Is This an "Invitation to Salvation?"

No, the passage contextually is not an invitation to salvation and in fact James is speaking to BELIEVERS. The context is clear. James is admonishing believers to not reflect in their lives friendship with the world, that their lives ought not be characterized as such because friendship with the world makes one by default the enemy of God. Clearly, James is calling believers who apparently in this case have a number of problems without solutions, he is calling them to instead of live as the world, humble, submit, resist the devil and draw night to God and the result with be solutions to their problems. This prescription is for the believer.

I do find it strange that MacArthur, a Calvinist, would claim this is an invitation to salvation seeing that unbelievers, (who, according to Calvinism are totally depraved and incapable or responding in any manner) are told not just to resist the devil (a strange capacity for a non-believer who is allegedly so depraved he can't do this in the first place) and draw nigh to God. But that is an argument for another day.

The context is quite clear, James is addressing believers. I really am surprise that MacArthur has become so entangled in Calvinism that such simple readings are not being forced to be altered in his mind. He is a gifted teacher.

 

1. Then provide the biblical understanding of these terms.

2. Let's see what they are.


[QUOTEN], faith is never defined in the Bible as submit or commit. You are rationalizing “commit/submit” into the meaning of faith as, what you identify as a, “concept.” That “concept” is flawed and is not part of the biblical definition of faith.

Faith (belief) is a very common word in the New Testament. It is the translation of the Greek ***** (pistis), and occurs 245 times, and is almost always translated faith, but is occasionally rendered believe, belief, assurance, or fidelity in the King James Version of the Bible. [/QUOTE]

2. I am surprized that "trust" is not part of the definition of pistis. What are "assurance" and "fidelity" if they do not involve "submitting" and "committing."

3. What does the KJV have to do with a proper definition of pistis.

4. Demonstrate from 2 Cor 11:3 that "commitment, surrender," are not part of the gospel.

5. Demonstrate from Scripture that your accusation is right of Lordship Salvation. And quit throwing around empty words.

 

1. I find it laughable that you want to confine your thread to James 4:7-10, when you are the one who has brought this text to disprove the entirety of LS.

2. You have said so much in your second question and expect to revert to James 4:7-10 and keep it there. Come on! You know better than that.

3. How can you seek to destroy LS and not expect a defence of it?

4. While James 4:7-10 is not an evangelistic appeal, the principle involve in a person's conversion experience are there and therefore can be used as an illustration.

5. Tell me, if brokennes and mourning were not involed in the conviction of the Spirit in Acts 2:37?

6. Tell me, if the command to Repent doesn't involve a "forsaking of sin" with the intention of "surrendering, trusting" Jesus as Savior and Lord?

 

1. Jesus preached Repent and Believe the Gospel (Mk.1:15)

2. Paul came along and preached the same: Repentance toward God and Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21).

3. And this is the gospel I will preach.

 

1. Here's a reminder of your second question.

2. Tell me, How can someone who believes that a person must hear that Jesus is not only Savior of their life but also Lord, is not drawn into a defence of the gospel?

3. Tell me, Why you are allowed to put Eph.2:8-9 against James 4:7-10 to prove your point, but somone else can't go elsewhere in Scripture?

4. Are out to disprove LS or to disprove the contents of Dr. MacArthur's book?

5. Paul preached Jesus as Lord and that is good enough for me (2 Cor 4:4, 5).

6. The Jehovah's Witnesses books, booklets are filled with Scripture and their handling of Scripture. Does the fact that they interact with Scripture means that they have the truth, have discovered what we all have been missing all along?

7. That is something for you to consider about the handling of Scriptures in your book.

 

1. I do not know what source you consulted for your definition of pistis. But let me help you out some:

a. Abbott-Smith: pistis in

i. an active sense: "faith, belief, trust, confidence."

ii. a passive sense: "fidelity, faithfulness, a plighted faith, a pledge of fidelity."

b. BDAG:

i. "That which evokes trust and faith: "faithfulness, reliability, fidelity, commitment."

ii. "state of believing on the basis of the reliability fo the one trusted, trust, confidence, faith."

iii. "That which is believed, body of faith/belief/teaching."

2. Since we are defining what pistis means, I thought you would like to know that it means "trust, commitment, reliability, confidence, etc.

3. The nuances that you are willing to strip pistis of for you ends.

4. There's a common fallacy people commit as they try to do word-study called Selective and prejudicial use of evidence and I thought a full meaning of pistis would help us stay clear of that fallacy.

