Cart Before the Horse?

[8thdaypriest]

It is in the first dimension where God made us spiritually alive through His Son and thereby empowered to do spiritual acts. Jesus said He was sent to give the world life and that He did by laying His own. That death brought us life. By His stripes we were healed.  We can now, in the 2nd dimension, believe - a spiritual act -  because we have been made spiritually alive in the first.  The act of believing proves one is already spiritually alive.

To say that we believe to become spiritually alive is, for me, placing the cart before the horse.

Think of a woman in labor.  She brings forth a child.  The child is "born". 

Now - think of a human being, at the MOMENT he believes.  At THAT MOMENT - he is "born" again, to eternal life. 

[8thdaypriest]

It is in the first dimension where God made us spiritually alive through His Son and thereby empowered to do spiritual acts. Jesus said He was sent to give the world life and that He did by laying His own. That death brought us life. By His stripes we were healed.  We can now, in the 2nd dimension, believe - a spiritual act -  because we have been made spiritually alive in the first.  The act of believing proves one is already spiritually alive.

To say that we believe to become spiritually alive is, for me, placing the cart before the horse.

You believe that EVERYONE was made "spiritually alive" long before they were even physically born.  Right? 

So the "spiritual life" you're speaking of (which everyone starts with) is not the same thing as the "new birth" of John 3, that happens when one believes.   Is that right? 

[Samie]

I think the problem here (and by problem I mean problem of communication) is that you are using the phrase "spiriually alive" differently than everyone else.  I think everyone else here understands "spiritually alive" to mean "converted", whereas for you, "spiritually alive" means "able to do spiritual acts, such as believe".  It appears to me that what you are thinking is putting the cart before the horse is semantics, simply because you use this phrase differently.

Maybe so. 

What I am simply emphasizing is that we cannot believe unless made spiritually alive first.  Again, it is because believing is exercising faith (Greek pi,stij pistis, noun;  pisteu,w pisteuo, verb).  Faith is fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and Jesus said we cannot bear fruit UNLESS attached to Him (John 15:4, 5).  And I believe it is only when we are attached to Him Who is our Life (Col 3:4) that we are spiritually alive.  So to say that one has to believe first to be attached to Him, is for me, placing the cart before the horse.

Now, if you are saying conversion = being spiritually alive, and that it takes place before believing, then, we are perhaps on the same side of the fence. 

However, I think there is a little problem with "conversion = being spiritually alive" because having faith can occur BEFORE conversion:

^KJV Luke 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

[Samie]

You believe that EVERYONE was made "spiritually alive" long before they were even physically born.  Right? 

So the "spiritual life" you're speaking of (which everyone starts with) is not the same thing as the "new birth" of John 3, that happens when one believes.   Is that right?

I believe the Bible speaks of only one new birth, the one which God caused us to be born into through the resurrection of our Lord.

^NAS 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercyhas caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

As to man's believing vis-a-vis his being spiritually alive, please see this previous post to Pnatt. 

[8thdaypriest]

I believe the Bible speaks of only one new birth, the one which God caused us to be born into through the resurrection of our Lord.

^NAS 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercyhas caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

As to man's believing vis-a-vis his being spiritually alive, please see this previous post to Pnatt. 

Once again - out of context. 

Peter was writing to BELIEVERS - not to every person who ever existed.  Believers have been "born again".  Non-believers have NOT. 

[pnattmbtc]

Maybe so. 

What I am simply emphasizing is that we cannot believe unless made spiritually alive first.  Again, it is because believing is exercising faith (Greek pi,stij pistis, noun;  pisteu,w pisteuo, verb).  Faith is fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and Jesus said we cannot bear fruit UNLESS attached to Him (John 15:4, 5).  And I believe it is only when we are attached to Him Who is our Life (Col 3:4) that we are spiritually alive.  So to say that one has to believe first to be attached to Him, is for me, placing the cart before the horse.

Now, if you are saying conversion = being spiritually alive, and that it takes place before believing, then, we are perhaps on the same side of the fence. 

