I have written quite a lot over the years cheap shallow evangelism aka "easy prayerism." But I have said less about hyper-repentance aka "Lordship salvation." . . . . [I]t is fair to say that at least for some Independent Baptists, their way of making sure they are not practicing Hyles' type shallow evangelism, (sic) is to overreact and embrace at least to some extent hyper-repentance.Straughan describes this "hyper-repentance," a term I've never heard, to be "Lordship salvation." I don't comprehend the opposition to the inclusion of Lordship on the front end with the gospel. Jesus is the Christ. Someone must believe Jesus is the Christ to have eternal life. Lordship is definitional to "the Christ." He is the Messiah, the King, the Lord. People have to relinquish to that in order to be saved. Not doing so is rebellion against Jesus Christ. That isn't salvation. Straughan and all those like him do great damage and undermine the gospel with such writing. Then Mike Haxton, who publishes the paper, uses it for such eternally harmful means. It is conspiracy of the worst possible kind. It distorts the gospel.
Straughan also says:
With the Hyper-repentance (sic) people there is this, "quest", (sic) for true salvation. Which is why you see so many people repeatedly going forward for salvation. (sic)Is "quest" a technical term used by apparent "Hyper-repentance people"? Remember, these are people who say belief in Lordship of Christ is part of believing in Christ. I had not heard of these people or their favor for the word "quest." Pack your bags, we're going on a quest for true salvation, folks. It's as if men who support Jesus' Lordship are inventing something.
What about "going forward" that Straughan mentions? In his assessment, "going forward" is worth associating with true salvation, but Lordship is supposed to be excluded. Someone doesn't need to believe Jesus is his Lord, but he does "go forward." In the article, most times Straughan describes people being saved, he says they "go forward." Scripture says nothing about "going forward" as a part of biblical salvation.
I don't know anyone I would call a "hyper-repentance" person. I have not seen hyper-repentance. It's a term, maybe invented by Straughan as a pejorative. It's not helpful. Who is hyper-repentance?He says pro-Lordship are hyper repentance. There are many no repentance or false repentance people. I estimate that might represent 90% of professing Baptists today.
There is only Lordship salvation. No Lordship, no salvation. That isn't hyper anything. That is salvation. To call "Lordship" hyper is evil. Lordship salvation is
- not hyper repentance.
- not a pendulum swing.
- biblical salvation.
- not a quest.
- not accomplished by going forward.
- not a way of making sure not to practice Hyles type shallow evangelism.
- actual repentance.
- not based on a concern to see more decisions made by people going forward.
- not related to being a Calvinist.
Then Straughan uses a straw man to misrepresent Lordship salvation. The straw man is that the salvation of someone could or should be questioned because he isn't spiritual enough or at a high enough level of spirituality.
No one that believes in Lordship salvation, which is actually just salvation, believes Lordship means levels of spirituality. He doesn't even believe there are varied levels of spirituality. He instead believes every person who receives Jesus Christ is a "partaker of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4) and possesses "all spiritual blessings" (Ephesians 1:3). Everyone is equally spiritual. Also in 2 Peter 1 (v. 1), every believer has what Peter calls "like precious faith." I've never heard or read one "Lordship salvation" person say that someone isn't saved because he isn't spiritual enough.
Disobedience doesn't come from decreased spirituality. Every believer possesses the Person of the Holy Spirit, not part of Him. He can only have all of Him or none of Him. Someone without the Holy Spirit isn't spiritual at all. The moments he does not obey the Holy Spirit, he could be said not to be spiritual. A work of the flesh is not spiritual. It is all or nothing with the Holy Spirit, which is also why "fruit" of the Spirit is singular in Galatians 5:22, because all of it is there or none of it is there.
James 1 says that someone sins, not because he is unspiritual, but because he is drawn away of his own lust and is enticed. This relates to his intellect and his will. In accordance with Romans 6, he serves unrighteousness rather than righteousness. Enticement must be met by the knowledge of scripture. He cleanses his way by taking heed to the Word of God. The Apostle John says that someone born of God practices righteousness as a lifestyle. If he knows God, as a habit he does what God wants him to do. A believer in Lordship won't say, you didn't do that because you weren't spiritual enough. At some point, as a professing believer keeps sinning as a lifestyle, he should examine himself whether he be in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5).
