We contribute the movement of the will toward Christ — the Spirit creates the ability, and we exercise it.
Faith is our Spirit-enabled entrusting of ourselves to Christ.
Is Salvation an event or a process?
- Thread starter biblestudent78
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Faith is our Spirit-enabled entrusting of ourselves to Christ.
We entrust our whole selves to Christ — but not as a pre‑surrendered offering. We entrust our lost, guilty, helpless, condemned selves to Him for rescue.
Faith is not “I surrender my life so You will save me.” Faith is “I entrust my ruined life to You because only You can save me.”
That distinction is everything.
Well , saying I surrender myself to you so you will save me isn't as surrender, thats a business deal. For a surrendered life to be genuine, there can't be any expectation of something in return.
Even saying I surrender my ruined life to you, because only you can save me isn't a genuine surrendered life. Not even for rescue. A surrendered life means it's not ours anymore. The only expectation we should have is to be a slave to the one we've surrendered to. Slaves have no rights.
But I think we've actually come to a consensus.
You acknowledge we do make a choice here to surrender, to live a life inspired by that surrender?
This is the consensus we’ve reached.
We do not choose to surrender a life.
We choose to entrust a ruined life.
Surrender is the fruit of that entrusting, not the entrusting itself.
The human act is entrusting ourselves to Christ.
Not:
entrusting obedience
entrusting a surrendered life
entrusting future performance
entrusting promises we make
But entrusting:
guilt
helplessness
condemnation
inability
ruin
need
self
This is not surrender. This is dependence.
You asked, “OK, you said we do faith. What do we do?”
The answer is not “we surrender.” The answer is not “we obey.” The answer is not “we commit.” The answer is not “we offer our lives.”
The answer is,
We entrust ourselves to Christ. That is the human action of faith.
That just not completely true . In the Strongs definition of pisteuo, it specifically states, pisteuo is translated "commit unto", "commit to ones trust", "be committed unto .:"
Your going to have to make an understandable distinction between surrender and entrust. You haven't done that yet.
Don't use obedience against a surrendered life. There's no connection between the two.
Yes, I do see a real difference between entrusting a ruined life and surrendering a life, and the difference is not artificial, not semantic, and not based on “expectations.” It is a biblical difference.
And you’re right to challenge it. You’re right to push back. You’re right to insist that surrender must be pure, with no expectation of return.
So let me show you the distinction with absolute clarity, the distinction Scripture itself makes and why it matters.
Entrusting is what a ruined person does to be rescued. Surrender is what a rescued person does because they belong to the Rescuer.
They are not the same act. They are not the same moment. They are not the same kind of choice.
Entrusting is, the ruined person places themselves in Christ’s hands. It is the act of dependence.
It is the act of receiving. It is the act of coming empty. It is the act of yielding need, not yielding obedience.
It is the act of faith, not the act of slavery.
Surrendering is the rescued person yields their life to Christ’s rule.
It is the act of obedience. It is the act of submission.
It is the act of yielding rights. It is the act of slavery, not the act of need.
It is the act of sanctification, not the act of faith.
These are different human actions, in different stages, with different meanings, producing different fruits.
Your definition of Surrender is correct. But it belongs after Salvation.
You said, “A surrendered life means it’s not ours anymore. Slaves have no rights.”
Romans 6:17–22.
Luke 9:23.
Galatians 2:20.
But that is not the act of faith. That is the result of faith.
Faith is receiving. Surrender is responding.
Faith is dependence. Surrender is obedience.
Faith is toward Christ for rescue. Surrender is toward Christ for rule. So, to answer the question “You really see a difference between entrusting a ruined life and surrendering a life?”
Yes — and here’s why:
Entrusting a ruined life is what a beggar does.
Surrendering a life is what a slave does
You cannot be a slave until you have been rescued.
You cannot surrender a life you do not yet possess..
You cannot obey before you are alive.
You cannot yield before you are regenerated
This is not adding expectations. This is recognizing sequence.I did not add expectations to surrender.
Scripture defines surrender as obedience, slavery, yieldedness, cross-bearing.
You defined surrender as:no rights
no expectations
slavery
total yieldedness
That is exactly what Scripture calls surrender. But Scripture never calls that faith.
Entrusting is the ruined person’s act toward Christ for rescue.
Surrender is the rescued person’s act toward Christ for rule.
They are not the same act, not the same moment, and not the same choice. But one produces the other.
You said:
“You acknowledge we do make a choice here to surrender, to live a life inspired by that surrender?”
I agree that We make a real, Spirit-enabled choice to entrust ourselves to Christ.
This is faith.
And that entrusting produces a life of genuine surrender.
This is sanctification.
That surrendered life is inspired by the initial entrusting.
This is fruit.
But surrender is not the act of faith itself.
This is the distinction you were testing.
And surrender is not the condition for salvation.
This is the error you were guarding against.
Biblically, we are enemies of God before the faithing response happens. So it's not a big leap to look at this as if we are on a battlefield. The enemy (God) has His foot on our necks. Either we surrender or die. A surrender includes us being a slave to the one we've surrendered to, with zero rights.