However, I think there is a little problem with "conversion = being spiritually alive" because having faith can occur BEFORE conversion:

^KJV Luke 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

There's a flaw in your logic, which I may return to later, but for now I'll just comment that if you use the phrase "spiritually alive" to mean "converted", which is how everyone understand the phrase, then by substituting "spiritually alive" for "converted" in your sentence, we have, "having faith can occur BEFORE conversion:" = "having faith can occur BEFORE being spiritually alive", which everyone agree with.

So we're back to the same point, which is by "spiritually alive" you have some other thing in mind that nobody else does, and I doubt that anyone else understands what you mean, but the best I can make out is that it means "able to believe", so what you are saying is in essence that before one can believe, one must be able to believe.

[Samie]

Once again - out of context. 

Peter was writing to BELIEVERS - not to every person who ever existed.  Believers have been "born again".  Non-believers have NOT. 

Which context, your context?  So only the believers were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as Calvinists teach?

1 Peter 1:18-19   ¹⁸ For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers,  ¹⁹ but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

[Samie]

There's a flaw in your logic, which I may return to later, . . .

Flaw? I'd be glad to be shown where.

. . . but for now I'll just comment that if you use the phrase "spiritually alive" to mean "converted", which is how everyone understand the phrase, then by substituting "spiritually alive" for "converted" in your sentence, we have, "having faith can occur BEFORE conversion:" = "having faith can occur BEFORE being spiritually alive", which everyone agree with.

And to which I disagree, based on how I understand Scriptures.  Faith, the faith of the Son of God, can only be the property of the spiritually alive - those who are attached to Christ.  The spiritually dead cannot have faith.

So we're back to the same point, which is by "spiritually alive" you have some other thing in mind that nobody else does, and I doubt that anyone else understands what you mean, but the best I can make out is that it means "able to believe", so what you are saying is in essence that before one can believe, one must be able to believe.

And to be able to believe, one must have the tool for believing, faith - the faith of the Son of God, which is fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and only those who are attached to Christ are able to bear fruit (John 15:4,5).

So again, to teach that people need to first believe to be attached to Christ is, for me, placing the cart before the horse.

[8thdaypriest]

Let's see.....

Jesus HAD faith.  Where did Jesus GET His faith FROM?? 

If Jesus incarnated as human, human, and only human in nature - then HE (as a human) would need to GET FAITH from somewhere.  He would NOT have been conceived or born with faith. 

I believe HE received faith FROM His Father.  The Father GAVE of His Spirit - to His Son.  This ENABLED Jesus to HAVE FAITH to overcome evil - with good. 

When Jesus returned to the Father's right hand, after His resurrection, He was glorified on the 50th day (Pentecost).  On that DAY the Father glorified His Son, filling Him with infinite power.  It is the power of the Father (the spirit of the Father) which was GIVEN without measure, to the Son, enabling Jesus to pour out that spirit and power, upon His disciples. 

When we receive of that spirit - then we too, will "have faith". 

We did NOT receive of that spirit - somewhere back in eternity - before we even existed. 

We receive of that spirit - when we RESPOND to the first nudging, (conviction, or pleading, or knocking, or urging) of Christ.  Jesus knocks.  IF we respond, then we receive more, and more, and more, of His spirit.  

Samie,

You're saying that we CANNOT RESPOND to the spirit, unless we already HAVE the spirit.  That just doesn't make sense - to me.  That's like saying that I cannot fall in love with a person, unless I am already in love with that person. 

You keep quoting "without Me, you can do nothing".  What you mean, is that we can do nothing good. 

We CAN do things - evil things.  We just CANNOT "overcome evil with good".  Which means that all of the time we were doing only evil things, we were "WITHOUT" Jesus.  We had NOT yet received of His spirit. 

 

 

[pnattmbtc]

Samie:Flaw? I'd be glad to be shown where.

Sure.  Here's your argument:

1.Faith is the fruit of the Spirit.
2.We cannot bear fruit unless attached to Christ.
3.We are only spiritually alive if we are attached to Christ.
4.Therefore to say one must believe first to be attached to Christ is putting the cart before the horse.

The flaw I have in mind is with step 1.  You are interpreting this as being a necessary and sufficient condition, but it's only sufficient.  That is, it is true that faith is the fruit of the Spirit, but that did not mean that that's the *only* means one may obtain faith.  It might be, but it need not be.  We have to look into the evidence further to decide.  Allow me to explain further.