The way someone knows he is saved is by his changed life, not by whether he goes forward at the end of an evangelistic sermon. The implication of Straughan is that church leaders who believe in Lordship salvation preach that final salvation comes to those who submit without fail to the Lordship of Christ, turning belief in Lordship to salvation by works. This is not true. Lordship is a matter of the will, in addition to the intellect and emotions. Jesus is Lord. Someone must acquiesce to Jesus' Lordship to receive eternal life. He will still sin. He will struggle with sin. The Apostle Paul describes that struggle in Romans 7. He struggles because Jesus is Lord. He doesn't want to sin. This is why the believer prays about not entering temptation and being delivered from evil. It is a struggle.
The rejection of Lordship salvation is a separating issue for me and our church. It is a widespread lie among church leaders. Writing against it like Straughan and publishing it by Haxton is a grave error. I'm happy they don't believe in easy-prayerism, but that's not enough.
Jesus preached repentance. John the Baptist preached it. Jesus instructed repentance as the gospel of the Great Commission (Luke 24:47). I want to look at Paul's preaching in Lystra. Three well-known converts from that town are Eunice, Lois, and Timothy. Here's what Paul preached there (Acts 14:15-17):
Vanities are dead things, and God is living. They are treating God as if he is worthless and useless and their things as living. This is worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator. It's easy to see that a lot of people who call themselves Christians are actually serving things. They prioritize things above all else. Those in Lystra put their things ahead of the living God. The gospel Paul preached to them was to turn from that to God. This is repentance and Lordship.
What is turning to the living God? He describes that in the following verses. They were walking in their own ways, and they needed to turn from walking in their own ways to walking in God's ways. That is turning from sin to God, but it is related directly to Lordship. Walking in their own ways is keeping self as Lord. Walking in God's ways is relinquishing to Him as Lord. Furthermore, this is "preaching the gospel." "Preaching the gospel" includes repentance and Lordship.
No one that believes in Lordship salvation, which is actually just salvation, believes Lordship means levels of spirituality. He doesn't even believe there are varied levels of spirituality. He instead believes every person who receives Jesus Christ is a "partaker of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4) and possesses "all spiritual blessings" (Ephesians 1:3). Everyone is equally spiritual. Also in 2 Peter 1 (v. 1), every believer has what Peter calls "like precious faith." I've never heard or read one "Lordship salvation" person say that someone isn't saved because he isn't spiritual enough.
Disobedience doesn't come from decreased spirituality. Every believer possesses the Person of the Holy Spirit, not part of Him. He can only have all of Him or none of Him. Someone without the Holy Spirit isn't spiritual at all. The moments he does not obey the Holy Spirit, he could be said not to be spiritual. A work of the flesh is not spiritual. It is all or nothing with the Holy Spirit, which is also why "fruit" of the Spirit is singular in Galatians 5:22, because all of it is there or none of it is there.
James 1 says that someone sins, not because he is unspiritual, but because he is drawn away of his own lust and is enticed. This relates to his intellect and his will. In accordance with Romans 6, he serves unrighteousness rather than righteousness. Enticement must be met by the knowledge of scripture. He cleanses his way by taking heed to the Word of God. The Apostle John says that someone born of God practices righteousness as a lifestyle. If he knows God, as a habit he does what God wants him to do. A believer in Lordship won't say, you didn't do that because you weren't spiritual enough. At some point, as a professing believer keeps sinning as a lifestyle, he should examine himself whether he be in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5).
The way someone knows he is saved is by his changed life, not by whether he goes forward at the end of an evangelistic sermon. The implication of Straughan is that church leaders who believe in Lordship salvation preach that final salvation comes to those who submit without fail to the Lordship of Christ, turning belief in Lordship to salvation by works. This is not true. Lordship is a matter of the will, in addition to the intellect and emotions. Jesus is Lord. Someone must acquiesce to Jesus' Lordship to receive eternal life. He will still sin. He will struggle with sin. The Apostle Paul describes that struggle in Romans 7. He struggles because Jesus is Lord. He doesn't want to sin. This is why the believer prays about not entering temptation and being delivered from evil. It is a struggle.
The rejection of Lordship salvation is a separating issue for me and our church. It is a widespread lie among church leaders. Writing against it like Straughan and publishing it by Haxton is a grave error. I'm happy they don't believe in easy-prayerism, but that's not enough.
