"Lordship Salvation"

[Kurieuo]

Well, I just read Philip's opening post and the definition here:
https://carm.org/what-is-lordship-salva ... t-biblical

I do not agree with such (LS), which should be apparent if my fuller words are read.
Serves me right for just coming in midway. Again

Too bad Matt Slick glosses over the details.

I still see a false dichotomy being setup.
That is, an either/or scenario with only two options when there is more that can be said.

Really I could be boxed with an "easy believism" but I don't believe real "trust" necessitates easy, and then evidently I could be boxed into LS given I place importance on the heart (really more fully heart -> cognition, but anyway).

Nonetheless these two sides are ones people do often camp in.
That Audacity film by Ray Comfort comes to mind (ack!), clearly commits an error of Lordship Salvation.
My wife made me watch it! And I pointed out all the errors. You'd be proud SoCalExile.

[Jac3510]

It's a great book, phil, but take it slow. I'm actually considering doing an extensive review of it--almost like a commentary (but not quite). The info is fantastic, if not sometimes inaccessible. Still, you might get lost at some points (I did), but the stuff you do pick up will help you tons.

[Kurieuo]

I'm construing your comments above to be sympathetic to K's points. Your idea of "natural" relation (as opposed to lexical relation) seems to be ontological. That is, you seem to be talking about "real" faith or else constituent parts of "real" faith--trust is only really trust when it presumes submission and commitment. But my point is that, methodologically, you can't do that.

And mine were sympathetic to your views as made against Day-Age interpretation, that they read the wrong variant without contextual justification into the word yom in Genesis 1.

As you know one word can often be used in multiple ways in any given text, or mean different things. It keeps us theologians and strange Christian folk entertained debating each other.

To be clear, the Lexicon is important but people often trade on allowable variations to one word, and then can read that variation wrongly back into the text when neither the context or author intends such.

[Jac3510]

I'm construing your comments above to be sympathetic to K's points. Your idea of "natural" relation (as opposed to lexical relation) seems to be ontological. That is, you seem to be talking about "real" faith or else constituent parts of "real" faith--trust is only really trust when it presumes submission and commitment. But my point is that, methodologically, you can't do that.

And mine were sympathetic to your views as made against Day-Age interpretation, that they read the wrong variant without contextual justification into the word yom in Genesis 1.

As you know one word can often be used in multiple ways in any given text, or mean different things. It keeps us theologians and strange Christian folk entertained debating each other.

To be clear, the Lexicon is important but people often trade on allowable variations to one word, and then can read that variation wrongly back into the text when neither the context or author intends such.

Absolutely agreed on all counts. It creates an easy excuse for eisegesis, as we've hashed out before.

Where I think DB is going off the rails here, though, and where DA doesn't (at least, not in the same way), is that lexicography excludes his position. There is no variant that he can look to and choose because it fits his theology. So what he's doing instead is redefining the variants themselves and saying that those variants "naturally" (whatever that even means) include those ideas he wants to see. To draw a bad comparison, suppose yom just could not mean "an undefined period of time." Let's just say that meaning didn't exist. And now suppose an OEC comes along and says, "I realize that the lexical meaning of yom is a 'normal day'; but days presuppose time, and lots and lots and lots of it. So the use of the word 'day' naturally implies billions of years. It's undefined how many billions there are, but that's what billions of years are -- just collections of days!" So you see immediately why that position wouldn't work, and the same thing is true in this case.

The simple, lexical fact is that neither aman nor pisteuo--the Heb and Grk words we translate "believe"--have any semantic relation whatsoever to words like "commit" or "submit." They just don't. Nor is there any kind of ontological connection between the words. Nor is there any entailment between the words. None of it follows, and his redefinition of the word, then, is faulty and extremely dangerous.

[DBowling]

Once again, DB, the onus is on YOU to demonstrate your claim that the lexical meaning of "faith" is not sufficient--that is, that the proposition, 'whoever believes in Jesus is saved' is true as written, without qualifying or adding to the meaning of 'believes.'

I don't have to demonstrate that the lexical meaning is not sufficient.
I have already stipulated to the lexical definition. So that should eliminate a lot of disagreement right there.

From A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. (Third Edition)

pisteuo - 2) to entrust oneself to an entity in complete confidence, believe (in), trust, w. implication of total commitment to the one who is trusted. In our lit. God and Christs are objects of this type of faith that relies on their power and nearness to help, in addition to being convinced that their revelations or disclosures are true.

