"To All Who Are In Rome"

[pnattmbtc]

The root is the same, which is what saying they are the same word means.  Of course the endings are different, as this is the way languages work; that's what it means to point out that one is noun and one is a verb.

The point is that, in the Greek, to "have faith" is "to believe".  So what you are asking me is akin to asking if someone believes before the believe, which is nonsense.  That is, your questions is a non-sense question.

And your simply repeating it again and again and again doesn't make it any less nonsense or answerable.

[Samie]

The root is the same, which is what saying they are the same word means.  Of course the endings are different, as this is the way languages work; that's what it means to point out that one is noun and one is a verb.

The point is that, in the Greek, to "have faith" is "to believe".  So what you are asking me is akin to asking if someone believes before the believe, which is nonsense.  That is, your questions is a non-sense question.

Is that so? I remember you saying "The word in the Greek is "pistis"; it's the same for "faith" and "believe".  One is a verb and one is noun."  One can easily see that you are saying "pistis" is both "faith" and "believe".  Anyway that's not the issue. Instead of lecturing in Greek, stick to the issue:

For the 7th time: When did God give faith to those who are believers now, BEFORE they believed or AFTER they believed? If BEFORE, then, they were still non-believers when God gave them faith. If AFTER, then are you saying man can believe without faith?

You will not answer this, will you? 

And it appears you will not answer this question because your position is in danger. And perhaps that explains why you said:

And your simply repeating it again and again and again doesn't make it any less nonsense or answerable.

The main question says: When did God give faith to those who are believers now, BEFORE they believed or AFTER they believed? What is nonsense in the question? Can you point it out? Or you are simply playing dumb?

You are a believer now, aren't you? So, when did God give you faith, the faith you used to believe? Paul EXPLICITLY said that God gave faith to every man, is that nonsense? If no, then, why complain if you are asked when did God give you faith, since He has given faith to every man and that includes you?

[pnattmbtc]

The root is the same, which is what saying they are the same word means.  Of course the endings are different, as this is the way languages work; that's what it means to point out that one is noun and one is a verb.

The point is that, in the Greek, to "have faith" is "to believe".  So what you are asking me is akin to asking if someone believes before the believe, which is nonsense.  That is, your questions is a non-sense question.

Is that so?

Yes, it is so.  Your question is nonsense, and repeating it doesn't make it any less so.

I remember you saying "The word in the Greek is "pistis"; it's the same for "faith" and "believe".  One is a verb and one is noun."  One can easily see that you are saying "pistis" is both "faith" and "believe".  Anyway that's not the issue. Instead of lecturing in Greek, stick to the issue:

It is the issue.  You're making a distinction in English which doesn't exist in Greek.

For the 7th time: When did God give faith to those who are believers now, BEFORE they believed or AFTER they believed? If BEFORE, then, they were still non-believers when God gave them faith. If AFTER, then are you saying man can believe without faith?

Have you stopped beating your wife?  Yes or no?

You will not answer this, will you? 

I did answer it.  I explained your question is predicated on a false premise, like the question "have you stopped beating your wife."

And it appears you will not answer this question because your position is in danger.

I don't understand.  First of all, I have answered the question.  Secondly, what danger are you seeing?  To be clear, my position is that to "have faith" in Scripture, in the Greek, means the same thing as "to believe".  God has given all with reasoning powers the ability to believe.  When they believe, from the standpoint of Scripture, at that moment they "have faith".  I've said all this.  How can you construe this as not answering your question?  And what danger do you see?

Rather than repeating the same questions and asserting they haven't been answered, when they have been, why not just make whatever point you have in mind?  You seem to be wanting to trap people by forcing them to answer "yes" or "no" questions based on false assumptions, like the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife."  I don't think this is a helpful way to proceed.  A better approach is to make whatever point you have in mind, and ask questions if you things you don't understand or would like clarified.