Acts 14 and Repentance as a Necessary Part of a Biblical Gospel
Jesus preached repentance. John the Baptist preached it. Jesus instructed repentance as the gospel of the Great Commission (Luke 24:47). I want to look at Paul's preaching in Lystra. Three well-known converts from that town are Eunice, Lois, and Timothy. Here's what Paul preached there (Acts 14:15-17):
15 Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: 16 Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.I provided the whole text, but I want to focus on the second half of verse 15:
[We] preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God.The word "preach" is the Greek word euanggelizo, which means, "to preach the good news" or "to preach the gospel." A literal understanding is "We preached the gospel unto you that." That what? What is the gospel that Paul preached? "That ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God." Paul says the gospel is turning from vanities to the living God. The word "turn" is epistrepho, and to turn is obviously repentance. "Vanities" (mataios) is what is "worthless or useless." Paul says the gospel is turning not just from sin, but what is useless or worthless to the living God.
Vanities are dead things, and God is living. They are treating God as if he is worthless and useless and their things as living. This is worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator. It's easy to see that a lot of people who call themselves Christians are actually serving things. They prioritize things above all else. Those in Lystra put their things ahead of the living God. The gospel Paul preached to them was to turn from that to God. This is repentance and Lordship.
What is turning to the living God? He describes that in the following verses. They were walking in their own ways, and they needed to turn from walking in their own ways to walking in God's ways. That is turning from sin to God, but it is related directly to Lordship. Walking in their own ways is keeping self as Lord. Walking in God's ways is relinquishing to Him as Lord. Furthermore, this is "preaching the gospel." "Preaching the gospel" includes repentance and Lordship.
18 comments:
You say that Lordship is a matter of the will. Which will do you mean, your will or God's?
-Andrew
Also, and just to add to the above question, what do you mean by false repentance? Are you referring to a false doctrinal concept of what repentance itself is, i.e. someone is using the term wrongly; or are you simply referring to false professions of the truly understood concept? In other words, are you distinguishing between people who do know what Biblical repentance is against people who are using the term wrongly and hold the wrong doctrine; or are you distinguishing between people who have sufficiently demonstrated their repentance against people who have not?
Andrew,
In the sentence, it is our will. Of course it is God's will too (2 Pet 3:9). Repentance is volitional. We turn from our way to the Lord's way. We are not longer in rebellion against Him, He is in charge. The false repentance says it is intellectual only, a change of mind. Belief is all three -- intellect, emotions, will -- too.
Andrew,
Removing Lordship distorts repentance. Look at the Acts 14 dealing below the first part of the post, which is why I included it. A person can't remain in rebellion against the Lord and be saved. This isn't repentance. If someone believes Jesus is Christ, he has given up control of His life, no longer in rebellion against God, therefore, repentant. Take that away and it is false repentance and not repentance. Acceptance of Jesus as Savior is intellectual only and it is also incomplete, so false.
Hi Pastor Brandenburg,
I am trying to think of examples in scripture where someone has a repentance of intellect where they truly believed in Christ as being Lord and King of their lives and of all, yet despite their 'intellect' having truly changed, their 'will' did not repent. I know not how this could be from personal experience. From others I can only judge by their fruits, I cannot see into their heart, so 1 John 2:19 applies there. So scriptural examples then. Are you thinking for example of something like Hebrews 6:4 or 2 Cor 13:5? There we see only people who did not gladly accept the word but only tasted of it and rejected despite all of that. Perhaps Matthew 8:29 or James 2:19? There is only an unreliable profession in one (not narration) and a monotheist (possibly unitarian, 1 jh. 4:3) in the other. I'm not seeing an example of this middle case existing, I'm only seeing the truth of Philippians 1:6, 2:12-13, 1 Cor 15:10 and more, assurances that it is God from that point of repentance, God who in fact worketh in us to will, not simply a sheer volitional willpower to struggle and overcome.
Also, I'm not sure what baptist churches remove Lordship from Jesus, but some individuals perhaps inadvisedly have carried over the term 'Lordship salvation' in the negative connotation, as it was given in the 80s. You've certainly I think made a valid point the imprecision of that extrabiblical term. John 8:24 certainly makes it clear, I would add.
