I wrote this for r/TrueChristian, but thought you guys might appreciate it here, as it's a lot about mission and disciple-making.


This was a response to someone else's conversation [about how to show people who think they're saved that they're not really believers]. I ran out of room in the comment, so I figured I'd post this more broadly with the continuation at the bottom as well as a few significant edits throughout.

PART I: UNDERSTANDING FAITH

NOUN v. VERB

First, the issue stems from a misunderstanding of what it means to "believe." It's interesting to note the way the word "faith" is used in the Gospels and rest of the New Testament. There are 4 major conjugations used:

  • Pistei - Noun. This treats faith as its own entity, often translated "the faith." This version is never used in the Gospels, only the epistles. This is the second most common conjugation - 58 total.

  • Pisteos - Noun. This is usually a conjugation accompanied by a preposition showing faith in connection with something else. It's most often translated "of faith" or "by faith" or "from faith" or "through faith." This version is also never used in the Gospels, only the epistles. This is by far the most common use of any of the conjugations - 94 in total.

  • Pistin - Noun. This conjugation is possessive in nature, treating faith as something that is personalized to a person. It's translated in such ways as "have faith" or "our faith" or "had faith" or "their faith." It is the first of the two main conjugations the Gospel writers use and is the second most common conjugation - 55 total.

  • Pistis - Noun. Much like Pistin, this is another possessive faith virtually always translated as "your faith." It is used 36 times in the Bible. This version appears in the Gospels too.

  • After these 4, the next most common conjugation is only used 4 times in the Bible.

It's interesting to note that even among the versions that show up in the Gospels, John's Gospel never once uses any of these 4 (he does use the 4th in one of his letters: 1 John 5:4 when talking about faith as a theological concept), yet we also know John's Gospel as the one most focused on communicating theological truth through the facts. What theological point is John trying to make by refusing to use faith as a noun?

Let's look at conjugations he does use:

  • Pisteuo - Verb. Believe. This is the form John camps out in most. He makes 98 uses of it - over 1/3 of all its uses in the New Testament and more than the other three Gospels combined. It is based on an active faith and not a passive thing as a concept.

  • Pisteusōmen - Verb. Believe or entrust. It's used 3 times (once by John) and translated "believe" each time.

  • Pisteusōsin - Verb. It's used 4 time (twice by John) and translated "might/should/will believe"

  • Pisteusousin - Verb. It's used 1 time by John and translated "will believe."

  • Pistikēs - Adj. This is an interesting one, as it's translated as "pure" the two times it's used (once by John).

I imagine John refused to use the noun version as a way of making a theological statement, whereas the other Gospel writers may have been more casual and relaxed with their word choices - preferring to go with common usage rather than to make a point. This is much like how I no longer call congregations "churches" and "going to church" is now "going to Sunday service." Certainly the common usage is an easier way to communicate for people to understand what I'm trying to say, so from a linguistic standpoint I'm accurate in conveying what I intend. But from a theological standpoint, congregations are not churches/the church. For John, talking about faith as a noun didn't make theological sense to him, so he refused to use the noun conjugations in order to emphasize his conviction that faith should only be talked about in active terminology.


FAITH, FAITHFULNES, AND FOLLOWING

With the above in mind, I often tell people that the concepts of "faith" and "faithful" are inextricably linked. It makes no sense to say that someone has faith if he is not "faithful." When worded this way, it now makes much more sense why John would prefer the active form - believe - over the noun form. And his use of Pisteuo and its various conjugations are also often translated as "trust." What sense does "trust" make if not in the context of "entrusting" something? What is it that we entrust to Jesus? Our lives. What is it that we are faithful to him with? Our lives.

An easy example that helps many people: suppose 3 men receive a note under their front door that says, "At midnight tonight I will murder you." What do they do?

  • Person A: He chooses not to believe (pisteuo), ignoring the note. At midnight, he dies.

  • Person B: He acknowledges that the threat is real, and thus has faith (pistin), and yet chooses to ignore it anyway because he doesn't care for his life. At midnight, he dies.

