Cart Before the Horse?

[Samie]

Pnatt;

It appears that you were just really bluffing when you said there are other means by which one may obtain faith because if there is just one with a solid Biblical basis then you would have pointed that out now. You say that my asking for that even one other means is irrelevant. Funny. You did not notice that was your main argument against my position which you said was flawed? You said there is FLAW in my position so I posted the following:

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

. . .

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.

And here's your response to the above post (emphases mine):

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.

It is clear that you were saying there is flaw in my argument because, according to you, it is not only through being fruit of the Spirit whereby one obtains faith. There are other means just like taking a sleeping pill is NOT the only means by which one may obtain a good night's sleep. Since you raised the issue that my argument is flawed because there are other means by which one may obtain faith, it is contingent on your part to prove there are indeed other means by showing what those other means are. Otherwise, you were only bluffing and my argument stands. In fact, I was asking only for even one and your Biblical basis for it.

It appears you are simply saying it is irrelevant because you cannot show even one so you want to shift our discussion to other issues. Now, show even one other means, or, admit you were just bluffing. 

And then, I WILL address the issue on the Holy Spirit.

[pnattmbtc]

It appears that you were just really bluffing when you said there are other means by which one may obtain faith because if there is just one with a solid Biblical basis then you would have pointed that out now.

No, Samie, this isn't true.  I've been making a simple point in logic, which you seem not to be getting, and will continue to make the point into you do.  If I were to accede to your request, it would take away from the logical point, so I don't want you to do that.  I want you to understand the logic.  If you understood the logic, you would realize that your question is unnecessary, but since you keep asking it, that's evidence you are not understanding the point.

First let's look at the argument at a high level.  At a high level, what is happening is this:

1.You have made a statement for both necessity and sufficient where only sufficiency is evident.  You have made no attempt to prove necessity.  This is the flaw to your argument, which still has not been addressed.  There is no reason to assume necessity.

2.I have presented an argument against necessity.  The argument is an argument by contradiction.  I have shown that necessity is impossible!  

You haven't addressed either of these points!  Either 1 or 2.  Instead you keep asking for something which is irrelevant to the validity of the arguments.  I can try to come up with analogy if you wish, but it should be clear to see that if it has been shown that necessity is impossible, then that is sufficient.

Here, once again, is the argument against necessity.

Let us assume that you are correct, and necessity is implied, that the only way to receive faith is as fruit of the Holy Spirit.  But one needs to have faith to obtain the Holy Spirit, so it is evident that there must be other means of faith.  Therefore necessity is disproven.

That's it, Samie.  It is sufficient to show that necessity is impossible, which has been done.  And this destroys your whole argument.

[Samie]

No, Samie, this isn't true.  I've been making a simple point in logic, which you seem not to be getting, and will continue to make the point into you do.  If I were to accede to your request, it would take away from the logical point, so I don't want you to do that.  I want you to understand the logic.  If you understood the logic, you would realize that your question is unnecessary, but since you keep asking it, that's evidence you are not understanding the point.

First let's look at the argument at a high level.  At a high level, what is happening is this:

1.You have made a statement for both necessity and sufficient where only sufficiency is evident.  You have made no attempt to prove necessity.  This is the flaw to your argument, which still has not been addressed.  There is no reason to assume necessity.

2.I have presented an argument against necessity.  The argument is an argument by contradiction.  I have shown that necessity is impossible!  

You haven't addressed either of these points!  Either 1 or 2.  Instead you keep asking for something which is irrelevant to the validity of the arguments.  I can try to come up with analogy if you wish, but it should be clear to see that if it has been shown that necessity is impossible, then that is sufficient.

Here, once again, is the argument against necessity.

Let us assume that you are correct, and necessity is implied, that the only way to receive faith is as fruit of the Holy Spirit.  But one needs to have faith to obtain the Holy Spirit, so it is evident that there must be other means of faith.  Therefore necessity is disproven.

That's it, Samie.  It is sufficient to show that necessity is impossible, which has been done.  And this destroys your whole argument.