Pastor Brandenburg,
Second point: so not being able to find said counterexample, I wonder then whether we aren't confusing outright false confessors as having an 'intellectual-only' repentance, and we ought not rather call it what it is, another case of 1 John 2:19 false profession and not bother with confusing some kind of 'intellect only' type language which is also extrabiblical. I don't see how what you describe as intellectual assent without Biblical repentance, (cf. Acts 26:18-20), is anything else other than a case of having never believed the word of God to begin with. Intellectual assent is then a term merely being substituted for outward profession. Arises from people being too polite to openly doubt whether someone's profession is true, so they at least grant them the psychological term 'intellectual assent' as a kind of courtesy and nod to their outward profession
Anonymous,
I don't have time right now, because of Sunday evening service, but intellectual repentance is one of the two most common false views on repentance, maybe the most prevalent, among independent fundamental Baptists. The two false views are:
1. Repentance after salvation, part of sanctification (no repentance view)
2. Repentance only a change of mind about belief (that is intellectual only)
Turning is not intellectual only. Giving up your life is not intellectual only. Confessing with your mouth the Lord Jesus is not intellectual only.
The intellectual only is the demon faith or dead faith, non-saving faith, of James 2.
Hi Pastor Brandenburg,
Thanks for clarifying your view, I think I've made my case pretty well at this point so if you have anything further to add later then feel free.
-Andrew
Andrew,
Your point, it seemed, was that you can't think of an example of "intellectual only" faith in scripture, so that isn't a problem, except for anecdotal evidence. No. Intellect only is all over the place. Saying that you have faith, but not having works. The devils believe. Saying that you know Him, but you don't keep His commandments. The aorist "believed" in John, and Jesus saying that He knew their hearts in John 2. Those in Hebrews 6 that taste of the Word of God and of the powers of the world to come, etc. but they don't go on to perfection. Those who neglect salvation in Hebrews 2:1-4, who don't give the more earnest heed and as a result let them slip. Those in John 6, the thrill seekers. Knowing God but not glorifying Him as God. The rich young ruler, where what Jesus said was too hard for him. I won't keep going but the examples are plenteous.
You are saying that since scripture doesn't use the terminology "intellectual assent" that this kind of faith doesn't exist. That's just a representation. You say they don't really believe, so I'm being polite. No, the word "belief" is used. Read through the whole chapter of Acts 14. It's obvious in the first verse, when it says a multitude believed, that all those who "believed" weren't saved, just like the demons are not saved. There is a dead faith and it is prevalent. Your saying that they don't believe at all is missing it. They don't have saving faith. It can be something different than intellectual only -- they believe in Jesus as Savior, but deny Him as Lord, which is insufficient. This is 2 Peter 2:1, they deny the Lord who bought them. They know He bought them, but they still deny Him as Lord.
That’s good explanation pastor Brandenburg. The Bible is full of such examples, of intellectual only “repentance.” I think of Simon the sorcerer, who “believed” but never volitionally repented (Ac 8). He wanted Jesus as Saviour but not as Lord. Hence Peters sharp reproof of his false pretence and lost estate. Judas is a really good example. His intellectual mixed with some emotional self-pity only “repentance” is described for us in Matt 27:1-5. Balaam. Esau. The apostate pastor and his followers over at Laodicea (Rev 3:14-18). Etc. True saving repentance results in a relinquished will that serves and obeys God in all areas of life, keeping His commandments and precepts because of the new love for God and His truth (Ps 119:1-4; 1 Jn 2:3-5; Gal 1:10). That is true faith (Lk 17:5-10). Intellectual only “repentance” is attempting to use one of the four Greek words translated as or describing repentance in the NT, in its etymological sense. This “repentance” is actually found in another word, metaballo, used once in Acts 28:6 and translated as exactly that, “they changed their minds.”
Reuben
Hi Pastor Brandenburg,
With regard to Acts 14 and the first verse,
Isn't it very clear that the fact a great multitude believed but that the town was divided basically just shows that the great multitude that believed was not the entire population? I find this to follow logically. It doesn't say that this great multitude was "everyone" or "all", but rather signifies that it was a very large number of people. And then we find confirming this furthermore that it says in Acts 14:2 that there were unbelieving Jews (same underlying word as John 3:36, Romans 2:8) and furthermore that "the city was divided" in Acts 14:4, confirming for us from scripture what might have been logically concluded from v.1.
Also go a few verses back to Acts 13:48, if you will. "As many as were ordained to eternal life believed". I rest my case.
With regards to your mention of Hebrews 6:4, of James 2:19 and possibly Matthew 8:29, Pastor Brandenburg,
Did you see the first part of my post where I handled this case already or only the second post?