  • Person C: He believes (pisteuo) that the threat is real and cares enough about his life that he calls the cops, sets up a security camera, lays booby traps, buys a gun to protect himself, etc. He does something as a result of what he believes.

Interestingly, pisteuo has another associated word with their etymological origins connected: Peithos. Hogg and Vine (biblical scholars/commentators) note on this word: "Peitho and pisteuo, 'to trust,' are closely related etymologically; the difference in meaning is that the former implies the obedience that is produced by the latter." While peithos technically means "to persuade," it is occasionally translated directly as "obey" or "follow." An easy understanding of this word is to say it means "persuaded sufficiently to do something about it." Someone might persuade me that eating cheese is unhealthy, but that persuasion is not peithos - because I'm still going to keep eating cheese. I'm not a "follower" of any form of "don't eat cheese" movement.

Romans 2:8 is a great example of how this word for "persuade" is used in an "obey" context:

  • ESV: but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey (apeithousi) the truth, but obey (peithomenois) unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

  • NIV: But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

  • NASB: but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation

  • KJV: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath

  • YLT: and to those contentious, and disobedient, indeed, to the truth, and obeying the unrighteousness -- indignation and wrath

  • Then the Berean Literal Bible gets confused about how to translate it, using both ways in the same sentence: but to those of self-interest and disobeying the truth, but being persuaded about unrighteousness, wrath and anger

  • Biblios Interlineal Bible: to those however of self-interest and disobeying the truth being persuaded about however unrighteouosneses wrath and anger.


JAMES 2 - FAITH AND WORKS

Let's look at James 2, as that's where there often gets a lot of confusion over the topic of "having faith" and "obeying." Here's how he used the noun version of the word:

  • 2:14 - What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith (pistin; noun) but does not have works? Can that faith (pistis; noun) save him?

  • 2:17 - In the same way, faith (pistis; noun) by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

  • 2:18 - But someone will say, “You have faith (pistin; noun) and I have works.” Show me your faith (pistin; noun) apart from your works, and I will show you my faith (pistin; noun) by my works.

  • 2:20 - faith (pistis; noun) apart from works is useless

  • 2:24 - a person is justified by works and not by faith (pisteos; noun) alone

  • 2:26 - faith (pistis) apart from works is dead

Then let's switch to the part where we actually see an example of a saved person:

  • 2:23 - Abraham believed (episteusin; verb) God, and it was counted to him as righteousness

Whaddayaknow ... it's the verb, active version - the only version that John was willing to use in his Gospel. It seems that James had the same theological understanding that John did. While John was passively taking a stance through his language, James was trying to explain it directly.

This doesn't mean the works are what saves. It just means that faith as a concept does not save a person (person B in my example above). Active faith - the kind that compels works (person C) does.


DEFINING SAVING-FAITH

In light of all of this, I define saving-faith as "being persuaded by Jesus' death and resurrection to live up to the example he set." Note that this definition does not mean living up to that example is what saves a person. Ghandi - a Hindu - commented on how he believed he lived up to the example of Jesus and didn't need Jesus or the Bible or to call himself a Christian to do it.

What does save a person by this definition is that they are persuaded to do so. If someone persuades me to put my cash under my matress in a bank account, and I die on the way to the bank - I never actually did it, but it's obvious that I was legitimately persuaded because I started taking steps in that direction. If I was struck by lightning before I even had the chance to take a step, I was still persuaded to do so, even though I had no opportunity to show it - much like the thief on the cross (though arguably his defense of Jesus WAS him showing it).

But there is a stark difference between being

  • persuaded that it's a good idea to put my money in the bank, and

  • persuaded to put my money in the bank.

Too many people assume that because they acknowledge it's a good idea to allow Jesus' death and resurrection to change their life, that they are saved. They never shift from, "Yes, I agree with the Bible that I should live in the example Jesus set" to "I am actively striving to live in the example Jesus set."


PASCAL'S WAGER

Pascal's Wager gets a lot of heat because people say it produces a "wrong kind of faith." That it causes people to follow Jesus purely out of logical decision and from a fear of going to hell rather than focusing on a loving relationship with Jesus. I don't see this as big of a problem.