See the length of post you have gone through just to evade giving even one other simple means of obtaining faith which you claim there are? And by your giving post this long proves you were bluffing when you said there are other means by which one may obtain faith.  You can post this long and yet cannot give just one other means of obtaining faith which you said is the basis why my position is flawed?

Your inability to provide even one other means and your biblical basis for it destroys your claim that my position is flawed. It is your position that is flawed. Again, my position:

. . . 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.

[Samie]

Let us assume that you are correct, and necessity is implied, that the only way to receive faith is as fruit of the Holy Spirit.  But one needs to have faith to obtain the Holy Spirit, so it is evident that there must be other means of faith.  Therefore necessity is disproven.

Where in the Bible does it say that one needs to have faith to obtain the Holy Spirit? Or, that is what you think the Bible says?  And then use what you think Scriptures say to back up your own concocted claim that there are other means by which to obtain faith, which until now, since more than a week ago, you cannot give even one.

Did you forget that God has given faith to every man? And that faith is fruit of the Spirit, a fruit which one can only bear when attached to Christ. The fact that God has given faith to every man simply means all has faith; all can bear fruit, one of which is faith, because they are attached to Christ. And all attached to Christ are God's children, therefore the Holy Spirit leads them because:

^NRS Romans 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.

The sequential order as per Scriptures: 1.  attached to Christ first and become God's children; 2. led by the Holy Spirit; 3. bear fruit of the Spirit, one of which is faith, and then one can believe.

Sequential order as per pnatt: 1. while separate from Christ, bear fruit first, one of which is faith, and believe; 2. attached to Christ and become children of God.  Clearly, pnatt's position is cart before the horse.

[pnattmbtc]

See the length of post you have gone through just to evade giving even one other simple means of obtaining faith which you claim there are?

Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you didn't understand it, so I'll repeat it here for your convenience.

I've been making a simple point in logic, which you seem not to be getting, and will continue to make the point into you do.  If I were to accede to your request, it would take away from the logical point, so I don't want you to do that.  I want you to understand the logic.  If you understood the logic, you would realize that your question is unnecessary, but since you keep asking it, that's evidence you are not understanding the point.

Please respond to this!  Please don't just repeat what you wrote without responding to the point I made!  If you just repeat yourself, without responding to my point, it looks like you either haven't read the post, or didn't understand it, or are ignoring it.

 

And by your giving post this long proves you were bluffing when you said there are other means by which one may obtain faith.

No, this is wrong.  Please read what I wrote above.

You can post this long and yet cannot give just one other means of obtaining faith which you said is the basis why my position is flawed?

Again, please read what I wrote and respond to it.

Your inability to provide even one other means and your biblical basis for it destroys your claim that my position is flawed. It is your position that is flawed. 

No, this is bad logic, which I explained!  I'll explain it again.

Your argument is flawed because it assumes necessity, where only sufficiency can be inferred.  Necessity would have to be proved, which you did not even attempt.

I disproved necessity by an argument of contradiction, which destroys your entire argument.

Now, I'll make a new point here, actually I made this before, but not as clearly, and that is, I do not need to disprove necessity in the way that you want.  You want me to disprove necessity by providing a counter-example.  I'm disproving necessity the way *I* want to do it; I don't have to do it your way.

 

[pnattmbtc]

Me:Let us assume that you are correct, and necessity is implied, that the only way to receive faith is as fruit of the Holy Spirit.  But one needs to have faith to obtain the Holy Spirit, so it is evident that there must be other means of faith.  Therefore necessity is disproven.

Samie:Where in the Bible does it say that one needs to have faith to obtain the Holy Spirit?

I said where.

Or, that is what you think the Bible says?  

I think this is what everybody thinks, you being the only exception.

And then use what you think Scriptures say to back up your own concocted claim that there are other means by which to obtain faith, which until now, since more than a week ago, you cannot give even one.

I have not attempted to do so becuase it is not necessary to disprove your argument.  It is irrelevant to the argument I made, which I want you to recognize, which is why I'm not addressing your request here, which I explained.