Also, I'd be interested in what difference it makes from your perspective.  For example you've spoken about taking credit for things God has done.  This is a legitimate concern.  Where do you see the danger in this?  For example, if I believe that I become a son of God by receiving Christ as my savior, do you see this as dangerous because I could be taking credit for doing something? (namely taking credit for receiving Christ as my savior).

 

and perhaps that explains why you said:

And your simply repeating it again and again and again doesn't make it any less nonsense or answerable.

What explains my saying this is exactly what I explained, which is that your question is based on a false premise, just like the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife."

Do you understand what I'm saying?  You're free to disagree if you like, but hopefully you can understand the point.

 

Edited October 12, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[Samie]

 

Yes, it is so.  Your question is nonsense, and repeating it doesn't make it any less so.

It is the issue.  You're making a distinction in English which doesn't exist in Greek.

Have you stopped beating your wife?  Yes or no?

I did answer it.  I explained your question is predicated on a false premise, like the question "have you stopped beating your wife."

I don't understand.  First of all, I have answered the question.  Secondly, what danger are you seeing?  To be clear, my position is that to "have faith" in Scripture, in the Greek, means the same thing as "to believe".  God has given all with reasoning powers the ability to believe.  When they believe, from the standpoint of Scripture, at that moment they "have faith".  I've said all this.  How can you construe this as not answering your question?  And what danger do you see?

Rather than repeating the same questions and asserting they haven't been answered, when they have been, why not just make whatever point you have in mind?  You seem to be wanting to trap people by forcing them to answer "yes" or "no" questions based on false assumptions, like the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife."  I don't think this is a helpful way to proceed.  A better approach is to make whatever point you have in mind, and ask questions if you things you don't understand or would like clarified.

Also, I'd be interested in what difference it makes from your perspective.  For example you've spoken about taking credit for things God has done.  This is a legitimate concern.  Where do you see the danger in this?  For example, if I believe that I become a son of God by receiving Christ as my savior, do you see this as dangerous because I could be taking credit for doing something? (namely taking credit for receiving Christ as my savior).

 

What explains my saying this is exactly what I explained, which is that your question is based on a false premise, just like the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife."

Do you understand what I'm saying?  You're free to disagree if you like, but hopefully you can understand the point.

You skipped this part of my last post deliberately?

The main question says: When did God give faith to those who are believers now, BEFORE they believed or AFTER they believed? What is nonsense in the question? Can you point it out? Or you are simply playing dumb?

You are a believer now, aren't you? So, when did God give you faith, the faith you used to believe? Paul EXPLICITLY said that God gave faith to every man, is that nonsense? If no, then, why complain if you are asked when did God give you faith, since He has given faith to every man and that includes you?

[pnattmbtc]

 

You skipped this part of my last post deliberately?

Yes, as it was redundant.

[Samie]

Yes, as it was redundant.

It had to be "redundantly" asked because you "redundantly" refuse to address it.  Again:

The main question says: When did God give faith to those who are believers now, BEFORE they believed or AFTER they believed? What is nonsense in the question? Can you point it out? Or you are simply playing dumb?

You are a believer now, aren't you? So, when did God give you faith, the faith you used to believe? Paul EXPLICITLY said that God gave faith to every man, is that nonsense? If no, then, why complain if you are asked when did God give you faith, since He has given faith to every man and that includes you?

[pnattmbtc]

You're not being fair in our conversation.  In my post, I addressed your question, and I asked you questions.  You ignored all my questions.  If you're not happy with an answer I gave, and you want to ask your question again, that's fine; that's fair.  However, it's not fair for you to ignore my entire posts, and not respond to my questions.

I'll try again to answer your question, but be fair, and answer my questions.

