Is This an "Invitation to Salvation?"

This whole "other gospel" thing presents an interesting paradox. If what the ME folks say is true, then by preaching another gospel they have accursed themselves, and are sending themselves to 1,000 years in outer darkness/fire/hell.

 

Which is the logical end of their reasoning. But if anyone can preach "another gospel" and escape the 1000yrs of outer darness, it's the ME guys. They can pull it off.

 

:laugh::laugh: Ignorance is bliss. And trust me, the clear rebuke of Galatians will get ignored because there is no reasonable response to it. :laugh::laugh:

 

Baiting?!

C'mon! It's a fair question. I too like much of the stuff MacArthur has produced, but not in the area of the gospel. He said that James 4:7-10 was the most comprehensive invitation to salvation in the NT letters... ??? What in the following has a thing to do with the gospel? James was writing to believers. the context in chapter 4 is of dealing with believers.

James 4:7-10 Therefore, submit to God. But resist the Devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, sinners, and purify your hearts, double-minded people! Be miserable and mourn and weep. Your laughter must change to mourning and your joy to sorrow. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will exalt you.

Christians sin too, right? Wasn't James' concern about such clear earlier?

In 4:1 James said, "What is the source of the wars and the fights among you?Don't they come from the cravings that are at war within you? You desire and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. You do not have because you do not ask." The "you" is obviously believers. And it is believers who are told to ask God for things - to pray. Look at the verse following 10...

"Don't criticize one another, brothers. He who criticizes a brother or judges his brother criticizes the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge."

In vs. 15 we read, "Instead, you should say, "If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that." Are unbelievers expected to say, "If the Lord wills..."?

James was writing to believers. 4:7-10 has nothing to do with the gospel of grace - of how to become a child of God! I think you are refusing to answer a fair question.

MacArthur said this was the most comprehensive invitation to salvation in the NT letters!?! I gotta ask, where's the evidence of such a claim?

Appreciate much of what else you've posted here, but had to say something here.

Thx,

FA

 

You couldn't be more wrong. I know many Calvanists who are Bible believers int the truths concerning the Kingdom.

 

But you're not one, yourself, right? So how may of those promoting ME here are Calvinists? I count none so far.

Personally, I see a reason. Calvinism = grace. ME = legalism. They don't go together very well.

.

 

Calvinism hijacked the word grace just like sodomites hijacked the word gay. But do go on.

 

npetreley,

Very interesting... and good to hear. I believe one reason why Calvinists tend to be LS is because of the perseverance of the saints. Free grace by its nature does not hold to the P... but to "preservation of the saints." So some passages in the NT would seem to say that a Christian loses their salvation if they are viewed as believers, since for the P holders, real Christians do not struggle for a long time with sin, etc. That eliminates texts such as Hebrews 6 from being considered as believers.

I'm interested in how you view some of the problem texts regarding eternal security.

BTW, I hold to unconditional election - there are some free gracers who do so. The philosophy espoused by William Lane Craig of middle knowledge opens that door nicely.

Thx,

FA

 

The main reason I have a problem with perserverence of the saints is because the disrespect of the Corinthians led to them becoming sick and (especially) falling asleep. But then it really depends upon what one means by perserverence. Does it require that Spirit motivation always leads to successful action and obedience? I hope not, because I fall short so much I sometimes joke that virtually anyone could lead my life better than i do.

I only know of one passage that appears to refute preservation, though, and that's in Hebrews. I think the key to understanding that passage is "things that pertain to salvation", which is contrasted with the text that many people use to say you can lose your salvation. Obviously, if "things that pertain to salvation" is in contrast to that text, the text can't be about losing your salvation.

 

Agreed, and I really appreciate your heart. I think if anyone is honest with themselves, they'd admit how far short they fall. Also agreed that Heb 6 is not talking about losing your salvation. There's another thread around here somewhere (True vs. False Believers - http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=41589) in which I posted in detail how I see this as not referring to the loss of salvation - if you're interested.

There are other forms of eternal security besides "perseverance."

Thx,

FA

 

Lou,

Already addressed this. The context of the entire letter is clearly that of James writing to believers about having a good testimony for Christ in the world. We are not saved by...

• submitting to God
• resisting the devil
• cleansing our hands of our sin
• purifying our hearts
• being afflicted, mourning and weeping (though that may result from the conviction of the Spirit)
• humbling yourself (though with a proud heart the Spirit cannot draw you to His Son nor convict you of sin)
• drawing near to God is kinda iffy (I'd have to go along with it, though it doesn't tell us how we draw near to God - through faith)

We gain eternal life by simply believing the gospel - trusting in Christ, who died in our place. He didn't just die for us, He did it all - He died in our place. IOW, we do absolutely nothing, zip, nada. The points above all focus on us asking God to help us save ourselves. That is simply not the gospel. Though I have a lot of respect for MacArthur, in the area of the gospel, I'd have to say he's confused. He's confusing discipleship truth with gospel truth.

James 4:7-10 does not talk at all about salvation by grace through faith. Sounds like works soteriology to me.

Thx,

FA

 

Originally Posted by TCGreek
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?
__________________

 

OK, I voted.

Ed

 

TCGreek,

As I see it, LS has redefined faith so as to include commitment and works. Bah Humbug!

While the idea of "faithfulness" is a rare part of the gloss for PISTEUW, it is not part of how Paul uses the term. To believe in Greek is essentially the same as in English.

FA

 

And what is that definition? What is the source of your definition?

 

PISTEUW - part I

The two major lexicons used by professionals: BGAD and L & S... I'll have to make this in two posts, since BGAD is so long. In fact, I had to cut it in half.

BGAD to be continued

FA

 

PISTEUW continued

BGAD continued:

Where do you find the concept of faith that includes commitment? Here's Liddell & Scott:

PISTEUW in the NT means to trust in, believe in, to rely upon, etc.. But people look for some obscure definition of PISTEUW so that they can hang their theology on it. L & S considers attic Greek and classical Greek as well as koine Greek in their definitions, which is why #5 above makes it clear that in the NT the primary meaning is simply "to believe, to have faith." That is also perhaps why L & s is used almost exclusively by translators - more than even BGAD. (Check with the Bible translation egroup (BTRANS) moderated by Wayne Leman. BGAD is used more than any other lexicon by seminaries. It contains a suggested translation for every usage of a word in the NT.

These are the two most authoritive sources. These are the only two sources I use, though I am interested in the AT Robertson's Word Pictures for various texts as well as Kittel's work. Where do you get your definition... whatever it is? Just curious. Let's keep this respectful.

Thx,

FA