Your saying, that Im entrusting myself to you, the one with his foot on your neck. Giving the impression I still have some rights and a vote on how my life will be moving forward. That's not biblical.
You’re right to bring Strong’s in here—and that actually helps sharpen the distinction, not erase it.
Strong’s on pisteuō (G4100):“to have faith… by implication, to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well‑being to Christ); believe, commit
(to trust), put in trust with.”
So yes:
pisteuō includes entrusting, committing to one’s trust, putting in trust with.
That’s real, active, volitional.
And it’s exactly where your “surrender” question lives.
The distinction I’m making is not about intensity or seriousness, but about category.
What “entrust” is in pisteuō
Entrust / commit to one’s trust in Strong’s is
Object: “one’s spiritual well‑being” to Christ
Posture: dependence, confidence, reliance
Direction: toward Christ as Savior
Nature: receiving, not offering; trusting, not performing
It is the ruined person saying, “My spiritual well‑being is in Your hands, not mine.”
That is faith.
What “surrender” is in your definition
You defined surrender as:
No rights
No expectations
Slave to the one surrendered to
Life “not ours anymore”
That’s not wrong, it’s just Romans 6 language, “You became slaves of righteousness…you present your members as slaves to righteousness.” (Rom 6:18–19)
That is yielded life, ongoing posture, total belonging.
It is the rescued person saying, “My life is Yours to command.”
That is slavery/obedience, not the act of entrusting for rescue.
You’re right: pisteuō includes entrusting / committing to one’s trust.
You’re right: a surrendered life has no expectation of return.
You’re right: “I surrender so You will save me” is a business deal, not surrender.
And I’m saying:
Saving faith = entrusting my spiritual well‑being to Christ (pisteuō).
Surrendered life = living as His slave because I already belong to Him.
They are connected, but not identical, and not simultaneous in definition, even if they may be very close in experience
I give you everything I can to show you where my reasoning comes from. And i have openly accepted challenge after challenge
I don't understand.
First,hello and welcome.
I've spoken with them in the past. And read their posts to others.
It's not you.
They do that what you read there, with me it was almost word for word, with everyone eventually.
You articulated your points well. And in brief at times.
It's understandable you'd write a larger post when it didn't appear they were following your older ones.
It's not you.
It's them.
Again welcome. God Bless you.
I love you my friend and hope the stress of this conversation eases. Please remember it is Not me who makes the hearing ear. Im just sharing. Peace
I love you my friend and hope the stress of this conversation eases. Please remember it is Not me who makes the hearing ear. Im just sharing. Peace
Why would I be stressed. The spirit of Christ has dwelt in me 24/7 for 38 years, the mind of Christ 24/7 for 38 years. With those things gifted to me by responding to the call with a personal surrender to Him and a life inspired by such surrender, I know for a fact if you also have them or not. The fact you would allow someone to test you on those gifts, who you think doesn't have the Spirit of Christ, is revealing. And there lies the boundary, I can't use the evidence of those gifts to try and persuade you.
I've used all my facts to try and persuade you. You and the other 500 called out ones always do the same thing. Try to discredit the Vines Greek dictionary and the strongs., with just you saying they aren't true. Sorry , nobody's going to buy that but you. Try and hang onto the mistranslated words believe, I seemed to have exercised that from you.
I just thought I brought you far enough along to reach consensus. Me with a continually surrendered life with a mountain of evidence. You with entrusting, with very little evidence.
Why do you feel the need to hang on to part of your old life? Is it something you don't want to give up, you think your money might go bye bye, you want to keep that secret deliverance in your back pocket, in case God doesn't do what you want Him to do? What is it? Because thats the last hurdle.
Faith and faithing, a personal surrender to Him and a life inspired by such surrender doesn't have to be perfect, but it does have to be genuine. And that genuine faith is continually tested and perfected, with us moving closer and closer to less of us and more of Him. There is no entrusting, only surrender and to be committed unto Him. Vines and Strongs.
If you can come that extra mile I'll be ready to move forward to the next phase of the conversation. But better than that , you have no idea what awaits you if you live a continually surrendered life to Him.
My name is Jay, the watchman with clean hands.
I make no apologies for the Gospel as preached by Christ. I am not ashamed. You claim to have givin proof of your stands yet as i read through the posts it seems I was the only one laying down my evidence. Once again I am open for any challenge to what i write as I am human and bound to make mistakes. Prove my statements wrong and i will openly admit my failure.
Vine’s is helpful, but no, Vine’s Greek is not fully accurate according to Scripture or modern Greek scholarship. It is partially accurate, partially outdated, and sometimes theologically biased, because it reflects early‑20th‑century lexical assumptions rather than the last 80 years of linguistic research.
Vine’s was designed for English readers who do not know Greek, and it succeeds at:
connecting English KJV words to the Greek behind them
giving concise, readable summaries of Greek terms
distinguishing different Greek words translated by the same English word (e.g., love, world)
providing basic semantic ranges that are often correct
This is why Vine’s became the most popular layman’s word-study tool for decades.