Did you forget that God has given faith to every man? 

No, this is actually key to *my* position, and contradicts your position, because that everyone has faith, from your position, would require that everyone have the Spirit, which is unscriptural.

And that faith is fruit of the Spirit, a fruit which one can only bear when attached to Christ. 

This is true, but only those who believe can bear fruit.

The fact that God has given faith to every man simply means all has faith; all can bear fruit,

No, because you are equating having been given a mesure of faith which exercising faith.  These are two different things.  God has given each on the ability to respond to the Gospel, but a person may choose not to respond, which is the opposite of faith; it's unbelief!  So you are incorrect here in equating having been given a mesure of faith with "having faith", which means something different; it means to excercize faith, to choose to believe.

one of which is faith, because they are attached to Christ. And all attached to Christ are God's children, therefore the Holy Spirit leads them because:

NRS Romans 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.
The sequential order as per Scriptures: 1.  attached to Christ first and become God's children; 2. led by the Holy Spirit; 3. bear fruit of the Spirit, one of which is faith, and then one can believe.

Sequential order as per pnatt: 1. while separate from Christ, bear fruit first, one of which is faith, and believe; 2. attached to Christ and become children of God.  Clearly, pnatt's position is cart before the horse.

Let's discuss your first.  How can you be led of the Holy Spirit without believing?  By the way, having faith and believing are the same thing; just want to make sure we're on the same page here.

Ok, now mine.  How did you get mine so wrong?  I've been very clear as to what the sequence is, and have written it.  Why have you written something down so different than what I wrote, and then present this as my position?  Hopefully you didn't do this willfully, as that wouldn't be very nice, but since I've written down exactly what the sequence is, why do you not simply copy that, and present that as my position?

Sequence (assuming the person in question is unconverted)
1.The person is presented the gospel and the Holy Spirit convicts the person of his sin and need for Christ.
2.The person repents, and believes in Christ, receiving Christ as his savior.
3.At this moment the person is born again, justified, forgiven, converted (all synonyms) and receives the Holy Spirit.

[Samie]

I said where.

 You don't know where? Of course, there's none.

I think this is what everybody thinks, you being the only exception.

Reminds me of Copernicus. When almost everyone else believes in geo-centric astronomy, that is, the earth is the center of the solar system and that the sun revolves around the earth, he presented his helio-centric theory. We now know Copernicus was right. He was even threatened with excommunication. Good thing, I am not threatened in this forum.

[Samie]

I have not attempted to do so becuase it is not necessary to disprove your argument.  It is irrelevant to the argument I made, which I want you to recognize, which is why I'm not addressing your request here, which I explained.

Not to disprove mine, but to prove yours.

It is irrelevant to the argument I made, which I want you to recognize, which is why I'm not addressing your request here, which I explained.

It is very relevant; you just refuse to recognize the relevance. You know there's none and you were just bluffing.

[Samie]

No, this is actually key to *my* position, and contradicts your position, because that everyone has faith, from your position, would require that everyone have the Spirit, which is unscriptural.

 That everyone has faith is Scripture's, not simply mine:

^KJV Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

Scripture against your position, brother.

[Samie]

This is true, but only those who believe can bear fruit.

Faith is fruit, which one uses to believe.  Believe first to bear the fruit called faith? Again, cart before the horse.

[Samie]

No, because you are equating having been given a mesure of faith which exercising faith.  These are two different things.  God has given each on the ability to respond to the Gospel, but a person may choose not to respond, which is the opposite of faith; it's unbelief!  So you are incorrect here in equating having been given a mesure of faith with "having faith", which means something different; it means to excercize faith, to choose to believe.

You are wrong.  Can you exercise faith without it? So what did you exercise with?

[Samie]

Let's discuss your first.  How can you be led of the Holy Spirit without believing?  By the way, having faith and believing are the same thing; just want to make sure we're on the same page here.

Should have been, how can you believe without the Holy Spirit's leading? Yours is cart before the horse. You take the credit that belongs to the HS.