Specially this one:

Also, I'd be interested in what difference it makes from your perspective.  For example you've spoken about taking credit for things God has done.  This is a legitimate concern.  Where do you see the danger in this?  For example, if I believe that I become a son of God by receiving Christ as my savior, do you see this as dangerous because I could be taking credit for doing something? (namely taking credit for receiving Christ as my savior).

and this one:

 

What explains my saying this is exactly what I explained, which is that your question is based on a false premise, just like the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife."

Do you understand what I'm saying?  You're free to disagree if you like, but hopefully you can understand the point.

I mean, it's difficult to know how to proceed when you ask me a yes/no question which is based on a false assumption, and I explain that the question cannot be answered because it's based on a false assumption, and give you an example of that, and then ask you if you understand what I'm saying, and you just ask the same question which is based on a false assumption.

Regarding faith and believing, what I understand is this:

How, then, are we to be saved? "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," so the Son of man has been lifted up, and everyone who has been deceived and bitten by the serpent may look and live. "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of theworld." John 1:29. The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. The thoughts and desires are brought into obedience to the will of Christ. The heart, the mind, are created anew in the image of Him who works in us to subdue all things to Himself. Then the law of God is written in the mind and heart, and we can say with Christ, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God." Ps. 40:8. (DA 175-176)

There is a progression here.  The progression is the following:

1.The Son of man is "lifted up", meaning the Holy Spirit presents to the sinner Christ crucified.  The love of God draws us to Himself.  If we do not resist, we are led to the foot of the cross in repentance.  The Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul.

2.This is the process of justification by faith.  It is at this point, and not before, that we have faith.

Now what is faith?  Faith is the noun that corresponds to believing.  What does that mean?  It means responding to the Holy Spirit who presents Christ.  We cannot respond before we respond!  The responding *is having faith*!  To "have faith" is "to believe".  It is the process of justification by faith.  It is what is being described here.

You are perceiving faith as a thing, like "feet".  I DISAGREE WITH YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT FAITH IS.  Pardon the caps, but you seem not to be getting this point.

I cannot answer your question the way you would like me to, because it is predicated on a false assumption as to what faith is.  You perceive faith to be like feet that people have.  I disagree with your idea.  I don't not perceive faith as a "thing" like "feet" which God gives to people so that they use like feet.  Rather I perceive faith to be a response of the heart to the love of God as revealed at the cross.

If I'm correct, and faith is a response, then what sense would it make to ask if God gave me this response before or after I believed?

Please make an effort to understand *my* understanding of faith, and how you would answer your own question if you had my understanding of what faith is.

Now you may disagree with my understanding of what faith is, that's fine, but don't just keep asking your same question trying to force me to accept *your* understanding of what faith is, as something like feet, because I don't. 

[Samie]

Paul wrote to "all who are in Rome" that God gave faith to every man. Believing is exercising faith. Without faith to exercise, one can't believe. It necessarily follows that the giving of faith PRECEDES the act of believing.  God gave faith to those who now believe, BEFORE they can start believing, or, start exercising faith.  And this answer Pnatt finds difficult to give. Why?

I guess, because that will negate his position. Since God gave faith BEFORE one can believe, this means the one given faith is not yet a believer the instant God gives him faith. And Pnatt believes only believers were given faith. Hold over belief from Calvinists, perhaps? Calvinism teaches that when Scriptures say "God so loved the world", it means "God so loved the world of the elect".  Not quite far from Pnatt's view. When Scriptures say "God gave faith to every man", Pnatt says it means "God gave faith to every man who believes".

With Pnatt's view, no one could be faulted for not believing, because he simply can't believe since God has not given him faith.

[Samie]

If I'm correct, and faith is a response, then what sense would it make to ask if God gave me this response before or after I believed?

Is faith man's response that God gave him? Hardly. Because if that were true, then no one could be faulted for not responding to God since God did not give him that response to make.

[pnattmbtc]

Paul wrote to "all who are in Rome" that God gave faith to every man.

 

Where do you think Paul wrote this?  Could you quote what Paul actually said?

