"Lordship Salvation"

[Jac3510]

I beat you to it Jac.

But seriously, I think it's no more obvious how wrong LS is, by its redefining of "faith" to suit one's theology.

Agreed, but I think it also goes to the root of all root of problems. As one of our favorite posters likes to say, "it's an issue of authority." We either believe what the text says, or we find an excuse not to. And there's no more pious sounding way to ignore the actual language of the text and substitute our own authority than to deny its actual meaning on the basis of what we think some other passage says.

The more years I do this, the more I see that much clearly that disagreements are almost never theological but rather hermeneutical. *shrug*

[DBowling]

Faith simply means trust. We are saved by God's grace, through trust in Christ.

I totally agree with that definition of faith!

Even without looking at any of the other Scriptural passages that speak to lordship, repentance, etc...
All you have to do is look at trust.

Trust by it's very definition (without any additional Scriptural support) implies some level of submission and commitment.
When I trust in someone else to do anything, there is an inherent level of submission and commitment involved in trusting that other person.

Attempting to remove submission and commitment from faith is simply distorting both the natural and Scriptural meaning of what it means to put your trust in someone.

The role of repentance in the Scriptural definition of faith becomes obvious when we look at the Gospel message.
We are trusting in the person of Jesus Christ to save us from our sin.

Using your definition of repentance (a change of mind). We have changed our mind about sin, from being something that we want to continue to live in to something that we want Jesus to save us from.

Again, that's not an addition to the Gospel, that's an integral component of the Gospel.

By subtracting those things, and redefining faith, you are creating a different way through which we must be saved. You are redefining the gospel.
Please don't change the biblical meaning of faith, by subtracting things that are integral to the meaning of the word.

In Christ

[SoCalExile]

By subtracting those things, and redefining faith, you are creating a different way through which we must be saved. You are redefining the gospel.
Please don't change the biblical meaning of faith, by subtracting things that are integral to the meaning of the word.

He's not the one redefining anything. It's LS preachers that are. They've redefined "repent" to include the Law and redefined "faith" to include works.

[DBowling]

By subtracting those things, and redefining faith, you are creating a different way through which we must be saved. You are redefining the gospel.
Please don't change the biblical meaning of faith, by subtracting things that are integral to the meaning of the word.

He's not the one redefining anything.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Rick...
All I'm asking him to do is consider the implications of some of the positions he is advocating in this thread.

And he is asking me to do the same thing... iron sharpening iron.

It's LS preachers that are. They've redefined "repent" to include the Law and redefined "faith" to include works.

Here's our representative link about LS
http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A ... -salvation

I don't see any mention of the Law in the LS definition of repent.
Here's what the link says about works
- God requires no preparatory works or pre-salvation reformation;
- believers are saved before their faith ever produces any righteous works;

In Christ

[RickD]

DBowling wrote:
Attempting to remove submission and commitment from faith is simply distorting both the natural and Scriptural meaning of what it means to put your trust in someone.

Ok. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. So, if you'll humor me, I'll give an example of trust, and you tell me where submission and commitment come into play in my example, ok?

I went out of the country on a business trip for a month. I left at the beginning of the month. Shortly after arriving overseas, I realized that I have a bill that has to be paid by the 15th of the month. Realizing that I won't be able to pay the bill by the due date, because I won't be home in time, I call my wife. She tells me not to worry, and that she'll pay it by the due date.

So, I trust in her, that she will do as she says.

So tell me, where is commitment, and submission involved?

[DBowling]

DBowling wrote:
Attempting to remove submission and commitment from faith is simply distorting both the natural and Scriptural meaning of what it means to put your trust in someone.

Ok. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. So, if you'll humor me, I'll give an example of trust, and you tell me where submission and commitment come into play in my example, ok?

I went out of the country on a business trip for a month. I left at the beginning of the month. Shortly after arriving overseas, I realized that I have a bill that has to be paid by the 15th of the month. Realizing that I won't be able to pay the bill by the due date, because I won't be home in time, I call my wife. She tells me not to worry, and that she'll pay it by the due date.

So, I trust in her, that she will do as she says.

So tell me, where is commitment, and submission involved?

The submission involves acknowledging that your wife can do something that you simply are unable to do. So when you trust in your wife to pay the bill, you submit (accept or yield to a superior force) to your wife's superior ability to do something for you that you cannot do for yourself.