[pnattmbtc]

I said where.

 Samie: You don't know where? Of course, there's none.

I said in the post where.  Look at the post. 

[pnattmbtc]

I have not attempted to do so becuase it is not necessary to disprove your argument.  It is irrelevant to the argument I made, which I want you to recognize, which is why I'm not addressing your request here, which I explained.

Samie: Not to disprove mine, but to prove yours.

I did prove mine.  I proved it by showing that the assumption that there is no other means of faith was impossible.  That was the proof by contradiction.  Assume the negation of what you want to prove, and show that this is false because it leads to a contradiction.  That's what I did to prove my argument.

 

It is irrelevant to the argument I made, which I want you to recognize, which is why I'm not addressing your request here, which I explained.

Samie:It is very relevant; you just refuse to recognize the relevance. You know there's none and you were just bluffing.

Do you not understand what a proof by contradiction is?  If you do, why would you make a statement like this?  Given I established my point by the argument I presented, the proof by contradiction, why would I need *another* argument to make the same point I already proved? 

[pnattmbtc]

No, this is actually key to *my* position, and contradicts your position, because that everyone has faith, from your position, would require that everyone have the Spirit, which is unscriptural.

 Samie: That everyone has faith is Scripture's, not simply mine:

KJV Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

Scripture against your position, brother.

Did you read my post?  I addressed this point. I wrote this:

No, because you are equating having been given a mesure of faith which exercising faith.  These are two different things.  God has given each on the ability to respond to the Gospel, but a person may choose not to respond, which is the opposite of faith; it's unbelief!  So you are incorrect here in equating having been given a mesure of faith with "having faith", which means something different; it means to excercize faith, to choose to believe.

Please don't just repeat the same thing you said before without reference to what was already written to address the point.  The conversation doesn't progress this way.  Instead, please address the points made in the post.  Either agree, disagree, or ask questions.  If you disagree, present an argument as to why. 

 

This is true, but only those who believe can bear fruit.

Samie: Faith is fruit, which one uses to believe.  Believe first to bear the fruit called faith? Again, cart before the horse.

But how do you get the Holy Spirit in the first place?  It is by believing in Christ that we receive the Spirit.

 Samie: You are wrong. 

No I'm not.

Can you exercise faith without it? So what did you exercise with?

Do you recall what I wrote about the woman at the feast at Simon's house?  If you don't recall, I'll write it up again.

Let's discuss your first.  How can you be led of the Holy Spirit without believing?  By the way, having faith and believing are the same thing; just want to make sure we're on the same page here.

Samie: Should have been, how can you believe without the Holy Spirit's leading? Yours is cart before the horse. You take the credit that belongs to the HS.

 I agree with this, that we believe as a result of the leading of the Holy Spirit.  What I'm asking you is, how to do you get the Holy Spirit without believing?  To be led of the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as having the Holy Spirit.  See Acts for example.  The Holy Spirit is given to those who believe in Jesus Christ, but in order to believe in Christ in the first place, we need the Holy Spirit to convict of sin and righteousness, and lead us to Christ.  If we respond, then we may be filled with the Spirit, and that's where Galatians 5 comes into play.

[pnattmbtc]

Samie, I have a request for you, and I'll do what I'm asking later when I can, probably Sunday.  My request is that you explain to me what you think God's point of view is in the plan of salvation.  That is, what is important to God, what is He trying to do, and how does He go about doing this.  Please explain this in detail.

[Samie]

Ok, now mine.  How did you get mine so wrong?

Because it is NOT in accord with what Scriptures say.

I've been very clear as to what the sequence is, and have written it.  Why have you written something down so different than what I wrote, and then present this as my position?  Hopefully you didn't do this willfully, as that wouldn't be very nice, but since I've written down exactly what the sequence is, why do you not simply copy that, and present that as my position?