Suppose I say, "A good night's sleep is the fruit of taking a sleeping pill."  That's a true statement, but it does not mean that taking a sleeping pill is the *only* means by which one may obtain a good night's sleep.

This is the flaw in your logic; you are assuming necessity when only sufficiency is stated.  You would have to prove
necessity in order to make your case.

Edited September 18, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[Samie]

Sure.  Here's your argument:

1.Faith is the fruit of the Spirit.
2.We cannot bear fruit unless attached to Christ.
3.We are only spiritually alive if we are attached to Christ.
4.Therefore to say one must believe first to be attached to Christ is putting the cart before the horse.

The flaw I have in mind is with step 1.  You are interpreting this as being a necessary and sufficient condition, but it's only sufficient.  That is, it is true that faith is the fruit of the Spirit, but that did not mean that that's the *only* means one may obtain faith.  It might be, but it need not be.  We have to look into the evidence further to decide.  Allow me to explain further.

Suppose I say, "A good night's sleep is the fruit of taking a sleeping pill."  That's a true statement, but it does not mean that taking a sleeping pill is the *only* means by which one may obtain a good night's sleep.

This is the flaw in your logic; you are assuming necessity when only sufficiency is stated.  You would have to prove
necessity in order to make your case.

You are saying that there other means to obtain faith.  But the faith I am referring to is the faith which God gave to every man (Rom 12:3).  The faith I am referring to is the faith obtained from only One Source - God, and from only one specific means - God's giving it to every man. How? Through His Son. By being attached to Him.

Now can you tell me what other means do you have in mind from which to obtain faith? Please cite Scriptural basis, if any.  The demons seem to also have faith since they also believe (Jam 2:19), but I guess their faith is derived from another means and from another source.

[pnattmbtc]

You are saying that there other means to obtain faith.  But the faith I am referring to is the faith which God gave to every man (Rom 12:3).  The faith I am referring to is the faith obtained from only One Source - God, and from only one specific means - God's giving it to every man. How? Through His Son. By being attached to Him.

By being attached to Him?  Where does it say that?  That is, where does it say that the faith which God gives to every man is be virtue of being attached to Christ?  I read that a measure of faith is given to every man, but not "a measure of faith is given to every man, which they receive by virtue of being attached to Christ."  Rather, Jesus says that we must be attached to Him, and the means by which we are attached to Him is by faith.  He is the vine, and we are the branches.  Apart from Him we can do nothing.  How to we become attached to Him?  By the faith which is given to every person.  If we were already attached to Christ, why would Christ point out the need to be attached to Him?

Now can you tell me what other means do you have in mind from which to obtain faith? Please cite Scriptural basis, if any.  The demons seem to also have faith since they also believe (Jam 2:19), but I guess their faith is derived from another means and from another source.

The Scriptures simply say that God has given a measure of faith to everyone.  There are no pre-conditions added to this statement.  Jesus said, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whsoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."  In order for this to a possibility, God gave us the ability to believe. When we believe, we are born again, receive everlasting life, and become a member of the family of God, a holy priesthood, of which Christ is the cornerstone.

[8thdaypriest]

You are saying that there other means to obtain faith.  But the faith I am referring to is the faith which God gave to every man (Rom 12:3).  The faith I am referring to is the faith obtained from only One Source - God, and from only one specific means - God's giving it to every man. How? Through His Son. By being attached to Him.

Now can you tell me what other means do you have in mind from which to obtain faith? Please cite Scriptural basis, if any.  The demons seem to also have faith since they also believe (Jam 2:19), but I guess their faith is derived from another means and from another source.

Romans 10:17 "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Each person must HEAR the word of God - and the story of Christ.  The spirit of Christ will convict the person, that what he is HEARING is the truth. 

[8thdaypriest]

By being attached to Him?  Where does it say that?  That is, where does it say that the faith which God gives to every man is be virtue of being attached to Christ?  I read that a measure of faith is given to every man, but not "a measure of faith is given to every man, which they receive by virtue of being attached to Christ."  Rather, Jesus says that we must be attached to Him, and the means by which we are attached to Him is by faith.  He is the vine, and we are the branches.  Apart from Him we can do nothing.  How to we become attached to Him?  By the faith which is given to every person.  If we were already attached to Christ, why would Christ point out the need to be attached to Him?