Commitment involves the target of the person you put your trust in. Your commitment to your wife was a fundamental component of why you chose to put your trust in your wife as opposed to someone else who you don't have a similar commitment to.
If I don't have some level of commitment to another person then I will not be able to trust in that other person.
Commitment isn't something added on trust, it is an integral component of trust.

Hope that helps...

In Christ

[SoCalExile]

It's LS preachers that are. They've redefined "repent" to include the Law and redefined "faith" to include works.

Here's our representative link about LS
http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A ... -salvation

I don't see any mention of the Law in the LS definition of repent.
Here's what the link says about works
- God requires no preparatory works or pre-salvation reformation;
- believers are saved before their faith ever produces any righteous works;

In Christ

Try reading it. Because you are trying to parrot the lip-service they give and ignoring the actual details. Again, it comes down to DOING things to have "saving faith" or "genuine faith":

-Turn from sin.
-Persevere in the faith
-Live a changed life
-Stop a pattern of sin
-Obey God's commandments
-Love your brothers
-Abide in God's Word
-Keep God's Word
-Do good works
-Continue in the faith
-Include "all that pertains to life and godliness"
-Unconditional surrender
-Long to obey Him
-Evidence true faith
-Persevere in the faith

Again, all this is at minimum, euphemisms for works; and you have to show them to be saved.

"Repent" does not mean "turn from sin" in Greekor Hebrew.

Your defense of LS is really coming down to an issue of intellectual integrity; because you're denying the logic much in the same way a Mormon apologist denies the doctrinal contradictions of LDS writings.

[RickD]

DBowling wrote:
Attempting to remove submission and commitment from faith is simply distorting both the natural and Scriptural meaning of what it means to put your trust in someone.

Ok. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. So, if you'll humor me, I'll give an example of trust, and you tell me where submission and commitment come into play in my example, ok?

I went out of the country on a business trip for a month. I left at the beginning of the month. Shortly after arriving overseas, I realized that I have a bill that has to be paid by the 15th of the month. Realizing that I won't be able to pay the bill by the due date, because I won't be home in time, I call my wife. She tells me not to worry, and that she'll pay it by the due date.

So, I trust in her, that she will do as she says.

So tell me, where is commitment, and submission involved?

The submission involves acknowledging that your wife can do something that you simply are unable to do. So when you trust in your wife to pay the bill, you submit (accept or yield to a superior force) to your wife's superior ability to do something for you that you cannot do for yourself.

Commitment involves the target of the person you put your trust in. Your commitment to your wife was a fundamental component of why you chose to put your trust in your wife as opposed to someone else who you don't have a similar commitment to.
If I don't have some level of commitment to another person then I will not be able to trust in that other person.
Commitment isn't something added on trust, it is an integral component of trust.

Hope that helps...

In Christ

So, since I committed to my wife, then I can trust her. Is it the same with Christ? I have to know him enough to commit to him, before I can trust him?

would it be the same with the tax accountant I just met this year? I trusted her to do my taxes correctly. Hadn't met her before that day. There's no commitment there.

Seems like you're stretching the definition of "trust". What if I can't commit my life to Christ when I trust in him for salvation? Am I not saved? What if I can't submit to his lordship at that time? Do I not have eternal life, even though I trusted him?

[SoCalExile]

Maybe Yankee can explain it to DB:

(DB, if you're short on time start it at 11:51)



(That sermon convicted me to the point of tears on how little I thought of God's grace at 14:00-16:30)

[DBowling]

So, since I committed to my wife, then I can trust her. Is it the same with Christ? I have to know him enough to commit to him, before I can trust him?

Again... I don't think commitment and trust are things that can be separated, commitment is an integral component of trust.
So when you put your trust in Christ then by definition you are also making a commitment to Christ.

would it be the same with the tax accountant I just met this year? I trusted her to do my taxes correctly. Hadn't met her before that day. There's no commitment there.

Same answer... when you made the decision to trust your accountant to do your taxes, then by definition you were making a commitment to her.

Seems like you're stretching the definition of "trust". What if I can't commit my life to Christ when I trust in him for salvation? Am I not saved?

Same answer... when you trust in Jesus to save you from your sins then by definition you are making a commitment to Jesus.

What if I can't submit to his lordship at that time? Do I not have eternal life, even though I trusted him?

Again... I think you are trying to separate things that are integral parts of each other.

If a person is trusting Jesus to save them from their sins then by definition that involves acknowledging the fact that Jesus can in fact save you from your sins and submitting to his superior ability (ie lordship) to do something for you that you are incapable of doing for yourself.

