Holy Spirit. Various forms of expression are employed in the Scriptures, to denote the change that occurs at the New Birth:

It is taking away the heart of stone, and giving a heart of flesh, a new heart.

Ezekiel 36:26, KJV
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

It is putting the law in the heart.

Hebrews 8:10, KJV
10 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

It is quickening or making alive.

John 6:63, KJV
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

John 5:21, KJV
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth [them]; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

It is a resurrection from the spiritual death.

John 5:25, KJV
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

It is a New Creation.

2 Corinthians 5:17. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

 

[John of Japan]

Rather than, "that faith is obedience."

Is the resurrected Jesus Christ, the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen, the for, εἰς in the phrase εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ; for obedience of faith, found twice in the word of God.

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Is the resurrected Jesus the epitome of obedience of faith, being the substance of things hoped for (hope of eternal life), the evidence of things not seen (in any man born of woman,) The Son of God.

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Is that why Paul was an apostle to the nations? To make this known.

Can that be seen in the Greek? I know, no Greek.

Both of these verses use what is called the subjective genetive, "the obedience which springs from faith" (A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures). I don't argue that belief does not lead to obedience, only that they are two separate meanings.

 

[percho]

In the Greek does; to believe in and the faith of have the same meaning?

Are faith and belief the same thing?

Could one be the by product of the other?

 

[John of Japan]

Simply because "faith" can just as easily mean "faithfulness" as Havensdad pointed out. It is also etymologically related to the word "to be convinced" (though I don't mean to make an etymological fallacy). So it has the meaning of more than mental assent and trust in a truth but a belief in a truth with a solid conviction that spurs action. Since it is also related to repentance, we are told what this action is.

I agree that faith leads to action, to obedience. What I objected to was the idea that "believe" and "obey" are synonyms, as you seemed to say. Look the words up in whichever book you have on NT synonyms.

As concerning faithfulness, it can take place with no obedience. The movie "Hachiko" with Richard Gere illustrates this. It is based on the beautiful true story of a dog named Hachiko which was the pet of a Japanese office worker. Hachiko always accompanied her master to the Shinjuku train station down in Tokyo, then waited all day for him to accompany him home. One day the master had a heart attack and went straight to the hospital from work, and died there. The dog continued to faithfully wait for his master, living at the station and being fed by sympathetic people. There is a statue of Hachiko at the Shinjuku Station (I've seen it many times), who was faithful without necessarily obeying any command.

As for DHK, it is a typical response to juxtapose discipleship and conversion and also disciple w/ new believer. Here is a challenge, do you see Jesus ever making "new believers" or does he make disciples off the gate??? Also, Mark 10 and the rich young ruler account interchange discipleship language and salvific language. It is a mistake to distinguish between discipleship and a Christian. A Christian is a follower of Jesus, as simple as that.

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

 

[Greektim]

I agree that faith leads to action, to obedience. What I objected to was the idea that "believe" and "obey" are synonyms, as you seemed to say. Look the words up in whichever book you have on NT synonyms.

As concerning faithfulness, it can take place with no obedience. The movie "Hachiko" with Richard Gere illustrates this. It is based on the beautiful true story of a dog named Hachiko which was the pet of a Japanese office worker. Hachiko always accompanied her master to the Shinjuku train station down in Tokyo, then waited all day for him to accompany him home. One day the master had a heart attack and went straight to the hospital from work, and died there. The dog continued to faithfully wait for his master, living at the station and being fed by sympathetic people. There is a statue of Hachiko at the Shinjuku Station (I've seen it many times), who was faithful without necessarily obeying any command.

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

But a call to faith and faithfulness to Jesus is not as congruent to the illustration as you gave. Faithfulness to Jesus means a consistent obedience to him. I would go so far as to say that the "faith" concept is the cognitive side and "faithfulness" is the active side of the concept of pistis. Both are implied. In other words, following Jesus means to properly identify him and thus react to that identification. The Christian confession is Jesus is Lord NOT Jesus is Savior. His identification leads to a reaction of faithfulness to his lordship. Any distinction between following Jesus and conversion to Jesus is misplaced in my opinion. So I have no problem noting the gospel message of Jesus and carrying it out as he commanded his disciples (make other disciples NOT converts).