First, look at the relationship between a parent and their children. My children don't always obey me, but they often do. They know in a general sense that I love them, but they have NO CLUE how my commands to them are for their benefit. Cleaning their room teaches them discipline, organization, and responsibility. To them, it's something they have to do that they don't want to. Telling them not to call people names teaches them good manners and relational skills. To them, it's just another "don't" on the list. If they don't understand the value in what I'm telling them to do, why do they do it? Because if they don't, they get punished. They are afraid of what will happen if they don't conform their behaviors. Yes, they know I love them, and they believe they love me too - but their love for me doesn't prompt them to obey. Their fear of my punishment does.

It's not until my children are older that they start to understand the value of my commands. My 7 year old son is finally starting to get it. With a little explanation, he now realizes why he has to go to bed - and that this rule he hates is actually an expression of my love for him. He has started obeying me without my prompting. In one recent example, he said, "You didn't have to tell me to clean my room today. I just did it because I love you and because I know it's good for me to learn how to take care of my stuff." Now, this started after a campaign I had about throwing away the kids' toys that weren't put away. It started with fear. Then it moved on to love. In humanity's infancy (OT times) God treated us like children; but when we grew up, we put childish ways behind us (1 Cor. 13) and began operating as teenagers and eventually adults with God, expressing love for him. Pascal's wager is an appropriate acknowledgement that most people are going to start their relationship with Jesus like infants and toddlers, but leaves room for it to grow into more.

Second, based on everything I've said of what it means to "believe" in this post, Pascal's wager does prompt an actual saving faith. Motivated by a fear of hell (i.e. fear of God's punishment = fear of God), they are sufficiently persuaded that Jesus' death and resurrection is the best option for accomplishing their goal of avoiding that punishment and that they must live in the example Jesus set for them as a result. Their motive for why they do this will likely change in time - but the fact that it's not there when they're still infants and toddlers in the faith doesn't mean they're any less God's children than I was my father's son when I was an infant and toddler in his home.


CONCLUSION

When a person says, "I believe in Jesus," they usually mean, "I have faith (pistin; noun) that Jesus was a real person who died and rose from the dead to save me from my sins." How often do we hear these people adding: "I also have faith (pistin; noun) that Jesus has a very clear purpose for my life and I believe (pisteuo) this so resolutely that I am committed to following (peitharcheo) this plan"?

Understanding the difference between "faith" as a concept and "believing" as an active expression - as a verb instead of a noun - can be crucial in helping people move forward. Yes, in a common linguistic sense we could say that "have faith" does mean "believe," which is why Matthew, Mark, and Luke were perfectly comfortable using the word - because they knew that in a very colloquial sense, people would get what they're trying to communicate. But if we account for John's intentional use of the language to make a more clear theological point, this relationship between faith and obedience becomes far more obvious.



PART II: UNDERSTANDING OBEDIENCE

OBEDIENCE

From there, the question must always be: what kind of obedience should saving-faith prompt us into? Jesus talked about a person's "fruit" being the thing that proves one's salvation. In Matthew 7 he said the way to recognize a truly saved person from a fraud is this: "By their fruit you will recognize them." What is that fruit, which is the form of obedience that proves our salvation? There are three general categories that people tend to answer:

  • Fruit of the Spirit/Good Character: This doesn't make any sense to me at all, but it's everyone's go-to answer. We don't see Jesus teaching the fruit of the Spirit anywhere in the Gospels. Paul didn't first bring this up until he wrote Galatians, decades after Jesus' death. If Jesus was referring to the fruit of the Spirit as the evidence of our faith, there would be no way to have interpreted Matthew 7 at the time. "Jesus, what is this fruit you speak of?" people may have asked. He'd answer, "Oh, I haven't told you yet. But there's a guy who's going to help murder you all, and I'm going to change his heart, and a few decades later he's going to write a letter to some other people - not you, but the people in Galatia - and he'll tell them what fruit I'm talking about. If you're still alive long enough for that letter to be written and circulate back to you, then you can figure out what I mean." That just doesn't sound like Jesus.