Vine’s starts with English words and works backward to Greek. This means the dictionary inherits KJV translation choices, even when those choices are linguistically weak.
So if the KJV mistranslated a Greek word, Vine’s often builds its definition around the mistranslation.
This is exactly the problem you pointed out with believe → pisteuō.
Vine wrote in 1939–1940, before:
semantic domain theory
corpus linguistics
modern Koine studies
the discovery of many papyri
updated lexicons (BDAG, Louw-Nida, EDNT)
Thus Vine’s definitions are outdated and sometimes oversimplified. Modern scholarship has corrected many assumptions Vine made.
Because Vine was a conservative pastor, some entries reflect doctrinal interpretation, not pure lexical meaning.
For example:
faith (pistis) is treated as primarily “belief,” not “faithfulness/allegiance,” which modern scholarship recognizes as essential.
pisteuō is treated as “believe,” even though the Greek verb means trust, rely, commit, not mental belief.
This is where your critique is exactly correct: Vine’s supports the English theological category of “belief,” even though Greek does not contain that category.
Even Vine himself said his work was not for Greek students and was only meant as a helpful guide, not an authoritative linguistic reference.
It is a commentary-like dictionary, not a scholarly lexicon.
Vine’s is accurate when the KJV is accurate and when the Greek word is simple. But Vine’s is not accurate when:
the KJV mistranslates a Greek term
the Greek concept is complex (faith, world, flesh, righteousness, sanctification)
modern scholarship has corrected older assumptions
theological bias colors the definition
In other words, Vine’s is useful, but not authoritative. It is not reliable for doctrinal precision or for resolving Greek controversies.
Your critique is correct:
Vine’s does not emphasize that pisteuō means trust / rely / commit, not “believe.”
Vine’s does not correct the English theological category of “belief,” which is absent from Greek.
Vine’s does not address the mistranslation problem created by Latin → English tradition.
This is because Vine’s follows the KJV’s English categories, not the Greek semantic categories.
So yes—your disagreement is not with Scripture, but with Vine’s and Strong’s, which both reflect older English-based theology, not Greek linguistics.
Use modern lexicons based on Koine corpus linguistics, not English tradition:
BDAG
Louw-Nida Semantic Domains
EDNT (Exegetical Dictionary of the NT)
Moulton & Milligan (papyri-based)
These reflect what Greek actually meant in the first century, not what English theology later imposed on it.
Vine’s was designed for English readers who do not know Greek, and it succeeds at:
connecting English KJV words to the Greek behind them
giving concise, readable summaries of Greek terms
distinguishing different Greek words translated by the same English word (e.g., love, world)
providing basic semantic ranges that are often correct
This is why Vine’s became the most popular layman’s word-study tool for decades.
Vine’s starts with English words and works backward to Greek. This means the dictionary inherits KJV translation choices, even when those choices are linguistically weak.
So if the KJV mistranslated a Greek word, Vine’s often builds its definition around the mistranslation.
This is exactly the problem you pointed out with believe → pisteuō.
Vine wrote in 1939–1940, before:
semantic domain theory
corpus linguistics
modern Koine studies
the discovery of many papyri
updated lexicons (BDAG, Louw-Nida, EDNT)
Thus Vine’s definitions are outdated and sometimes oversimplified. Modern scholarship has corrected many assumptions Vine made.
Because Vine was a conservative pastor, some entries reflect doctrinal interpretation, not pure lexical meaning.
For example:
faith (pistis) is treated as primarily “belief,” not “faithfulness/allegiance,” which modern scholarship recognizes as essential.
pisteuō is treated as “believe,” even though the Greek verb means trust, rely, commit, not mental belief.
This is where your critique is exactly correct: Vine’s supports the English theological category of “belief,” even though Greek does not contain that category.
Even Vine himself said his work was not for Greek students and was only meant as a helpful guide, not an authoritative linguistic reference.
It is a commentary-like dictionary, not a scholarly lexicon.
Vine’s is accurate when the KJV is accurate and when the Greek word is simple. But Vine’s is not accurate when:
the KJV mistranslates a Greek term
the Greek concept is complex (faith, world, flesh, righteousness, sanctification)
modern scholarship has corrected older assumptions
theological bias colors the definition
In other words, Vine’s is useful, but not authoritative. It is not reliable for doctrinal precision or for resolving Greek controversies.
Your critique is correct:
Vine’s does not emphasize that pisteuō means trust / rely / commit, not “believe.”
Vine’s does not correct the English theological category of “belief,” which is absent from Greek.
Vine’s does not address the mistranslation problem created by Latin → English tradition.
This is because Vine’s follows the KJV’s English categories, not the Greek semantic categories.
So yes—your disagreement is not with Scripture, but with Vine’s and Strong’s, which both reflect older English-based theology, not Greek linguistics.
Use modern lexicons based on Koine corpus linguistics, not English tradition:
BDAG
Louw-Nida Semantic Domains
EDNT (Exegetical Dictionary of the NT)
Moulton & Milligan (papyri-based)
These reflect what Greek actually meant in the first century, not what English theology later imposed on it.