On the other end of this, I think we are so afraid of works b/c of where we have come from in the Reformation that we have reacted to the other extreme where works are totally removed from the discussion. But what if works (understood properly) was implicit in pistis? What if the implication is not earning salvation through works but being faithful to Jesus with obedience. It is not the obedience that earns anything but simply the only, proper response to what has been freely bestowed -- forgiveness and justification and et al. This seems to be what Jesus called from his disciples. He seemed to want that mimicked in the disciples commission. So we should be looking for continuity between these. This is also where I appreciate Wright's understanding of future justification in Romans 2. His understanding of Paul's gospel and justification finds much continuity with Jesus' gospel call.

 

[Greektim]

In the Greek does; to believe in and the faith of have the same meaning?

Are faith and belief the same thing?

Could one be the by product of the other?

There is no distinction between to believe and to trust and to have faith in. However, the word also has a sense of faithfulness as well. We might be mistaken in distinguishing these nuances in the words. Perhaps they are always implied in every case.

 

[Havensdad]

No, pistis is never ever used interchangeabley with obedience. I defy you to show me a single passage where this is true.

Mat 9:2 And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven."

Can you please show a single instance in scripture, where it says, "And though they believed, they did not obey"? You won't find it. In EVERY INSTANCE where someone is said to have faith, in regards to their action, they are obedient. IN EVERY CASE where someone is said to have no faith, in regards to their action, it is disobedience. There is not a single time in all of scripture where faith and obedience are divorced from one another.

Um, no word for believe or unbelieving (pistis, pisteuo, peitho, apistos or apeitho) appears anywhere in Romans 2 or the immediate context. Try again.

Uh, it most certainly DOES!

Rom 2:6 He will render to each one according to his works:
Rom 2:7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
Rom 2:8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey (apeitho) the truth, but obey(peitho) unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

My point. The word "peitho" can be used for either belief, OR obedience. It is interchangeable.

Anyway, this is not how semantics works. You determine meaning by how a word is used in contemporary documents, not with what words it is compared or used in opposition. Go back to first year Greek or linguistics. :smilewinkgrin:

Not what I learned, my friend. You most certainly CAN determine nuances of meaning by comparing opposed terms. For instance, if there was a sentence that said, "Do not disbelieve, but obey" that would tell us something about the usage of these two words. This is why many study aids give antonyms.

I suggest you research this a bit more.

Your exegesis can make note of the fact that a word is used in oppostion and go from there. Your semantics cannot, otherwise lexicons would give a meaning of "obey" for pistis or pisteuo, and they do not.

They DO give a definition of "faithfulness" for pistis. To be "faithful" is "any loyal or steadfast following."

So where does "obey" come in this analysis? I don't see it.

It most certainly does. Faith is directly correlative to obedience. The degree to which one obeys, is the degree to which one has faith. A person who obeys is full of faith, or "Faithful." The person who does not obey, is unbelieving.

 

[HankD]

I agree with JoJ.

IMV, Faith and obedience are two aspects of the new birth.
Only the children of God can believe and subsequently obey the leading of the Spirit.

And in this case I also agree with ICON (Gasp!).

You can't make Him Lord of your life because He already is Lord of all.

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.​

He is God come in the flesh, Creator, Savior, Sanctifier, Redeemer of our bodies. King of kings and Lord of lords.

One day ALL will bow the knee to Him.

Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;​

In my estimation the problem is that we confound justification with sanctification/maturity.

We are born babes in Christ, Immature, fleshy with fleshy thoughts. We grow in grace and the knowledge of Jesus Christ through the milk of the word into young men and then mature into fathers who are able to nurture and encourage others onto sanctification and holiness.

We become young men by overcoming the evil one in our lives.

1 John 2:13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.​

Besides, how could anyone who hears His voice not want to respond to His invitation of rest.

Matthew 11

27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.​

Hebrews 4
9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.​

Then comes the appeal of Scripture:​

Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.​

1 Peter 1:15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.​

On the other hand to just claim Him as Lord (even empatically) with one's lips is not a guarantee that He is your Lord.​

Matthew 7
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have wenot prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

Just previous to this teaching Jesus said​

Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.​

Galatians 5
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.​

No pretender (tare) can walk in the Spirit they can only mimic the wheat but God Himself will eventually garner them out unto judgement.

Matthew 13

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.​

I believe LS theolgy is a sincere but misguided over reaction to the corruption and influence of the tares who have infiltrated the church as Christ predicted 2000 years ago.

HankD​

 

[humblethinker]

It most certainly does. Faith is directly correlative to obedience. The degree to which one obeys, is the degree to which one has faith. A person who obeys is full of faith, or "Faithful." The person who does not obey, is unbelieving.