In Christ

[Kurieuo]

Righteousness doesn't come to us through obedience, but by faith from Christ.
Those who frontload righteousness (you must ask for forgiveness and be good) or
backload righteousness (now you are forgiven you must be good or else you're not saved really), both are wrong.

Since it is by faith we receive Christ's righteousness and not obedience, shall we continue sinning?

• 8But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” 12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”

If it is with the heart a person believes, then whoever believes in Christ must have a heart for Christ. In this, their inner most deepest self melts and unites with Christ. These are those who will not perish, but have everlasting life.

So then, desire sin? Yes, while we remain in flesh we're still weak. Our natural selves will crave many things that we ought not. We are affected by the world, by our bodies, by emotions, by others, by our carnal thoughts and self. It is something we can however continually strive to improve upon with God's help, at least those of us who love Christ and as such really desire to not go against God.

Some people say "belief" merely requires intellectual assent, I do not consider such easy believism to be right. Even the demons believe and tremble, and everyone will end up believing in any case. What is the logical reason for now rather than before God? When before God declaring, "Oh, I believe. Jesus you exist. Wow! Please take away my sin!" There isn't any logical reason whatsoever I can think for why now and not also then.

Heck, God is evident in the world and people run and bury themselves from God. They keep their hearts distant. No, "belief" as Paul tells us in Romans 10 requires the central core of a person, their very heart. God desired the heart of Israel, and God desires our hearts. David had a heart after God's, but it wasn't due to his righteousness that's for sure. Rather, his faith in God was unshakable, even when he pursued his fleshly desires. What was this? Was it his action? No. Was it a mere rational belief in God? No. It was David's heart, in his heart he believed in God, loved God, sung to God.

So then, if God has your heart, and indeed Christ has your heart, then you have Christ's righteousness. If your heart desires money, you'll pursue wealth. If your heart desires God, you'll pursue what God desires. People may fail at both, but nonetheless our hearts desire something. God knows our hearts. Either God has your heart and you belong to Him, or God doesn't and you don't. Your heart can't desire both God and not God.

So then, I'm now an open target, but this makes sense to me and seems utterly Scriptural.

How exactly does God have someone's heart?

What is the reason behind your question?

If you're looking for a formula for how you can give your heart to God, there is none.
Such would be to turn "faith" or "belief" into a work, and something we do, Christians could boast in themselves.

I've read over your previous posts Rick on pisteuo, and you yourself often prefer "trust" to belief. You wrote elsewhere:

• "If one believes in Christ, one trusts that who he is, and what he has done is efficacious for salvation."

And you write here:

• "Faith simply means trust. We are saved by God's grace, through trust in Christ."

Indeed "trust" gets to the heart of the matter (pun intended!). Don't you see that "trusting" goes deeper then mere intellectual assent? So if there's something that left you uneasy with what I wrote, then perhaps I was unclear or need to just elaborate further.

Now, let's discuss the meaning of terms in Scripture a little.
Let me emphasise a very important theological point, which Jac will appreciate, when it comes to interpreting Scripture. We should always ultimately look to Scripture itself for how words we are concerned with are being used. This is how the Lexicon is created, by identifying their use in Scripture. Sometimes people gravitate to a particular meaning of a passage by reading a variant meaning of word found in the Lexicon into the passage. They are ironically performing eisegesis (reading meaning into the text) using the Lexicon. In doing so, they apply a variant meaning to a passage of Scripture which isn't supported by the context!

The Day-Age position, I think is guilty of this.
You have a person like Ross who comes along and says, "Look the Lexicon says of yom that it can mean an age, an unspecified period of time. Let's go with that then for Genesis 1!"
The question however isn't what is an allowable definition of yom, but which is the correct one in Genesis 1? And for that one thing we look to is how it is used within a passage, the surrounding context, or even how a particular author uses the word. Whether a case can be made for variant 1 verses variant 2, we can leave to debate in another thread.

So then, when Paul talks of "by faith", what does he mean?
I see that Paul always intends the opposite to everything that is legalistic.
Philippians 3, he thought he was as regards to the demands of the law, perfect and righteous. That's legalistic.
A man thinks he has made himself righteous by keeping the law (legalism).
Faith is the exact opposite of that. It is the opposite of everything that is meritorious in men, a negation of anything in use which says that we merited any righteousness.
Read Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9.