  • Good Works: This doesn't make much sense to me either. Immediately after saying, "By their fruit you will recognize them," Jesus says, "But there will be some people who do great works in my name - casting out demons, prophesying, performing miracles - and yet I'm going to cast them away and call them evil-doers." Yes, that's literally the very next passage. It's almost as if Jesus is intentionally trying to say: "Good works, even great works, aren't what I mean by fruit."

  • Disciples: What does make sense to me is that Jesus meant the exact same thing he was always talking about when he used trees, plants, and fruit as a metaphor: disciples. Matthew 13 is the most obvious place to see this. When the Gospel is planted in someone, if they are good soil it grows into a tree, the fruit of which "yields a crop 30, 60, or even 100 times what was sown." What are those 30, 60, or 100 times? Are those good works? Does that mean the person is "100 times patience"? That doesn't make sense. Jesus also says, "Unless a kernel of wheat [i.e. the fruit of a wheat plant] falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds." The 30, 60, or 100 things that are produced from the fruit of the Gospel in us are more fruit-bearing trees in the nearby soil around us. That is, it is the disciples we produce.

    • Unsurprisingly, Paul confirms this interpretation of bearing fruit in Philippians 1:22 - "If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me." Did he mean "lots of opportunity to do good works"? Or "lots of labor demonstrating love, joy, peace, patience, etc."? No. He explains the fruit of his labor living in the body in 24-25: "it is more necessary FOR YOU that I remain in the body ... I will continue with all of you for your progress and joy in the faith." That is, they were his fruit through his discipleship of them, which is why he longed to see them - to continue discipling them, as he had done when he was first at Philippi. For reference on that point, while there are better technical definitions, discipleship can very simply be understood as actively and intentionally presenting your life to someone else as a model for how they should live. This is what Paul says he did in Philippians 3:17 - "Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you." He discipled specific people ("those") and is asking the body to be discipled by "those" people as well. Moreover, this is immediately preceded by Paul's claim that this is the true test of spiritual maturity: "Let all of us who are mature take such a view of things, and if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you." That's how firmly Paul was convinced that disciple-making was what defined the maturity of a believer, and that the disciples he produced were the fruit of his labor.

    • Oh, it's probably also worth mentioning all the times that Jesus uses the example of workers in a vineyard. That vineyard produced fruit. What is his vineyard? Is it the good works that he's hoping will spring up throughout the world? Or is the vineyard the people whose souls we are trying to win? When Jesus told the apostles, "Pray for workers in my vineyard," was he asking them to help reap a harvest of good works or a harvest of disciples?

I could go on and on and on, but I'm running low on time, so I'll just move on.


SAY V. DO

Which is a better indicator of a person's beliefs, philosophies, lifestyle, etc.: what they say or what they do?

This is really the crying shame: that people get so wrapped up in what Jesus taught that they forget how Jesus lived. If we focus on what he said over what he did, we get the modern church model: "Be good little boys and girls. Don't sin. Repent. Give to the poor. Serve your neighbor. Love your enemy." These are, of course, all great things, but they are also easily faked. As I noted before, Ghandi could be said to have lived by this example - yet he openly identified with Hinduism. He accepted Jesus' teachings, but completely ignored what Jesus did with his life, death, and resurrection.

How did Jesus live? He made disciples. Literally every aspect of his earthly ministry was oriented around this singular mission. It's the mission he gave them - and by extension, us. Matthew 28:19-20 make it clear that this mission is for everyone, as he commanded them to "make disciples of ALL NATIONS" - that's everyone, and that these disciples must be taught to "obey everything I have commanded you," which included the command he just gave to make disciples. That is what Jesus did with his life. That is the model he set for us, but is so easily missed when we only look at what he taught. And what's sad is that he also taught this too, but somehow it gets confused as "one of many teachings" and not as the lifestyle from which all of his teachings were produced.

To put it another way, Jesus's life was modeled for us as one of constant, intentional disciple-making. The things he taught were part of the process of how we do this. I once did a study Jesus' ministry method and came up with 5 things that were a clear pattern in how Jesus approached his model of ministry/discipleship. Interestingly, I've had 2 other friends who years apart and without any conversation on the point with me or each other did the exact same study and came to the exact same 5 things. They are:

  1. Tell Them What - He taught people who he was and what he expected of them.

  2. Show Them How - He showed them how to live out his teachings by the way he obeyed them in his own life in front of them.