Commitment and submission are a function of how faith functions within the Gospel context.

Within the Gospel context, faith has a specific object and in the case of Scripture the object of that faith is the person of Christ. As I mentioned in my discussion with Rick, commitment is an integral component of any person putting their trust in another person (see lexicon above). Since faith within the Gospel context involves a person putting their trust in another person, then commitment is an integral component of faith within the Gospel context.

We have a similar situation with submission. Within the Gospel context I am trusting in Jesus to do something that I am unable to do for myself. An integral component of trusting someone else to do something for me that I cannot do for myself involves submitting to the superior ability of the person who can do what I can't. Since faith within the Gospel context involves trusting someone to do something that I am unable to do for myself, then submission is an integral component of faith within the Gospel context.

So do you believe that this statement is an accurate representation of the Gospel?
"If someone entrusts themselves to Jesus to save them from their sins then they have everlasting life... period."

If not, please point out which portion of my statement you believe to be a distortion of the Gospel.

In Christ

Because you are using the word "entrust" to mean something different than I am or what the word itself actually means. I would say this:

"If someone entrusts themselves to Jesus to save them from their sins then they have everlasting life... period."

You would say this:

"If someone entrusts[2] themselves to Jesus to save them from their sins then they have everlasting life... period."

Since I have stipulated to the lexical definition of entrust, then the above should represent a common understanding of the lexical definition of faith and a common understanding of the Gospel context.

Would you agree with that?

So I've answered you in some detail. I would appreciate it if you would do the same for me. I'm not asking for a line by line response. I am asking you for a response to my actual argument.

I think stipulating to the lexical definition of faith should represent interaction with your argument.

In Christ

[SoCalExile]

Well, I just read Philip's opening post and the definition here:
https://carm.org/what-is-lordship-salva ... t-biblical

I do not agree with such (LS), which should be apparent if my fuller words are read.
Serves me right for just coming in midway. Again

Too bad Matt Slick glosses over the details.

I still see a false dichotomy being setup.
That is, an either/or scenario with only two options when there is more that can be said.

Really I could be boxed with an "easy believism" but I don't believe real "trust" necessitates easy, and then evidently I could be boxed into LS given I place importance on the heart (really more fully heart -> cognition, but anyway).

Nonetheless these two sides are ones people do often camp in.
That Audacity film by Ray Comfort comes to mind (ack!), clearly commits an error of Lordship Salvation.
My wife made me watch it! And I pointed out all the errors. You'd be proud SoCalExile.

Except MacArthur is the driving force behind LS. Yes others add and subtract, but he's pretty much the standard bearer for it.

[Kurieuo]

DB, perhaps this has been hashed out, I'm sure it has so it's laziness on my part here to go digging backward.

BUT, if a person places their faith in Christ and then goes on sinning...
Is there some test, like a bunch of questions, you might ask them to try figure out whether or not their faith is authentic?

[Kurieuo]

Well, I just read Philip's opening post and the definition here:
https://carm.org/what-is-lordship-salva ... t-biblical

I do not agree with such (LS), which should be apparent if my fuller words are read.
Serves me right for just coming in midway. Again

Too bad Matt Slick glosses over the details.

I still see a false dichotomy being setup.
That is, an either/or scenario with only two options when there is more that can be said.

Really I could be boxed with an "easy believism" but I don't believe real "trust" necessitates easy, and then evidently I could be boxed into LS given I place importance on the heart (really more fully heart -> cognition, but anyway).

Nonetheless these two sides are ones people do often camp in.
That Audacity film by Ray Comfort comes to mind (ack!), clearly commits an error of Lordship Salvation.
My wife made me watch it! And I pointed out all the errors. You'd be proud SoCalExile.

Except MacArthur is the driving force behind LS. Yes others add and subtract, but he's pretty much the standard bearer for it.

I don't like MacArthur, he's YEC. Enough said.

[Jac3510]

From A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. (Third Edition)

pisteuo - 2) to entrust oneself to an entity in complete confidence, believe (in), trust, w. implication of total commitment to the one who is trusted. In our lit. God and Christs are objects of this type of faith that relies on their power and nearness to help, in addition to being convinced that their revelations or disclosures are true.

Yes, the 3rd edition of BDAG is very irresponsible here. The 2nd edition didn't include that gloss, and for good reason. See esp John 12:42 and ask if the pharisees had given a "total commitment to the one they trusted."

Commitment and submission are a function of how faith functions within the Gospel context.

