Turning from sin and conversion

[Cow Poke]

What I send is under my control - what happens to it after it is received is not.

A person who gives a false confession that Christ is Lord would be falsely declaring that Christ is his Lord.

That's some interesting wording you got there, mister.

[Cow Poke]

If a confession (to anything) is false, it is a lie. Police have been known to deal with false confessions from time to time.

Actually, it's only a false confession if it's not true. Somebody can confess to a crime, and later denounce their confession as false. The truthfulness of the confession, however, does not rest on what they said, but on what actually is true.

[tabibito]

Actually, it's only a false confession if it's not true. Somebody can confess to a crime, and later denounce their confession as false. The truthfulness of the confession, however, does not rest on what they said, but on what actually is true.

I see your point ... Rewording: If a confession (to anything) is false, it the confession is a lie.

[Cow Poke]

I see your point ... Rewording: If a confession (to anything) is false, it the confession is a lie.

And then it gets sticky. If somebody truly believes something - even though that something is not true - it may not be considered a "false confession" for them to declare it.

Going back to your example that police deal with this --- there have been cases where somebody, by all appearances, believes they have committed a crime, and confess, but it can be proven in court that somebody else committed that particular crime.

[Sparko]

If an atheist said, "Jesus is my personal Savior" he would be giving a false confession. While Jesus is Savior, he isn't the Atheist's savior (at least until the atheist actually believes in Jesus and asks to be saved)

[tabibito]

And then it gets sticky. If somebody truly believes something - even though that something is not true - it may not be considered a "false confession" for them to declare it.

Going back to your example that police deal with this --- there have been cases where somebody, by all appearances, believes they have committed a crime, and confess, but it can be proven in court that somebody else committed that particular crime.

[Cow Poke]

It's actually an interesting topic - and, particularly the way you phrased it.

We could, for example, look at somebody who "confesses Christ is Lord", yet lives a life devoid of 'fruit', or appears to be serving other interests, and come away assuming their "confession" is false.

Christ IS Lord, but perhaps not THEIR Lord in the practical sense.

[tabibito]

Rom 10:10 - Confessing with the mouth that Jesus is Lord leads to salvation - It is not possible to confess to something that isn't fact (though a false confession is possible), but the "false" has to be specified.
Rom 10:10 - Believing in your heart leads to ... justification. No more than that. And believing in Christ means trusting him and the truth of his words. Did he say that works were necessary? That he did. Can a person believe in Christ and call him a liar? Not a chance.

It's actually an interesting topic - and, particularly the way you phrased it.

We could, for example, look at somebody who "confesses Christ is Lord", yet lives a life devoid of 'fruit', or appears to be serving other interests, and come away assuming their "confession" is false.

Christ IS Lord, but perhaps not THEIR Lord in the practical sense.

That was my point. If Christ is not the person's lord, the confession is false - even if the person doing the not confessing believes that Christ is his Lord.
And of course, if Christ DID say that works are necessary - saying that works are not necessary is a claim that Christ lied (based on the presupposition that the person believes that Christ could not have made a mistake.) It is not possible to confess to something without that confession being true.

[Cow Poke]

That was my point. If Christ is not the person's lord, the confession is false - even if the person doing the not confessing believes that Christ is his Lord.
And of course, if Christ DID say that works are necessary - saying that works are not necessary is a claim that Christ lied (based on the presupposition that Christ could not have made a mistake.) It is not possible to confess to something without that confession being true.

Yes sir, I'm not arguing with you, I'm talking this through. And why I said your wording was interesting.

[tabibito]

Is OK - I'm putting this exercise to use for assignment writing. Lecturers have a habit of doing what you've been doing.

[Cow Poke]

Is OK - I'm putting this exercise to use for assignment writing. Lecturers have a habit of doing what you've been doing.

[Obsidian]

We could, for example, look at somebody who "confesses Christ is Lord", yet lives a life devoid of 'fruit', or appears to be serving other interests, and come away assuming their "confession" is false.

Christ IS Lord, but perhaps not THEIR Lord in the practical sense.

This is completely wrong. Sinning against a government doesn't stop it from being your government. If that were true, there would be no prisons.

Oh dear, so much eisegesis in that claim.

Go on believing tautologies. You simply don't have the ability to reason.

[Hornet]

Actually, there are two meanings for repent.
1/ regret
2/ turn away/from/aside (that is: change course)

In Koine Greek they are two different, though closely related, words. The first is what Judas did after he had betrayed Christ. The second is used in the calls for people to repent.

What is the relationship between repentance in the sense of the second definition and being justified by faith alone? Is it correct to say that faith receives a right standing before God and repentance accompanies faith?

[tabibito]

Go on believing tautologies. You simply don't have the ability to reason.

It seems that you have no counter to the argument - and demonstrated fact - that Romans 10:10 doesn't say that a person is saved by faith, nor to the demonstrated fact that the surrounding context does not in fact modify Romans 10:10

[Obsidian]

You quoted my claim that said Jesus will save everyone who calls, then you literally quoted the passage and ended on a verse that says Jesus will save everyone who calls, and then said that my claim is certainly no where in the text. You are a heretic, with a warped mind.