And regarding the idea of someone denying in Jesus as Lord, of course they believe in another Jesus, whom we have not preached, as 2 Cor 11:4 mentions. People who "believe" another gospel or another Jesus than the Biblical one may have believed in "something," but they haven't yet believed the word of God. When we say believed we're not talking about believing in fallible false things unless otherwise noted. We're talking about believing the true sayings of God, the record that God gave of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
I rest my case.
Andrew,
What case do you rest? Because I don't really know what case you are making? That there is no such thing in scripture as intellect only faith? What is dead faith, Andrew?
Acts 14:1 is the aorist for believed. Have you studied the aorist for pisteuo in the NT? On many occasions, aorist, believed is not sufficient faith to save. It is belief, but insufficient. What is it?
I really don't what your point is, except that you disagree with me that there is intellectual-only faith that doesn't save. Lordship means someone is in charge, both an authority and an owner. Someone can assent to Jesus being Lord without involving his will. He doesn't repent.
Thanks Reuben.
I don't understand Andrew on this one.
I'm going to get technical on this, but scripture is always grammatical.
Acts 14:1: "And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed."
The original language in a literal way of the last part says, "so that to believe both of Jews and of Greeks much number." "To believe" is an aorist infinitive, which is a simple momentary act. It doesn't have to continue, which is why the aorist is used for non saving faith in the New Testament. It isn't always not saving.
Jews is plural, Gentiles is plural, and much number is singular.
The next verse (v. 2) reads: "But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren."
Those Jews who didn't believe at all stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren. The Greeks of v. 1 are stirred up by a different group of Jews than those of v. 1, which represent those who did not believe in v. 1. These Gentiles in v. 2 are the same ones as those in v. 1. The Jews who did not believe in v. 1 stirred up the Gentiles who did believe in v. 1 against other Gentiles who did believe in v. 1. The truly saved Gentiles were brethren, which in the case does refer to saved people. The Gentiles in v. 2 are the Gentiles of v. 1, not other Gentiles. These Gentiles believed in a non-saving way and then had their minds evil affected against the truly saved Gentiles, the brethren. Some Gentiles who believed in v. 1 were brethren and some were not. These two verses are making that very point.
There is a contrast here being made with the "But" starting v. 2. The Greeks that believed and were not truly saved had their minds evil affected. This tribulation manifested a non-saving faith.
I don't need to rest, because I could keep going with this line of argument. But let's stop there.
Hi Reuben,
Judas Iscariot and others are examples of people who were never saved. In the case of Judas himself, we have at least two places where it is outright stated so, John 6:70-71 and John 17:12.
You can also bring examples where it is doubtful whether someone was elected to salvation or not. I'm not going to be led to go beyond what is written about those men. I'm not making new revelations beyond scripture.
"True saving repentance results in a relinquished will that serves and obeys God in all areas of life, keeping His commandments and precepts because of the new love for God and His truth."
Very good. And it is God which worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleasure.
"This “repentance” is actually found in another word, metaballo, used once in Acts 28:6"
Ok, this makes sense to me. People in the case of Acts 28:6 who have changed their minds in such a way are still not saved nor have they believed the truth or been obedient to it (Romans 2:8).
To Pastor Brandenburg,
"I don't really know what case you are making? That there is no such thing in scripture as intellect only faith?"
When the New Testament is talking about those that believed, it is of course a reflection of a specific belief, not just any belief whatsoever, such as the false gospel of Galatians 1:8 and 2 Corinthians 11:4.
Namely, we are talking about whosoever "heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me" in the words of Christ, John 5:24. So we have clearly drawn a distinction between belief in the truth (which is what Scripture is talking about unless otherwise noted) as opposed to ill-founded belief some other lie, an imitation perhaps of the truth, that isn't true which we are told is "another gospel, which is NOT another" (Galatians 1:6-7). That isn't true belief obviously because it isn't based on the word of God but on some other fallacy. If you'd like to call that intellectual belief if you like, you may do so. It's actually a false profession of faith by a nonbeliever. There's no example of it being otherwise. That's the case of Scripture. If someone tells me they believe, but their fruits say otherwise then I am inclined not to believe their claim of true belief. I won't confuse it by calling it an intellectual belief perhaps. I will say up front that was a false profession made manifest, as in 1 John 2:19.
"What is dead faith, Andrew?"
Faith without works, cf. James 2:14-26.
"Someone can assent to Jesus being Lord without involving his will. He doesn't repent."
Yeah, because he is a false professor.