No, they are not. They are a function of abiding in faith functions. It is not the function of faith, but of abiding in faith.

Within the Gospel context, faith has a specific object and in the case of Scripture the object of that faith is the person of Christ. As I mentioned in my discussion with Rick, commitment is an integral component of any person putting their trust in another person (see lexicon above). Since faith within the Gospel context involves a person putting their trust in another person, then commitment is an integral component of faith within the Gospel context.

We have a similar situation with submission. Within the Gospel context I am trusting in Jesus to do something that I am unable to do for myself. An integral component of trusting someone else to do something for me that I cannot do for myself involves submitting to the superior ability of the person who can do what I can't. Since faith within the Gospel context involves trusting someone to do something that I am unable to do for myself, then submission is an integral component of faith within the Gospel context.

Incorrect. Commitment is not an integral component of any person putting their trust in another, except in one important sense. The word "commit" has several meanings. You seem to mean it in the sense of pledging to service, as when I commit myself to my wife or to my country. It can also mean to carry out an act, as when a person commits sin. It can also mean to entrust or to give, as when I commit my money to the bank or when I commit my child to the daycare for her safety while I work. "Entrust" is just synonymous with "commit" in this last sentence. But you are conflating the first and third meanings of commit, where you are literally saying that to commit my child to the daycare is to commit to serving the daycare. That's just absurd.

You are equally incorrect with reference to submission. I may not submit to those I trust. I may not trust those to whom I submit. In the same way, you are incorrect when you say that to trust someone is to submit to them on the basis that you are submitting to their ability to do something you cannot. That may be true in some cases, but it is not true in all, and it is not part of the definition or nature of trust. That the two ideas often appear together doesn't mean that they are the same thing, any more than hearts are brains because they both appear in the same body! I can't tell you how many times I have trusted my wife to do something for me that I was perfectly capable of doing if I so desired. There was no superior ability. Rather, maybe she offered and I just took her up on it! There's no submission in that. And more than that, there's no submission in the sense of recognizing and submitting to her superiority. And that's another place you go off the rails. You're getting into four-term fallacy stuff here. You think because you find at best some extremely watered down, weak notion of submission or alternate definition of "commit" in trusting, that you can use those words and apply them therefore to the authority of Christ over our lives. But that isn't what the words mean in that new context. To trust Christ to save my soul is different from submitting to His Lordship over my life. Those are just different propositions.

In any case, the whole idea that "trust" really means to fully submit is just so absurd on its face. Here, I found this video after five seconds on Google (FIRST non-biblical/Christian-music use of "trust" I found):

http://mashable.com/2015/11/19/blindfol ... WMR9UMTuqi

A Muslim dude is giving people hugs saying, "I trust you; do you trust me?" Is he really fully submitting to those people, fully committing himself to them? Is he asking those people to fully commit or submit themselves to him? OF COURSE NOT. Stop being silly. Because that's what your position is. It's literally silly, as in the definition of the word "silly." And ALL THE MORE, do you REALLY think he's asking them to submit and commit in the way Jesus asks us to submit and commit? Again, no, and a thousand times no. This is what is so offensive about LS. You're saying that's just what trust means. Therefore, either that Muslim man is asking for the same commitment that Jesus is asking for, or else Jesus is just asking for the same commitment that Muslim man is asking for. Dude, you are watering down the authority of Christ when you do that. STOP IT. It. Is. Heresy.

Since I have stipulated to the lexical definition of entrust, then the above should represent a common understanding of the lexical definition of faith and a common understanding of the Gospel context.

Would you agree with that?

No, because you are using "entrust" differently. You are reading into the term foreign ideas. You mean "entrust(2)" and I mean "entrust." Jesus actually said "entrust," and you take away the word "entrust" and replace it with another word of your own invention and give it the label "entrust" and say that you are saying the same thing Jesus did. You are not and therefore you don't believe what He actually said.

I think stipulating to the lexical definition of faith should represent interaction with your argument.

You don't get to stipulate you agree and then argue that you don't agree by adding to the meaning. Further, just agreeing with the lexical definition does not mean you are interacting with your argument. That was one premise of my argument. The other premises are, for our purposes, the important parts.

[DBowling]

DB, perhaps this has been hashed out, I'm sure it has so it's laziness on my part here to go digging backward.

no problem... it is a loooong thread

BUT, if a person places their faith in Christ and then goes on sinning...