Now there are many who turn "faith" into a work, as easier work because all we now need to do is believe in Christ, but a work nonetheless. These people are thankful that we didn't live way back when Israel was to obey the Law. Oh, how hard it must have been to keep it! They say, "Thank you Jesus for making the way easier for me to attain, that all I need to do now is simply believe!"
Sounds innocent enough, but it is double talk! You can't do anything to attain your salvation.
There is no smaller work you must do than the Law, that you can boast upon.
Again, read Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9.

Let me be clear. Yes, Christ is the Way to God, and it's Christ who fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law, such that we can now attain righteousness received via faith.
BUT, God didn't make the way easier for us, as though we can do something easier to save ourselves.
Such a definition of "faith" contradicts Paul who sees it as the complete opposite of everything we can do.
Faith is not some kind of a lighter demand than the law that God now requires from us.

The only solution that I see, is to understand that "faith" is something God gives us, and is of our heart.
Those who are saved are the circumcision of heart, and God is the one who circumcises us.
This message has been the same in the OT:

• "The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live." (Deuteronomy 30:6)

And it is true in the NT:

• No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person's praise is not from other people, but from God. (Romans 2:29)

It has always been true, at all times that God's objective was our hearts. It is something God works to produce within us, through his constant calling out to us in life and drawing us unto Himself. (John 6:44) We merely respond over time, and eventually collide with God resulting in belief, this faith of which we are now talking.

Our faith in Jesus Christ is not our righteousness. Our faith does not constitute our righteousness.
Faith is simply the instrument by which we receive Christ's righteousness, Christ's works who obeyed God's Law completely. The moment anyone talks of their faith saving them, they turn faith at once into works and immediately have something to boast of: "Oh my faith has saved me, thank God I'm not like those wicked Atheists!"

Audie debated here not long ago that belief isn't something we choose.
Some said belief is something we choose to believe. I only loosely followed, but who is correct?
I see that there is a process that leads one to belief, that a true and authentic belief cannot be forced even by ourselves. Coming to belief is in part not any one decision, but a process of internal changes. This Audie is right... but then, intellectual assent and belief in Christ often happens on the back of this inner changing. Authentic belief or faith in Christ is finally had as a consequence of, not in spite of, a changing of our hearts.

This change within us, our belief, our trust in Christ, our faith, is not something we do.
No, God has effected change within us. Your heart merely responded to God's pinging and echoed back.
You and God drew closer and closer together until collision happened, and then you believed -- an outworking of this process in your heart. And now you desire all that God desires, how could you not? You desire to do that which is good, and wage war until you die against your fleshly desires. Paul thankfully and reassuringly talks much of this conflict of two natures within us (Romans 7:15-25):

• 15For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
  
  21I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

So Rick, you asked what is heart? Despite all the above, it really comes down to love really.
If you love God, belief or trust is the simple outworking of that.
How does your wife have your heart or you your wife's? Or if she's sick of making sandwiches and filing for divorce , do your children have your heart? Are you not affected emotionally in some way? Don't you feel connected in some way with them spiritually? Would you be moved if something tragic happened to them, they died or left you?
That is them having your heart.

Is trusting Christ, merely intellectual? If not, please explain what trusting Christ for salvation entails?

Believing in Christ, that being God He came into the world as a man, lived a perfect life according to God's Law, and was unfairly punished on the cross bearing our sin, asked God to forgive us and was resurrected which verified who He claimed to be, the Messiah of Israel and all of humanity. Such can be merely intellectual don't you think?

Trusting in Christ however, in English terms, that's adding something deeper than mere belief in propositions.

We believe our commander can complete the mission successfully. But to trust our commander is something different.
Why he might complete the mission at our expense, we might even trust he'll get the job done, but do we trust him?
That's what God wants in us. Not to merely trust that God exists or Jesus did the job, but to trust in Christ and know God.

Given all I've written above Rick, and all you yourself have commented on pisteuo in the past,
let me know if you believe trusting in Christ can be merely intellectual with zero heart.