The Scriptures simply say that God has given a measure of faith to everyone.  There are no pre-conditions added to this statement.  Jesus said, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whsoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."  In order for this to a possibility, God gave us the ability to believe. When we believe, we are born again, receive everlasting life, and become a member of the family of God, a holy priesthood, of which Christ is the cornerstone.

"God gave us the ability to believe."  THAT IS the "measure of faith".  But it's only a tiny measure.  A "grain of mustard seed".  WHEN we USE that ability to believe, THEN we become attached to Christ, and our faith grows stronger, and stronger, and stronger.  

[8thdaypriest]

Attached to Christ - Part of His "body".  

Colossians 1:18 “He is the head of the body, the church” (NRS).

Colossians 1:24 “Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body, that is, the church.”

Ephesians 5:23 “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior” (NIV).

Ephesians 5:30 & 32 “For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. . . .      This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (NKJ).

        Paul says Christ “gave himself up for her” - meaning His bride - His church.  When Paul says “we are members of His body” he is addressing “the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus.”  Paul is NOT addressing every living person!

Ephesians 5:25 “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (NRS).

        Jesus is NOT the savior of the whole world.  He is NOT going to save the whole world.  He will save “His church” - His bride - “His body” - all of those who become part of His bride through faith.  

NOT ONE of the verses I just cited, says that every person who would ever exist, was part of Christ's body on that cross.  Only the "faithful in Christ Jesus" are part of His body.  They become part of His body, WHEN they believe. 

 

[pnattmbtc]

"God gave us the ability to believe."  THAT IS the "measure of faith".  But it's only a tiny measure.  A "grain of mustard seed".  WHEN we USE that ability to believe, THEN we become attached to Christ, and our faith grows stronger, and stronger, and stronger.  

Yes! An aspect of faith, or believing, that is often neglected (Robert Wieland emphasized this) is the aspect of thankfullness/appreication/gratitdue.  There is a concept called "reciprocity" which has to do with the desire to return a favor, which explains why giving out samples works (after trying a sample, you feel a compulsion to do something to return the favor, like buy the product).  

There was a group called "Moonies", followers of Sun Yun Moon (if I recall the name correctly) who would pass out flowers and ask for a donation.  After accepting the flower, the compulsion was very strong to dive a donation for the flower, even though the flower was not desired.  The suggested best strategy was to avoid them algother, because the reciprocity factor is so strong (people would trash the flowers, and the Moonies would fish them out, and "sell' them again).

I'm using this story (I got this from "The Psychology Of Influence", I think the name of the book is, which has other stories along the same line) as an illustration of this psychological factor, an element of faith, built in to us, part of "the measure of faith" given to all; the capacity to believe. (Wieland has wonderful ideas about this, especially his book, "In Search of the Cross".)

[Samie]

Sure.  Here's your argument:

1.Faith is the fruit of the Spirit.
2.We cannot bear fruit unless attached to Christ.
3.We are only spiritually alive if we are attached to Christ.
4.Therefore to say one must believe first to be attached to Christ is putting the cart before the horse.

The flaw I have in mind is with step 1.  You are interpreting this as being a necessary and sufficient condition, but it's only sufficient.  That is, it is true that faith is the fruit of the Spirit, but that did not mean that that's the *only* means one may obtain faith.  It might be, but it need not be.  We have to look into the evidence further to decide.  Allow me to explain further.

Suppose I say, "A good night's sleep is the fruit of taking a sleeping pill."  That's a true statement, but it does not mean that taking a sleeping pill is the *only* means by which one may obtain a good night's sleep.

This is the flaw in your logic; you are assuming necessity when only sufficiency is stated.  You would have to prove
necessity in order to make your case.

You are saying that there other means to obtain faith.  But the faith I am referring to is the faith which God gave to every man (Rom 12:3).  The faith I am referring to is the faith obtained from only One Source - God, and from only one specific means - God's giving it to every man. How? Through His Son. By being attached to Him.