I think we all agree that even after regeneration takes place, believers will sin, so I think it is more like when than if.
The question at hand is whether regeneration will typically result in good works or whether regeneration will necessarily result in good works of some sort. I hold the position that regeneration will necessarily result in good works.

Is there some test, like a bunch of questions, you might ask them to try figure out whether or not their faith is authentic?

I can only speak for myself, but God has not called me to be the judge of anyone else's salvation. My job is to examine myself and focus on the log in my eye.

It is God's job to judge the works of men, not mine, and he has a perspective that I don't.
Man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.

In Christ

[Philip]

OK, DB, so what questions do you ask yourself?

[DBowling]

From A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. (Third Edition)

pisteuo - 2) to entrust oneself to an entity in complete confidence, believe (in), trust, w. implication of total commitment to the one who is trusted. In our lit. God and Christs are objects of this type of faith that relies on their power and nearness to help, in addition to being convinced that their revelations or disclosures are true.

Yes, the 3rd edition of BDAG is very irresponsible here. The 2nd edition didn't include that gloss, and for good reason.

Per your request, I have demonstrated how the idea of commitment is related to belief by lexicon.
But now that the lexicon supports my assertions and contradicts yours, all of a sudden the lexicon is 'irresponsible'. I think I detect a little bit of a double standard here.

Within the Gospel context, faith has a specific object and in the case of Scripture the object of that faith is the person of Christ. As I mentioned in my discussion with Rick, commitment is an integral component of any person putting their trust in another person (see lexicon above). Since faith within the Gospel context involves a person putting their trust in another person, then commitment is an integral component of faith within the Gospel context.

We have a similar situation with submission. Within the Gospel context I am trusting in Jesus to do something that I am unable to do for myself. An integral component of trusting someone else to do something for me that I cannot do for myself involves submitting to the superior ability of the person who can do what I can't. Since faith within the Gospel context involves trusting someone to do something that I am unable to do for myself, then submission is an integral component of faith within the Gospel context.

Incorrect. Commitment is not an integral component of any person putting their trust in another, except in one important sense. The word "commit" has several meanings. You seem to mean it in the sense of pledging to service, as when I commit myself to my wife or to my country. It can also mean to carry out an act, as when a person commits sin. It can also mean to entrust or to give, as when I commit my money to the bank or when I commit my child to the daycare for her safety while I work. "Entrust" is just synonymous with "commit" in this last sentence. But you are conflating the first and third meanings of commit, where you are literally saying that to commit my child to the daycare is to commit to serving the daycare. That's just absurd.

In your personal opinion... I have provided a lexicon quote that disagrees with you.

I think stipulating to the lexical definition of faith should represent interaction with your argument.

You don't get to stipulate you agree and then argue that you don't agree by adding to the meaning.

Two issues...
First there is the lexical definition of faith, which I stipulate to and agree with.
Then there is how the Gospel context affects the meaning of the word.

I do not disagree with the lexical meaning of faith at all.
However, I do disagree with some of your 'redefinitions'.

I think it is telling that you consider it ok to subtract from the lexicon definition of faith when it contradicts your personal opinion.
What happened to your moral outrage at those who try to redefine faith?

In Christ

[DBowling]

OK, DB, so what questions do you ask yourself?

First and foremost does how I spend my time and resources reflect the importance of my relationship with God?
Do I take advantage of opportunities to share the Gospel that God gives me?
Am I showing God's love to my wife, children, those in my church, those at work... my daughters boyfriend?
Am I willing to forgive others the way Christ forgave me?

And guess what?
I regularly fail spectacularly at all of the above.
That's why I'm not part of the sinless perfection crowd, and why I have no interest in judging others.
I have too much to work on in my own life.

Some thought off the top of my head

In Christ

[Jac3510]

Per your request, I have demonstrated how the idea of commitment is related to belief by lexicon.

No, you have asserted. A demonstration requires an explanation of the component parts in ways that the simpler points entail the latter. Not only have you not done that, I have pointed out that what you have offered is fallacious insofar as it conflates two distinct meanings of "commit," is absurd in the application, and is defeated by the use the term itself (so see John 12:42).

But now that the lexicon supports my assertions and contradicts yours, all of a sudden the lexicon is 'irresponsible'. I think I detect a little bit of a double standard here.