[SoCalExile]

"merely intellectual"

That's a strawman argument.

https://faithalone.org/journal/1989ii/Hollo.html

This abbreviated syllogism2 (enthymeme) is frequently employed in support of Lordship Salvation:

"Faith is not the nod of a head to a series of facts. It is following Jesus.3"

"All offers of salvation in the NT are directed to the will to make the choice of surrendering to the Lordship of Jesus. One does not become a Christian by intellectually comprehending the historical facts about Jesus…[or] by grasping the theological implications of his death and resurrection.4"

"Simple assent to the gospel, divorced from a transforming commitment to the living Christ, is by biblical standards less than faith, and less than saving….5"

"By separating faith from faithfulness, it leaves the impression that intellectual assent is as valid as wholehearted obedience to the truth.6"

"Merely knowing and affirming facts apart from obedience to the truth is not believing in the biblical sense.7"

Examples could be multiplied. In each instance the suggestion is that all positions other than faith as personal commitment reduce to faith as intellectual assent, and that since faith is clearly not to be understood as intellectual assent, it must be commitment. Of course, it may in fact be true that biblical faith is commitment (though I personally do not think so), or for that matter, that it is intellectual assent (though those who hold this position would probably want to replace "intellectual" with "personal" or some other similar term). But these are exegetical conclusions. The question here, rather, is a logical one: Does it follow from the assertion that faith is not "merely knowing and affirming facts" that it is therefore personal commitment?8

An enthymeme is an abbreviated syllogism in which either the conclusion or one of the premises is not expressed. Thus, for example, "Socrates is a man, and all men are mortal" is an enthymeme suppressing the conclusion: "Therefore, Socrates is mortal." Whereas "Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal" is an enthymeme suppressing the major premise "All men are mortal." In the case in point the suppressed premise is, "Faith can only be understood in one of two ways: either as mere intellectual assent or as commitment," and the complete syllogism is:

1. Faith is not to be understood as mere intellectual assent.
2. But faith can only be understood in one of two ways: either as mere intellectual assent or as commitment.
3. Therefore (since it is not mere intellectual assent), faith must be understood as commitment.

But 2 is a false disjunction.9 For there is a third position frequently found in the literature that must be included: faith as trust or personal dependence.10 The suppressed premise should therefore read: "Faith can be understood in one of at least three ways: mere intellectual assent, commitment, or trust" and the correct syllogism:

1. Faith is not to be understood as mere intellectual assent.
2. But faith can be understood in one of at least three ways: mere intellectual assent, commitment, or trust.
3. Therefore, faith can be understood in one of at least two ways: commitment or trust.

Thus the assertion that saving faith is not mere intellectual assent cannot be used to establish the claim that faith is commitment, for it is consistent with (at least) two positions: faith understood as commitment and faith understood as trust.11
However, the recognition of a third candidate for the definition of faith not only invalidates the original disjunctive syllogism offered in support of faith as commitment, but it presents the proponent of Lordship Salvation with a sobering, if not frightening, possibility. For if it turns out that trust and commitment are two separate acts, in the sense that commitment does not entail trust, then it is possible that one could make a sincere and lasting personal commitment to Christ as Lord and yet never trust Him as Savior.12 Moreover, the emphasis on lordship found in some Gospel presentations would make the possibility of someone personally committing themselves to obey Christ without trusting Him as their Sin-hearer not only a possibility, but a likelihood. Consider the following attempt by a well-known evangelical to define saving faith, in which he moves directly from intellectual assent to commitment with no mention of trust:

"Saving faith is more than just understanding the facts and mentally acquiescing. It is inseparable from repentance, surrender and a supernatural eagerness to obey.13"

The question, then, is whether trust and commitment are separate acts—whether commitment somehow entails trust—so that to make a commitment is de facto to exercise trust. While at first glance it might seem that this is the case, several examples will suffice to show that it is not. Take, for instance, the career Air Force mechanic, a sincerely patriotic individual personally committed to the airplanes he services as an essential link in the nation's defense, but who nonetheless refuses to fly in them. This would seem to be a case of commitment (lifelong commitment, in fact) without personal trust. Or consider the nurse whose commitment to the surgeon who employs her is unswerving, but who personally refuses a needed surgical procedure. Again, this would be commitment (this time to a person) without trust. Finally, consider Martin Luther prior to his "Turmerlebnis": undoubtedly committed to Christ as Lord (he later wrote of this period of his life: "If ever a monk got to heaven by monkery, I would have gotten there") but because of his misunderstanding of the Gospel,14 thinking that more was required, never having looked to Him in simple trust for salvation. Disturbing though the consequences may be, it would seem that the possibility of being personally committed to Jesus Christ as Lord without trusting Him for salvation is real.