Are you saying that never can there be obedience without faith? In abusive authoritarian cultures and relationships obedience can be performed without faith.

 

[John of Japan]

Mat 9:2 And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven."

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.

Can you please show a single instance in scripture, where it says, "And though they believed, they did not obey"? You won't find it. In EVERY INSTANCE where someone is said to have faith, in regards to their action, they are obedient. IN EVERY CASE where someone is said to have no faith, in regards to their action, it is disobedience. There is not a single time in all of scripture where faith and obedience are divorced from one another.

But I've not argued this. I do agree that if you believe you will obey. What I argue against is that "believe" and "obey" are synonyms.

Uh, it most certainly DOES!

Rom 2:6 He will render to each one according to his works:
Rom 2:7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
Rom 2:8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey (apeitho) the truth, but obey(peitho) unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

My point. The word "peitho" can be used for either belief, OR obedience. It is interchangeable.

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").

Not what I learned, my friend. You most certainly CAN determine nuances of meaning by comparing opposed terms. For instance, if there was a sentence that said, "Do not disbelieve, but obey" that would tell us something about the usage of these two words. This is why many study aids give antonyms.

I suggest you research this a bit more.

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

They DO give a definition of "faithfulness" for pistis. To be "faithful" is "any loyal or steadfast following."

I have not disagreed with this.

It most certainly does. Faith is directly correlative to obedience. The degree to which one obeys, is the degree to which one has faith. A person who obeys is full of faith, or "Faithful." The person who does not obey, is unbelieving.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

But a call to faith and faithfulness to Jesus is not as congruent to the illustration as you gave. Faithfulness to Jesus means a consistent obedience to him. I would go so far as to say that the "faith" concept is the cognitive side and "faithfulness" is the active side of the concept of pistis. Both are implied. In other words, following Jesus means to properly identify him and thus react to that identification.

You're making statements without proof here. What is your proof that faithfulness to Jesus means a consistent obedience? Where do you get the difference in the cognitive side and active side of pistis?

So let's back up. You said that belief and obedience were the same in meaning. You're not answering my opposition to that. Prove that faith and obedience are the same please. I believe that obedience follows faith like day follows night, so there is a causative function in faith. But that is hardly the same as saying faith and obedience are synonyms. (You've not interacted with my point from the definition of faith in Heb. 11:1 yet--I'd like to see that. :type

The Christian confession is Jesus is Lord NOT Jesus is Savior. His identification leads to a reaction of faithfulness to his lordship. Any distinction between following Jesus and conversion to Jesus is misplaced in my opinion. So I have no problem noting the gospel message of Jesus and carrying it out as he commanded his disciples (make other disciples NOT converts).

What?? Are you divorcing Christ as Savior from salvation? I really don't follow this.

On the other end of this, I think we are so afraid of works b/c of where we have come from in the Reformation that we have reacted to the other extreme where works are totally removed from the discussion. But what if works (understood properly) was implicit in pistis? What if the implication is not earning salvation through works but being faithful to Jesus with obedience. It is not the obedience that earns anything but simply the only, proper response to what has been freely bestowed -- forgiveness and justification and et al. This seems to be what Jesus called from his disciples. He seemed to want that mimicked in the disciples commission. So we should be looking for continuity between these. This is also where I appreciate Wright's understanding of future justification in Romans 2. His understanding of Paul's gospel and justification finds much continuity with Jesus' gospel call.

Please prove that the concept of "works" is implicit in pistis.

So far in this thread I've been arguing Greek semantics, which is what I'll have to stick to here. I don't really have time this week to get into the whole theology. We leave tomorrow for a seminar, so I have to prepare for that.

 

[Greektim]

You're making statements without proof here. What is your proof that faithfulness to Jesus means a consistent obedience? Where do you get the difference in the cognitive side and active side of pistis?

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?

So let's back up. You said that belief and obedience were the same in meaning. You're not answering my opposition to that. Prove that faith and obedience are the same please. I believe that obedience follows faith like day follows night, so there is a causative function in faith. But that is hardly the same as saying faith and obedience are synonyms. (You've not interacted with my point from the definition of faith in Heb. 11:1 yet--I'd like to see that. :type

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. 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?

What?? Are you divorcing Christ as Savior from salvation? I really don't follow this.

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.

Please prove that the concept of "works" is implicit in pistis.

So far in this thread I've been arguing Greek semantics, which is what I'll have to stick to here. I don't really have time this week to get into the whole theology. We leave tomorrow for a seminar, so I have to prepare for that.

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.