Now can you tell me what other means do you have in mind from which to obtain faith? Please cite Scriptural basis, if any.  The demons seem to also have faith since they also believe (Jam 2:19), but I guess their faith is derived from another means and from another source.

Let's stay first with the issue you raised that there are other means whereby man may obtain faith. You were saying that my logic is flawed because there are other means whereby one can obtain faith, not just from being fruit of the Spirit.  Again, what other means do you have in mind, and your Biblical basis for them?

[Samie]

Attached to Christ - Part of His "body".  

Colossians 1:18 “He is the head of the body, the church” (NRS).

Colossians 1:24 “Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body, that is, the church.”

Ephesians 5:23 “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior” (NIV).

Ephesians 5:30 & 32 “For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. . . .      This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (NKJ).

        Paul says Christ “gave himself up for her” - meaning His bride - His church.  When Paul says “we are members of His body” he is addressing “the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus.”  Paul is NOT addressing every living person!

Ephesians 5:25 “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (NRS).

Were you, 8thdaypriest, among those Christ attached to His Body on the cross? Can you tell me what kind of people did Christ attach to His Body on the cross?  Was apostle Paul among those Christ attached to His Body on the cross? I am hoping that you answer this time since I have asked a couple of questions some posts back but you have not given any direct answer yet.

Jesus is NOT the savior of the whole world.  He is NOT going to save the whole world.  He will save “His church” - His bride - “His body” - all of those who become part of His bride through faith. 

Any comment on this:

^NKJ 1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.

Though you say that Jesus is NOT the savior of the whole world, yet Scriptures say He is Savior of the world.  Is "Savior of the world" different from "Savior of the whole world"?  If yes, then when Jesus said God so loved the world, He meant God did not love the whole world?

[8thdaypriest]

Were you, 8thdaypriest, among those Christ attached to His Body on the cross? Can you tell me what kind of people did Christ attach to His Body on the cross?  Was apostle Paul among those Christ attached to His Body on the cross? I am hoping that you answer this time since I have asked a couple of questions some posts back but you have not given any direct answer yet.

Any comment on this:

^NKJ 1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.

Though you say that Jesus is NOT the savior of the whole world, yet Scriptures say He is Savior of the world.  Is "Savior of the world" different from "Savior of the whole world"?  If yes, then when Jesus said God so loved the world, He meant God did not love the whole world?

Samie,

I've given up - for now.  I just can't think of anything to add to this discussion.  It just sounds like a broken record - repeating and repeating and repeating.  I think folks actually reading thru this long thread, and all the others (all on the same essential topic) can pray about it, and make up their own minds. 

[Samie]

Samie,

I've given up - for now.  I just can't think of anything to add to this discussion.  It just sounds like a broken record - repeating and repeating and repeating.  I think folks actually reading thru this long thread, and all the others (all on the same essential topic) can pray about it, and make up their own minds. 

I think the issue you raised that Jesus is NOT the Savior of the whole world is a not in the "repeating and repeating and repeating" type.  Can you answer my question about it? Here again:

^NKJ 1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.

Though you say that Jesus is NOT the savior of the whole world, yet Scriptures say He is Savior of the world.  Is "Savior of the world" different from "Savior of the whole world"?  If yes, then when Jesus said God so loved the world, He meant God did not love the whole world?

[pnattmbtc]

Samie: Let's stay first with the issue you raised that there are other means whereby man may obtain faith. You were saying that my logic is flawed because there are other means whereby one can obtain faith, not just from being fruit of the Spirit.  Again, what other means do you have in mind, and your Biblical basis for them?

The Scriptures tells us that God has given each one a measure of faith.  This is not qualified.  It does not say "God has given each one who is attached to Christ a measure of faith." or "God has given each one who has the Holy Spirit a measure of faith, as fruit of the Spriit."  *Everyone* has been given a measure of faith, whether attached to Christ or not, whether or not they have the Holy Spirit.

Consider Romans 8:9 that says that unless we have the Holy Spirit, we are none of his.  If we don't have the Holy Spirit, we cannot have the fruit of the Spirit, which is faith.  So how can we get the Holy Spirit, since we don't have faith?

This is where you have the cart before the horse. Here's the problem:

1.To get the Holy Spirit, one must believe.
2.But if faith is only possible as the fruit of the Spirit, then how can you believe?