  3. Let Them Try - He starts telling his disciples, "You step out of the boat" and "You feed the 5,000" and "You pray with me."

  4. Send Them Out - After doing it in front of him, he sent them out to try it without him. "Go preach repentance from town to town. Take nothing with you. See how it goes, then come back and report to me."

  5. Pass It On - When they had proved competent on their own, he commissioned them to keep doing this and to pass this model on to everyone else.

This is discipleship, in a nut shell - a more complete version than the short definition I gave you earlier.

Too many pastors congregation leaders get hung up on the "tell them what" part that they never move on to "show them how." At best, they may tell stories from their own life about how they live what they teach - but many even avoid that, assuming it would come off as bragging. And they may be right, as there's a difference between telling someone what you do and showing them how you do it. Don't confuse "here's what I do" with "show them how" - you're still only telling them.

And even the few leaders I do see who actually model for their congregation or small group or individuals in their congregation, they skip from "let them try" to "send them out." "You saw me do it ... no go off all by yourself and keep doing it."

Imagine you sign up for piano lessons.

  • Tell Them What: The teacher verbally explains to you what the notes are and which keys are which, how rhythm and melody work, tempo, etc.

  • Show Them How: Then she plays a brand new piece of music in front of you. "See how I played that?"

  • Let Them Try: She skips this and never lets you play piano in front of her.

  • Send Them Out: "Now you go home and do this on your own."

How effective is that model?

Or how effective would it be if she told you all about piano, but never showed you how to press the keys or where to place your hands? She explains verbally and tells you to do it, but you never get an example to look at. It's going to be extremely inefficient and you'll probably end up learning it wrong, just like people who type by pecking their fingers on a keyboard and don't know where to position their fingers for faster typing. Someone has to show you where to position your fingers before you can really figure it out. Then you can start doing it on your own - and they can watch to make sure you're doing it right. Then you can be competent to do it on your own. Then you're able to go and teach someone else how to do it to.


CONSEQUENCES

There's a reason I speak so much about making disciples in a soteriological about what makes up authentic saving-faith and what doesn't. It's all over throughout Scripture, but most notably in the parable of the fig tree from Luke 13:6-9:

A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Look, for three years now I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the ground?’ And he answered him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and put on manure. Then if it should bear fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.

A few questions this prompts:

  • Was the problem with this fig tree that it produced bad fruit? No, it's that it produced no fruit at all. Jesus notes in Matthew 7 that a bad tree produces bad fruit, but that's not the standard for it being cut down. He says that the tree that fails to produce good fruit is cut down. It's not enough to cut out bad things from your life. You must also produce good fruit. Is your labor for God's Kingdom, as Paul says, "fruitful"?

  • If we assume the vineyard is God's Kingdom - the church (because no one will be cut out of heaven once there) - are you one of those people who sits in the pew "using up the ground" without producing fruit? Do you believe that being in the vineyard somehow makes you safe, or does the master of the vineyard have expectations for a tree to remain? This is kind of like John 15, where Jesus says, "I am the vine, you are the branches" - but that the branches that don't produce fruit are pruned away. Yes, the branch is cut off entirely in order to make room for new branches.

  • Is your congregation content with people filling the seats who aren't producing fruit? Is this actually productive, or are they a drain on resources that could otherwise be allocated to more fruit-bearing trees?

  • If you're not bearing fruit right now, who is vouching for you this way? Is anyone in your life digging a trench to facilitate watering? Fertilizing you? If now, how can you find that person?

  • Do you know others who aren't producing fruit? If so, do you believe that part of God's plan for you involves being the one to dig the trench and fertilize and water that tree?

  • The master put a time-limit on the tree. He gave it three years of fruitlessness before he cut it off. The vinedresser asked for one more year and after that even he agreed that the tree should be cut down. How far into this time-frame are you? How far are your friends?