One of the chief concerns voiced by virtually all proponents of Lordship Salvation is that those who preach less than personal commitment to Christ as Lord give many converts false assurance of salvation.15 Ironically, if the above distinction obtains, many converted under a Lordship gospel may also have been assured wrongly.

[SoCalExile]

https://cornbreadandbourbon.wordpress.c ... t-fallacy/

The Mere Intellectual Assent Fallacy

Posted on October 20, 2014 by David Bishop

Ever hear someone say faith is not mere intellectual assent? Ever hear them attempt to argue faith is something you do in both your head and your heart? It was Karl Barth who began pushing Soren Kierkegaard’s existentialism like a drug dealer to the masses. Ever since we have had to counter this ridiculous notion that faith is not mere intellectual assent. The existentialist invented the head/heart dichotomy. While Christ told us the thoughts of the heart proceed from the mouth, the existentialist tells us the heart might know what the head doesn’t, and vice-versa.

The word “heart” is a polysemy. A polysemy is a word with many different meanings. The word “light” is a polysemy. Light can refer to the intensity of brightness, to an object’s weight, to one’s mood, to the act of setting fire, or even to a person’s sanity, such as in “he’s a little light in the head.” The immediate context determines the meaning. Consider the following examples from Scripture.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light.

Ruth 2:3 And she went, and came, and gleaned in the field after the reapers: and her hap was to light on a part of the field belonging unto Boaz, who was of the kindred of Elimelech.

1 Samuel 18:23 And Saul’s servants spake those words in the ears of David. And David said, Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a king’s son in law, seeing that I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed?

2 Samuel 21:17 But Abishai the son of Zeruiah succoured him, and smote the Philistine, and killed him. Then the men of David sware unto him, saying, Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou quench not the light of Israel.

Exodus 40:4 And thou shalt bring in the table, and set in order the things that are to be set in order upon it; and thou shalt bring in the candlestick, and light the lamps thereof.

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Light means something different in each of these examples. Were we to assume the word light always means the same thing, then we would be in a terrible predicament, for we would have to explain how “Let there be light” and “God is light” does not mean God said, “let there be God”. We see how quite silly the idea is to expect the word light to always mean the same thing. Unfortunately, not quite nearly enough people think the same about the word “heart”. Consider, for instance, the following uses for the word “heart” in Scripture. In these examples we find a multitude of different uses and meanings for the word heart, none of which affirm a head/heart dichotomy.

Genesis 6:5-6 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And he Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him to His heart.

Here we see man’s heart described as having the ability to think. His heart has thoughts. Furthermore, his thoughts themselves are described as having intentions. Obviously a man’s heart cannot literally think, nor can thoughts literally have intentions all their own as though a thought has a will independent of its thinker. The word heart here is indicating man’s will with added emphasis upon his imagination. Man wills to do what he imagines, and what he imagines all the live long day is only evil continually.

We also see God Himself grieved to His heart. Note this. Not grieved in His heart, but rather to His heart. The meaning is the same, whether to or in, but to emphasizes the fact that God’s grief is entire. Ever hear someone say they were “struck to the core”? Same meaning. God was struck to the core with grief at man’s evil.

Genesis 8:21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”

Here we see God’s heart with the ability to speak. Does God have parts, and do each speak? Of course not. The word heart here indicates something else. Ever hear someone say, “she said it from the heart” or “he meant it from the heart”? It means they really, really mean it. God really meant it when He said never again will He curse the ground because of man.

Genesis 20:4-5 Now Abimelech had not approached her. So he said, “Lord, will you kill an innocent people? Did he not himself say to me, ‘She is my sister’? And she herself said, ‘He is my brother.’ In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this.”

Ever hear someone say, “from the bottom of my heart? From the bottom of my heart, Lord, I am innocent in this matter. Abraham really did deceive me. I had not the slightest clue.

Exodus 4:16 Then the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses and He said, “Is there not Aaron, your brother, the Levite? I know that he can speak well. Behold, he is coming out to meet you , and when he sees you he will be glad in his heart.”

Ever hear someone say, “She warms my heart” or “he touches my heart”? You get the idea Moses and Aaron were not estranged brothers. They were close. This was not Jacob and Esau. This is not Joseph and his brothers. This is Moses and Aaron, and they are close.

Exodus 7:3-4 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply My signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you.

Ever hear someone say, “Not by the hair of my chinny-chin-chin”? The meaning refers to Pharaoh’s resolve. The Lord steeled Pharaoh’s will so that Pharaoh resolved even more that he would not let the Hebrews go. Not by the hair of my willy-will-will.