No. It's the same sequence as what you have written, just worded differently. Here [bold red, mine]:

Sequence (assuming the person in question is unconverted) [And therefore not attached to Christ yet]
1.The person is presented the gospel and the Holy Spirit convicts the person of his sin and need for Christ.
2.The person repents, and believes in Christ, receiving Christ as his savior.
3.At this moment the person is born again, justified, forgiven, converted (all synonyms) and receives the Holy Spirit.[and attached to Christ]

Clearly, cart before the horse: Believe first to be attached to Christ Who said man can do NOTHING when separate from Him.

[Samie]

 

I said in the post where.  Look at the post. 

There's none.

[Samie]

I did prove mine.  I proved it by showing that the assumption that there is no other means of faith was impossible.  That was the proof by contradiction.  Assume the negation of what you want to prove, and show that this is false because it leads to a contradiction.  That's what I did to prove my argument.

Yes, your position is in contradiction to what Scriptures say. And the best proof there is no other means of obtaining faith is your utter inability to provide even one and its scriptural basis.  8 days since asked, and still counting.

[Samie]

Do you not understand what a proof by contradiction is?  If you do, why would you make a statement like this?  Given I established my point by the argument I presented, the proof by contradiction, why would I need *another* argument to make the same point I already proved? 

You need not make another proof that your position contradicts Scriptures. Your inability to provide even one other means, is the best proof for it. Again, 8 days since asked, and still counting.

[Samie]

Did you read my post?  I addressed this point. I wrote this:

Please don't just repeat the same thing you said before without reference to what was already written to address the point.  The conversation doesn't progress this way.  Instead, please address the points made in the post.  Either agree, disagree, or ask questions.  If you disagree, present an argument as to why.

I did not repeat what I said.  I repeated what Scriptures say but to which you disagree. I don't need to present any argument. What Scriptures say is the BEST argument. And what Scriptures say does not agree with what you say.

[Samie]

But how do you get the Holy Spirit in the first place?  It is by believing in Christ that we receive the Spirit.

Unscriptural.  How can you believe unless you are led by the Holy Spirit?

No I'm not.

Yes, you are.

Do you recall what I wrote about the woman at the feast at Simon's house?  If you don't recall, I'll write it up again.

You don't have to frame up that woman. Just tell me how you can exercise faith without it.

 

I agree with this, that we believe as a result of the leading of the Holy Spirit.  What I'm asking you is, how to do you get the Holy Spirit without believing?  To be led of the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as having the Holy Spirit.  See Acts for example.  The Holy Spirit is given to those who believe in Jesus Christ, but in order to believe in Christ in the first place, we need the Holy Spirit to convict of sin and righteousness, and lead us to Christ.  If we respond, then we may be filled with the Spirit, and that's where Galatians 5 comes into play.

For me, it's really simple.  Separate from Christ, we cannot bear fruit.  The fruit we bear, Scriptures call fruit of the Spirit, one of which is faith.  Without faith, one can't believe. If one can believe then he has faith, which proves he is already attached to Christ.  When one is in Christ, then he has the Holy Spirit.

[Samie]

Samie, I have a request for you, and I'll do what I'm asking later when I can, probably Sunday.  My request is that you explain to me what you think God's point of view is in the plan of salvation.  That is, what is important to God, what is He trying to do, and how does He go about doing this.  Please explain this in detail.

Already explained in detail in my thread "Understanding the Gospel Through the Book of Life".

[pnattmbtc]

Ok, now mine.  How did you get mine so wrong?

Samie: Because it is NOT in accord with what Scriptures say.

What sense does this make?  I wrote something which you think is not according to the Scriptures, so you just change it into something else, and then present it as something I believe?  That's OK to do? 

[pnattmbtc]

Samie: 

1. while separate from Christ, bear fruit first, one of which is faith, and believe; 
2. attached to Christ and become children of God.  

Me:

1.The person is presented the gospel and the Holy Spirit convicts the person of his sin and need for Christ.
2.The person repents, and believes in Christ, receiving Christ as his savior.
3.At this moment the person is born again, justified, forgiven, converted (all synonyms) and receives the Holy Spirit.

I'm amazed that you would think that these two lists are the same.