And we know there are people who do not have the Holy Spirit, because they identified as such in Romans.  So how can these be saved?  How do they believe?

[Samie]

The Scriptures tells us that God has given each one a measure of faith.  This is not qualified.  It does not say "God has given each one who is attached to Christ a measure of faith." or "God has given each one who has the Holy Spirit a measure of faith, as fruit of the Spriit."  *Everyone* has been given a measure of faith, whether attached to Christ or not, whether or not they have the Holy Spirit.

Consider Romans 8:9 that says that unless we have the Holy Spirit, we are none of his.  If we don't have the Holy Spirit, we cannot have the fruit of the Spirit, which is faith.  So how can we get the Holy Spirit, since we don't have faith?

This is where you have the cart before the horse. Here's the problem:

1.To get the Holy Spirit, one must believe.
2.But if faith is only possible as the fruit of the Spirit, then how can you believe?

And we know there are people who do not have the Holy Spirit, because they identified as such in Romans.  So how can these be saved?  How do they believe?

Your post do not yet give the other means by which one obtains faith.

Sure.  Here's your argument:

1.Faith is the fruit of the Spirit.
2.We cannot bear fruit unless attached to Christ.
3.We are only spiritually alive if we are attached to Christ.
4.Therefore to say one must believe first to be attached to Christ is putting the cart before the horse.

The flaw I have in mind is with step 1.  You are interpreting this as being a necessary and sufficient condition, but it's only sufficient.  That is, it is true that faith is the fruit of the Spirit, but that did not mean that that's the *only* means one may obtain faith.  It might be, but it need not be.  We have to look into the evidence further to decide.  Allow me to explain further.

Suppose I say, "A good night's sleep is the fruit of taking a sleeping pill."  That's a true statement, but it does not mean that taking a sleeping pill is the *only* means by which one may obtain a good night's sleep.

Since you cannot identify the other means by which one may obtain faith, then your statement there is flaw in step 1 does not hold water.  Therefore you cannot show how there is flaw in my argument, and my argument's conclusion stands:

And to be able to believe, one must have the tool for believing, faith - the faith of the Son of God, which is fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and only those who are attached to Christ are able to bear fruit (John 15:4,5).

So again, to teach that people need to first believe to be attached to Christ is, for me, placing the cart before the horse.

[pnattmbtc]

Your post do not yet give the other means by which one obtains faith.

Since you cannot identify the other means by which one may obtain faith, then your statement there is flaw in step 1 does not hold water.  Therefore you cannot show how there is flaw in my argument, and my argument's conclusion stands:

This is a flawed argument.  First of all, the most obvious thing is the conclusion does not follow from the assumption.  Here's your assumption:

1.Since you cannot identify the other means by which one may obtain faith

and here is your conclusion:

2.then your statement there is flaw in step 1 does not hold water

It should be obvious that this is not a logical conclusion.  Step 2 is in no way dependent upon Step 1, which I won't bother to prove here, because it's obvious, but if you don't think it's obvious, I will prove it.

Your second argument has the same flaw as the first.  Here the assumption is:

1.You cannot show another means by which faith is obtained.

and your conclusion

2.My argument is valid.

This is not a valid argument because the conclusion does not follow.  The problem with your original argument is that you are assuming necessity whereas sufficiency is all that can be inferred.  It would make no difference as to how many invalid arguments I had; you would still have to prove necessity!  The flaw in your argument remains no matter how many flawed arguments I present.  You haven't proven necessity.

Ok, that's the main flaw; the logic is wrong.  You are concluding things which cannot be logically concluded.

Now let's get to the actual point regarding where faith comes from.  Let's assume you are correct, that faith *only* comes as fruit of the Holy Spirit.  Then how would someone who does not have the Holy Spirit obtain the Holy Spirit?  I asked you this question, and you didn't answer it.  I submit you cannot answer the question, which proves your assumption is wrong.

This is all that needs to be done to disprove your argument.  There is no need to show some other means of faith being provided, as it is irrelevant as to the validity of the argument.  All that needs to be done is to show that logically there must be some other means, which has been done.