Exodus 9:13-14 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Rise up early in the morning and present yourself before Pharaoh and say to him, “Thus says the Lord, the God of the Hebrews, ‘Let My people go, that they may serve Me. For this time I will send all My plagues on your heart, and on your servants and your people so that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth.’”

Ever hear someone say, “I will cut you to the bone”? Same meaning. I will send all My plagues on you, buster. You are personally going to feel them.

Exodus 23:9 You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

Ever hear someone say, “You know what it’s like, because you went through it too”?

Exodus 35:5 Take from among you a contribution to the Lord. Whoever is of a generous heart, let him bring the Lord’s contribution

Ever hear someone say, “You have a kind heart” or “She’s a kind soul”?

Exodus 35:34 And He has put it in his heart to teach, both him and Oholab the son of Ahisamach of the tribe of Dan.

Getting the idea?

Though there is no one concrete definition for the word heart, there is at least one definition the Bible never uses. The Bible never uses the word heart to indicate a source of knowledge, as though we have a second organ with the ability to think and to know besides the organ in our skull. Rather, the Bible uses the word heart to indicate many different things, none of which are sources of knowing. The thoughts of the heart proceed from the mouth. What you believe, not just what you tell people you believe, but what you really deep down inside believe has a way of spilling out through your words. This is what Christ meant. He did not mean you have a literal spiritual organ which knows things your brain may or may not know.

Imagine for a moment we really did have a second, spiritual organ which knows and believes things our brain may or may not know and believe. We would forever be chasing our tail in a search for assurance, because how would we know that what we believe is not just our head believing, rather than our heart also believing? We wouldn’t. We couldn’t. There would be no way to find out if we are really heart believing rather than just head believing. This is where Lordship Salvation spirals down into a tailspin, because it redefines faith as something else in addition to intellectual assent to the gospel’s propositions. It then tells us we can know whether we have heart belief rather than just head belief by looking to our works. But of course, if we look to our works for assurance of our faith, then the object of our assurance is no longer Christ, but rather our works. “Lord, Lord, did we not do many great works in Your name?”

A lot of Calvinists today attach issues of emotional satisfaction to faith, so they wind up defining faith as some sort of genuinely heartfelt and emotionally satisfying trust. Apparently, the mere act of agreeing 2 + 2 = 4 is not enough to constitute assent. We must now check in with our emotions to make sure our assent with 2 + 2 = 4 is also heart assent rather than just mere head assent. Luther made this same error. He gave us the horrendous analogy of a man with an irrational fear of boats. The man is afraid of the boat, Luther argued, because he doesn’t believe it exists. But this is absurd. Of course the man believes the boat exists. This is why he is afraid! What he doesn’t believe are certain things about the boat, like for instance, that it will carry him safely across the water.

I fear the biggest reason why some people fall for this false head/heart dichotomy is they have never entirely repented of their false religion. I speak as a former Pentecostal-Charismatic. I was in false religion for more than 22 years. I had experiences I thought were from God. I had what I thought was faith. After hearing the gospel though, and believing it, I realized immediately I had to take sides against myself. I had to affirm with God I was lost the entire time I was under the preaching of a Pentecostal-Charismatic gospel. I now count all my experiences and everything I once believed as loss.

Deuteronomy 6:4-6 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.

Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

Matthew 18:35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”

Luke 16:15 And he said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

John 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.

John 16:33 I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”

[Kurieuo]

Care to dialogue with what I've said SoCal rather then quote a verbose amount of text?
Paul Holloway needs to brush up on his logic, I already see a fallacy committed in framing matters as either "Intellectual Accent or Commitment." Whatever one attaches to such, it seems to me a false dilemma.

Again, feel free to dialogue with my response, as I expect Rick or Jac will (hopefully).
I'm all for fruitful exchanges. Have no ax to grind here. *starts sharpening sword instead*

[SoCalExile]

Care to dialogue with what I've said SoCal rather then quote a verbose amount of text?

Pot meet kettle.

You've already lead in with the pejorative "mere intellectual assent" fallacy, so it's going to go downhill from there.

Fact is, the bible doesn't differentiate between "head knowledge" and "heart knowledge"; it's used interchangeably, and that dichotomy is an invention of modern philosophers. One that's used against LS-teacher's opposition without realizing their own logic undermines their own position.