 

1. You opened a can of worms when you brought post #10 and now you want to pretend that it didn't happen. Come on! You know better than that.

2. You brought in Eph 2:8-9, while all along we were discussion James 4:7-10. Why are you the only one allowed to bring in other texts to prove your point, but others cannot? Come on! You know better than that.

3. Your subtlety has not eluded me. I will defend the truth of Scripture: Jesus preached Repentance and Faith (Mk 1:15). Paul preached Repentance and Faith (Acts 20:21). Paul preached Jesus as Lord (2 Cor 4:4, 5).

4. Tell me, what then should we preach? Your empty idea of the gospel?

 

I'm not sure who is taking what stance, but faith (the noun) is committing, etc. It is a lifestyle. "Believe" (the verb form) is synonymous with "faith" (the noun) when it's a present, active, participle, and I think it can be shown to be a similar idea when it's a present, active of any sort. Only when it's aorist, is there no committing involved, as it is simply "mental assent".

Faith is works.

But, on whose part? Sometimes grammar clears it up, sometimes context clears it up. Sometimes it's difficult. But, sometimes instead of seeking all the right answers, we need to seek first the right questions, and this clears up some of the difficulties.

However, "faith" is not required to get saved, stay saved, prove you're saved, or anything else. We should be faithful, but there is no guarantee that we will be. The gospel of salvation is based on nothing more than "believe"; the gospel of the Kingdom is based on "faith". Lordship Salvation confuses the two and tries to apply works to getting or staying or proving you're saved, but denies that works are works.

 

1. Jesus says, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst" (John 6:35, ESV)

a. I wonder what is involved in "coming" to Jesus. What is a person leaving to "come" to Jesus?

b. "Shall not hunger," signifies an emptiness that must be filled. How can a person say that a "submitting" and "committing" is not involved in coming to Jesus as the Bread of Life?

c. I know when I am hungry that dog-food wouldn't work, bird-food wouldn't work, fish-food wouldn't work. I must reject all other allurements to satisfy my hunger and "submit" and "trust" that there's good food to satisfy my hunger.

d. No one can come to Jesus without rejecting (Repentance) other allurements to satisfy that hunger and believing (Faith), submitting to the Real satisfaction for that hunger, on the other hand. (***edited)

2. Tell me, How can this understanding of Jesus being the Bread of Life be dismissed as man-made? (***edited)

3. There's no gospel without preaching Jesus as Savior and Lord and a coming to Him in repentance and faith (Mk 1:15; Acts 20:21; Eph 2:8; 2 Cor 4:4, 5).***edited

 

In the end it appears the question of the OP is most important...is James making an offer of salvation...is this a gospel presentation? Lou M quoted MacArthur who states rather emphatically:

I for one am a surprised at MacArthur's complete mishandling of this passage. The context is clearly to believers. MacArthur is a very capable teacher and frankly I believe it is the undue influence of Calvinism that has pushed him and obviously for some years now entrenched him in this position, thus overriding his theological sense and what normally would be a clear understanding by a proven teacher of a passage that is no mystery at all.

I enjoy much of MacArthur's teachings and have benefited from them over the years but here, he simply is wrong.

 

Yes, I'm back, as well. I'm sorry I missed out on your invitation for "hitting the grill", though! "Specially, since you were buying! Must have overlooked it in my reading the posts. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

1. This is not a thread on Calvinism. I have personally ignored those references to Calvinism.

2. I am dealing with the Scriptures.

3. I have already answered you in posts #2, and #11.

4. Now, it is time for you to answer me:

a. Why are you the only one allowed to bring other texts to submit and at the same time dsiprove LS, but others cannot do it?

b. Why do you pretend that your post # 10 is not only an attack on MacArthur's use of James 4:7-10 but also on the entirety of LS?

5. Deal with my texts and quit hiding behind your facade of James 4:7-10.

6. Jesus preached Repentance and Faith (Mk 1:15). Paul preached Repentance and Faith (Acts 20:21). Paul preached Jesus as Lord (2 Cor 4:4, 5).

7. I will preach Jesus as Savior and Lord and Repentance and Faith as our response. Tell me, What about his is man-made?

 

Thank you and I did indeed forget that many Calvinists (most possibly all?) believe in regeneration before faith and repentance. I appreciate the articles and will read them promptly.