 

 

[Samie]

This is a flawed argument.  First of all, the most obvious thing is the conclusion does not follow from the assumption.  Here's your assumption:

1.Since you cannot identify the other means by which one may obtain faith

and here is your conclusion:

2.then your statement there is flaw in step 1 does not hold water

It should be obvious that this is not a logical conclusion.  Step 2 is in no way dependent upon Step 1, which I won't bother to prove here, because it's obvious, but if you don't think it's obvious, I will prove it.

Your second argument has the same flaw as the first.  Here the assumption is:

1.You cannot show another means by which faith is obtained.

and your conclusion

2.My argument is valid.

This is not a valid argument because the conclusion does not follow.  The problem with your original argument is that you are assuming necessity whereas sufficiency is all that can be inferred.  It would make no difference as to how many invalid arguments I had; you would still have to prove necessity!  The flaw in your argument remains no matter how many flawed arguments I present.  You haven't proven necessity.

Ok, that's the main flaw; the logic is wrong.  You are concluding things which cannot be logically concluded.

Now let's get to the actual point regarding where faith comes from.  Let's assume you are correct, that faith *only* comes as fruit of the Holy Spirit.  Then how would someone who does not have the Holy Spirit obtain the Holy Spirit?  I asked you this question, and you didn't answer it.  I submit you cannot answer the question, which proves your assumption is wrong.

This is all that needs to be done to disprove your argument.  There is no need to show some other means of faith being provided, as it is irrelevant as to the validity of the argument.  All that needs to be done is to show that logically there must be some other means, which has been done.

You have not yet shown the other means by which one may obtain faith. Were you just bluffing when you said there are other means by which one may obtain faith?  It appears to be so, because until now what you are doing is parry and heave without addressing the question asked.  Again:

Sure.  Here's your argument:

1.Faith is the fruit of the Spirit.
2.We cannot bear fruit unless attached to Christ.
3.We are only spiritually alive if we are attached to Christ.
4.Therefore to say one must believe first to be attached to Christ is putting the cart before the horse.

The flaw I have in mind is with step 1.  You are interpreting this as being a necessary and sufficient condition, but it's only sufficient.  That is, it is true that faith is the fruit of the Spirit, but that did not mean that that's the *only* means one may obtain faith.  It might be, but it need not be.  We have to look into the evidence further to decide.  Allow me to explain further.

Suppose I say, "A good night's sleep is the fruit of taking a sleeping pill."  That's a true statement, but it does not mean that taking a sleeping pill is the *only* means by which one may obtain a good night's sleep.

This is the flaw in your logic; you are assuming necessity when only sufficiency is stated.  You would have to prove
necessity in order to make your case.

So what are those other means? Mention just one and your Biblical basis for it. Until you do, my position seems to stand on solid Biblical ground:

. . . to be able to believe, one must have the tool for believing, faith - the faith of the Son of God, which is fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and only those who are attached to Christ are able to bear fruit (John 15:4,5).

So again, to teach that people need to first believe to be attached to Christ is, for me, placing the cart before the horse.

[pnattmbtc]

You have not yet shown the other means by which one may obtain faith.

As I pointed out, this is irrelevant to the argument I made.  Please read the argument I presented, and respond to it.

Were you just bluffing when you said there are other means by which one may obtain faith?  

No, I didn't address this question, because it's not necessary, for the reasons I pointed out.  Please address the argument I made.

It appears to be so, because until now what you are doing is parry and heave without addressing the question asked.  Again: 

Again, this isn't necessary, because it's an irrelevant question, for the reasons I pointed out.  Please respond to the points made in the post.

So what are those other means? Mention just one and your Biblical basis for it. Until you do, my position seems to stand on solid Biblical ground:

Samie, this response makes it appear that you either did not read my post, or did not understand it.  Please read the post, and either respond, or ask questions about things you don't understand.  As I pointed out, your comment hear is illogical.  I explained this in detail.  When an illogical point is made, please don't just repeat it.  Please address the point made as to its being illogical.

Also, please respond to my question about the Holy Spirit.  If a person can only have faith as the fruit of the spirit, but does not have the Holy Spirit, as Romans 8 talks about, how does this person get the Holy Spirit, since he doesn't have faith?