No, it's not, but I don't think you understand Greek well enough for me to explain it to you. But rather than appeal to my own authority, which includes an undergraduate degree in this stuff plus two masters in the same material, I already appealed to the authority of the very lexicon you are citing. The 2nd edition does not have the gloss. So what . . . you think the scholarship of the definition of pisteuo suddenly advanced enough to introduce an entirely novel aspect into it that was not there before? I ask this in all sincerity, DB, since you feel qualified to point out why the 3rd edition is superior to both previous editions as well as other standard Greek lexicons: what specific findings can you cite between the publication of the 2nd and the 3rd edition of BDAG that justify its updated definition?

That is not a rhetorical question. I'm going to demand an answer to that.

In your personal opinion... I have provided a lexicon quote that disagrees with you.

No, it's not personal opinion. I've offered facts. I've offered actual definitions. You don't get to call things you disagree with "opinion." And even if it is, on what basis do you challenge my opinion? Here I will appeal to my authority. What evidence do you have that my reasoning is wrong? What sources do you cite? You've cited a single lexicon that I have impeached and am requiring you defend. And now you simply wave your hand and dismiss a rather detailed analysis of the root of your argument?

DB, don't become dishonest. Such is unbecoming, to put it mildly.

Two issues...
First there is the lexical definition of faith, which I stipulate to and agree with.

You do not agree with it. You agree with the same words, but agreeing with words does not mean that you agree with their meaning. For example, every Catholic will say, "We are saved by grace through faith." You will say the same. But you do not believe the same thing the Catholics do because you define the terms differently. Therefore, I require you, in the interest of honest discussion and reasonable discourse, to stop citing agreement where there is none.

Then there is how the Gospel context affects the meaning of the word.

Again, I have already addressed this under the discussion of genre fallacy. Stop raising arguments I've already addressed as if I have not.

I do not disagree with the lexical meaning of faith at all.
However, I do disagree with some of your 'redefinitions'.

I think it is telling that you consider it ok to subtract from the lexicon definition of faith when it contradicts your personal opinion.
What happened to your moral outrage at those who try to redefine faith?

So it is clear that you are basing your entire argument now on BDAG 3rd ed. Answer, then, my first question. I've pointed out that the 1st and 2nd editions do not have that gloss. I will add here. Louw and Nida do not have that gloss. Strong's does not have that gloss. Mounce's analytical lexicon does not have that gloss. Thayer does not have that gloss. Liddell and Scott do not have that gloss in either the standard or intermediate lexicons.

So, again, what new discoveries can you cite by which we should accept the gloss of BDAG3 over all the others?

The outrage is certainly there. And in my outrage, I subtract the unqualified addition. I am not merely asserting the addition is unqualified. I am argument it on:

1 - my own authority as one who has 9 years of formal theological and linguistic training;
2 - the authority of previous editions of the same lexicon; and
3 - the authority of all other lexicons

On all three of these points, the evidence is absolutely clear: there is full agreement against BDAG3. Now, you want to say that all other authorities are wrong and that BDAG3 is correct. Again, then, rather than simply asserting a part of the meaning has been distracted, I'm going to ask you to back up and document your claim. I've done that. Let's see you. If not, I'm going to ask you to retract your claim as unsubstantiated.

[Jac3510]

OK, DB, so what questions do you ask yourself?

First and foremost does how I spend my time and resources reflect the importance of my relationship with God?
Do I take advantage of opportunities to share the Gospel that God gives me?
Am I showing God's love to my wife, children, those in my church, those at work... my daughters boyfriend?
Am I willing to forgive others the way Christ forgave me?

And guess what?
I regularly fail spectacularly at all of the above.
That's why I'm not part of the sinless perfection crowd, and why I have no interest in judging others.
I have too much to work on in my own life.

Some thought off the top of my head

In Christ

• This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister. - 1 John 3:10, NIV

By DBs theology, he's a child of the devil and unsaved. He can say that he isn't part of the sinless perfection crowd, but the fact is that ANYONE who doesn't love their brother is of the devil and not a child of God. He's admitted to not knowing the devil. More

• The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. - 1 John 1:8

He says he's sinning, so he must be of the devil.

And more:

• No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. . . . No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. - 1 John 3:6, 9

So he says he fails a lot, so he's sinning a lot. He keeps on sinning. So apparently our brother has neither seen nor known Christ.

Now, he'll either have to lower the standard for himself--which is to say, to water down God's word and explain it away--or admit that he has no assurance that he's saved. He'll have to say, at a bare minimum, that he has good evidence to think he probably is NOT saved. And that's the theology of LS. No assurance whatsoever. All condemnation. Sad. Just sad.