I'm not saying that making disciples is what saves a person - that will always be faith. But if disciple-making really is the fruit produced by salvation, then a failure of disciple-making is an indication that the Gospel never took root in you - the soil you were planted in ... that your faith is a passive noun and not an active verb. Does that make you the hard soil or the path or the weedy ground? I don't know. But surely Jesus says the way you know you've found good soil is by the crop that flows out of it.

More to the point, this isn't suggesting that people will be plucked from their place in heaven. God's Kingdom is here today on earth right now: the church. On a spiritual level, God knows who is part of the church and who isn't. Attending a congregation doesn't make you a citizen of God's Kingdom. Just as God would remove an unfruitful tree from his vineyard, should congregation leaders not remove unfruitful trees from the plot in the vineyard they're responsible for? Especially after they've already given year after year after year trying to water and fertilize the tree! And yet congregation leaders everywhere are content to keep drawing more pew-sitters. I'm not okay with that anymore.

Congregation leaders could do so much better to stop focusing so much effort to keep the 80% (or more) of people in their body who will never live in the example of disciple-making that Jesus set for them, and instead start focusing on the 20% (or less) who would be responsive. Brian Sanders, head of the Underground Church in Tampa, FL has already reached this conclusion and recorded his results in his book, Underground Church. There's a body in California doing the same thing. I'm doing this through a combination of guys I'm discipling in-person and online. Instead of draining our lives to keep the masses following us, we're pouring into those who are bearing fruit to facilitate a massive crop as we send them out.

Notice that the fruitful tree is the one that yields the crop that's 30, 60, or 100 times what was sown. The parable doesn't say, "The good soil produces a tree and the farmer will sow more seed around that tree to get a crop of 30, 60, or 100 more trees." The parable of the fig tree doesn't say, "This tree is alive, but not bearing fruit. I guess instead of cutting it down, at least now I know this soil around it is good so I can plant more seed here." Anyway ... I'm rambling now.


CONCLUSION

This is the good work that faith is to produce. If you truly believe that Jesus died to save you from your sins, and that you are now a part of God's Kingdom, and that God has a plan for your life, and that this plan is better than anything else you could possibly do with your life ...

First, what do you think that plan is? "God's plan for my life is to stop watching porn." No, that's not God's plan for your life. Watching porn is something that gets in the way of your ability to fulfill God's plan for your life. If you stopped watching porn could you honestly say, "There, God. I have now done everything with my life that you wanted me to do!"? No. Even if you could stop ever negative type sin - you never make fun of anyone, never tell a lie, never steal, never look covetously at a woman, etc. - how will that in any way advance God's Kingdom? "Because others might see my devotion to God and believe in him," someone always says, trying to justify orienting their lives around passive rather than active obedience. But the conclusion is still the same: it helps God (yes, you're Christ's bride, making you his helper) by making disciples. It's just an incredibly inefficient way to do it. So, if there's a more efficient way to get involved in growing God's Kingdom into a might eternal nation, don't you think you should be doing that? What's the most efficient way to do that? The way Jesus modeled for us: make disciples. Tell people who Jesus is and what he expects, show them through your own intentional life-modeling what that looks like, give them a chance to try it in front of you, send them out to do it on their own, and encourage them as they pass this good news on to other people.

Second, if you truly believe all of that - how could you do anything other than orient your entire life around planting the Gospel into people's hearts and/or watering it to help it grow in others?

As for me, I'm not so great at planting. I try. I put a lot of seed out, but instead of 30, 60, or 100 new plants, I can only point to a little under a dozen where I was the one who did the planting. But watering ... that's my specialty. If the seed is already there, I can nurture it. I'm mediocre at cultivating ground too. While it's not expressly mentioned in the Bible, it's important to turn bad soil into good soil. Maybe you're different - if you're a planter, all the better to you. But whatever your role in the process, be a part of the process.

Don't be passive about your faith. Let it be a verb in your life - an active faith. Let it compel you to live on the mission Jesus gave you - a co-op mission that we're all on together ... a co-mission.


The preacher at my congregation this week just gave this sermon, which is a far simpler way of going through much of what I've been talking about here. It's probably the best sermon I've heard in my life. Take a listen, if you want to go into this more or prefer an audio version of the second half of this post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R5FIyvWe1I