 

Believing is exercising faith. Without faith to exercise, one can't believe. It necessarily follows that the giving of faith PRECEDES the act of believing.  

What if I'm correct, and faith is a response?  Then what you are asserting here doesn't make sense.  You are operating on the assumption that faith is a "thing" like "feet", as opposed to a heart-response to the love of God revealed at the cross.  This is an important point of disagreement.

God gave faith to those who now believe, BEFORE they can start believing, or, start exercising faith.  And this answer Pnatt finds difficult to give. Why?I guess, because that will negate his position.

But you're not even starting from where I am!  That is, before you can state something which would negate my position, you have to start by agreeing with me as to what faith is.  Otherwise we're disagreeing before your even start.

Since God gave faith BEFORE one can believe, this means the one given faith is not yet a believer the instant God gives him faith. And Pnatt believes only believers were given faith.

 

I've not said this.  If you want to state something you think I believe, you should quote me!

Hold over belief from Calvinists, perhaps? Calvinism teaches that when Scriptures say "God so loved the world", it means "God so loved the world of the elect".  Not quite far from Pnatt's view.

 

You're confused as to what I'm saying.  Please quote something I've said.  You're way off here.  Please don't misrepresent me like this; not nice or fair.

When Scriptures say "God gave faith to every man", Pnatt says it means "God gave faith to every man who believes".

Same comment.  Quote something.  Quote Scripture.  Quote me.

With Pnatt's view, no one could be faulted for not believing, because he simply can't believe since God has not given him faith.

It looks like you're totally disregarding what I've written.  If faith is a heart-response to the love of God revealed at the cross, as I've been saying, then what you're writing, falsely, as representing my position cannot possibly be the case.  You're simply misrepresenting my position. 

[Samie]

 

Where do you think Paul wrote this?  Could you quote what Paul actually said?

 

What if I'm correct, and faith is a response?  Then what you are asserting here doesn't make sense.  You are operating on the assumption that faith is a "thing" like "feet", as opposed to a heart-response to the love of God revealed at the cross.  This is an important point of disagreement.

But you're not even starting from where I am!  That is, before you can state something which would negate my position, you have to start by agreeing with me as to what faith is.  Otherwise we're disagreeing before your even start.

I've not said this.  If you want to state something you think I believe, you should quote me!

You're confused as to what I'm saying.  Please quote something I've said.  You're way off here.  Please don't misrepresent me like this; not nice or fair.

Same comment.  Quote something.  Quote Scripture.  Quote me.

It looks like you're totally disregarding what I've written.  If faith is a heart-response to the love of God revealed at the cross, as I've been saying, then what you're writing, falsely, as representing my position cannot possibly be the case.  You're simply misrepresenting my position. 

Not misrepresenting. I'm saying it is wrong, as per Scriptures. Faith, which you say is heart-response, is given by God (Rom 12:3).  So if one does not respond to God with his heart then he cannot be faulted because after all God did not give him that heart-response.

 

[pnattmbtc]

Not misrepresenting. I'm saying it is wrong, as per Scriptures. Faith, which you say is heart-response, is given by God (Rom 12:3).  So if one does not respond to God with his heart then he cannot be faulted because after all God did not give him that heart-response.

I've quoted the following a couple of times.  It describes the process well:

How, then, are we to be saved? "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," so the Son of man has been lifted up, and everyone who has been deceived and bitten by the serpent may look and live. "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29. The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. The thoughts and desires are brought into obedience to the will of Christ. The heart, the mind, are created anew in the image of Him who works in us to subdue all things to Himself. Then the law of God is written in the mind and heart, and we can say with Christ, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God." Ps. 40:8. (DA 176)

Notice it says, " His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour."  So if a person does not response, it is because he has resisted the drawing of the Spirit, and so he is at fault, not God, because God is doing His part by leading the sinner to repentance.  As Romans 2:4 puts it, "the goodness of God leads thee to repentance".