"On many occasions, aorist, believed is not sufficient faith to save. It is belief, but insufficient."
Do you have a scriptural example of this? It seems like you're turning over to Acts 14 for this. Can you establish this exegetically and not eisegetically? Where are the "Greeks that believed and were not truly saved" in Scripture? Is there any passage like this? I understand if you turn to John 2 (mentioned earlier) there is another example where it did not say all believed. "Many" is not "all," of course.
Rather, from Acts 13:48 we have a clear qualifier that as many as were ordained to eternal life believed! I have every Biblical reason to know this is in fact the case: exactly as many as are ordained to eternal life are those that believed. It makes this abundantly clear in Acts 13:48, just a few verses before your example. Other examples may be drawn. Phil. 1:6, 2:12-13; 1 Cor 15:10 are some cases I've mentioned earlier. These all establish the fact of the matter regarding God's will in our life. I quoted 1 John 5:9-10 verbatim earlier, He- here also- establishes this truth. "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."
I hope you're doing well over there.
Andrew
Ok so regarding the tense of the word in Acts 14:1, we find the same tense given in Acts 15:7.
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe*.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
I placed an asterisk next to the word believe to signify the aorist infinitive active form of belief, the same as found in the Greek at Acts 14:1. So would you make an argument based on this word tense in this verse that the Gentiles spoken of in Acts 15:7-8 (a reference to Acts 10:34-48) are you going to say the Gentiles necessarily did not believe in an imperceptibly "complete" sense, because Peter used the aorist infinitive active form of the word belief there? It seems unlikely you would say so. If you do say so, let us know. Let's assume for the rest of this post you're not saying that. You're not saying that the aorist infinitive active form necessarily implies something that didn't continue, but only leaves open the possibility.
In that case, what are you using to demonstrate that it is so in Acts 14:1 other than the fact the word is in aorist infinitive active? What if other scripture shows this can't be the case. We have just shown by Acts 15:7 and by examining the half dozen other occurrences of πιστεῦσαι that there is no necessity of that, not in any of those examples. In fact, it is used in Acts 15:7 for those that are saved. In the case of when it comes to believing the truth of God's word or not, have you considered that the believers thereof are congruent to those who are "ordained to eternal life," which Luke was inspired by the Holy Spirit to tell us about? Would not the counterexample that you have been looking for, undermine the statements of scripture that I have now cited, and if so, I would very modestly ask for an explanation for why not. I do not think that nonbelieving Jews stirring up nonbelieving Gentiles establishes a counterexample.
"The Gentiles in v. 2 are the Gentiles of v. 1, not other Gentiles."
Why?
"These two verses are making that very point. There is a contrast here being made with the "But" starting v. 2. This tribulation manifested a non-saving faith."
Then why does Luke use the same language in Acts 13:48-50? He starts off v. 50 by saying "But the Jews stirred up," etc. So does that grammar prove that the devout women and chief men of the city were the same that believed in v. 48 and he is "establishing a contrast"? Even though we know that they were ordained to eternal life? And If it doesn't establish it in Acts 13:48-50, why does it establish it in Acts 14:1-2. Because Acts 14:2 uses the words "the brethren"? But where was it established that this is different than those that believe? Aren't you actually trying to use this verse to prove that? If so, how can you assume what you are trying to prove as part of the proof? Namely, that the brethren are a true believing subset of the larger set of believers and not simply a synonym.
No, the reason to see is pretty clear why Luke starts off the sentence in Acts 14:2 with "but." It's the same reason why he starts off with it Acts 13:50. Because no sooner had the apostles converted large amounts of believers than the unbelieving Jews came and stirred up the unbelieving Gentiles.
Hi again Pastor Brandenburg,
I realize my last post was ended kind of abrupt so I apologize for that. The reason why I posted here is nothing other than that, I sincerely believe anyone reading diligently enough comparing scripture with scripture will come to these conclusions, and I do not think they are in any way contrived by me. And I appreciate that you allowed these short paragraphs to be posted. I have prayed to the Lord that he will allow you to reach those whom he has for you to reach with His word.
Andrew,
Thanks. I can't always keep debating and it is a big subject. I'm fine with letting it go at the end with no hard feelings ever. People probably think I have hard feelings. I have none. I might argue it hard and even use the serrated edge sometimes, but it's not personal or hard feeilngs. The repentance/Lordship issue though is a top shelf issue for me.
Have a good day.
KB
Post a Comment