Jac3510 wrote:
Sorry, you still have to. I provided the quotes because those were the best ones I could find that would possibly support your position.
well, I have yet to see something from a lexicon that doesn't support my position
However, with Bultmann we see that faith is first and foremost belief (as per the first part of the definition that you conveniently ignored . . . taking lessons from PL, now?).
two birds with one ad hom is it now?....btw agreeing with is not ignoring
Mounce, who is a Lordship guy and would certainly argue for you has been provided, but I already showed in my discussion why he is wrong. Further, his lexical discussion was about certainty. It was his theological commentary where he gets into your ideas. So, from a LEXICAL perspective, you still have no support.
so when someone agrees with you, it is a lexical perspective....but then when he doesn't its theological commentary? Please...have you ever considered that the reason that Mounce, Bultmann and Archer have all concluded that "OT belief" is full of certainty is b/c they also have seen that "belief" in the OT always produces obedience, action and righteous works? Nice try Jac, but the lexica are one my side (just like the dictionaries)....keep in mind that we are in the midst of two key issues. They are:
1 when Jesus laid out the requirement of "belief in Him", what would He have meant with "belief" and would He and His Jewish audience have understood "belief" to mean something that entailed obedience?
2 when Jesus laid out the requirement of "belief in Him", what would He have meant with "belief" and would He and His Jewish audience have understood "belief" to mean something that entailed absolute certainty?
later you proclaim:
But here's my point: YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR POSITION. Thus far, you have not.
look again Jac....
wrt #1, I have argued from the very start that they would have understood "belief" to be accompanied by obedience. Why, b/c of the contents of the OT. As I have asked before, perhaps you could refer me to the Jew in Christ's audience who understood circumcision to be an option, who thought sacrifices were not required or who thought that the commandments were merely suggestions that one could choose to follow or not? Until you do, why should I think that the 1st century Jew thought that obedience could be divorced from faith?....especially when "aman" is always accompanied by obedience in the scriptures that they had. You attempt to dismiss this as an argument from silence (which it isn't) and refer me to a verse that establishes that in the NT faith did not result in complete obedience (irrelevant).
wrt #2 I have shown you how Jesus used "faith" in a fashion consistent with the existence of faith in levels....and where levels exist, absolute certainty can only exist in one level...Christ used terms such as "little faith", "great faith" and "faith with doubt". You attempt to dismiss this by distinguishing between Christ's use of faith in the context of saving faith and Christ's use of faith in the context of non-saving faith (an unwarranted distinction) or by saying "great faith" or "an increase in faith" really meant having faith in a greater number of things and increasing the number of things that one believed (a forced interpretation).
Frankly, I find your dismissals lacking in validity and your point to be unfounded.
Anyway, I'll give you the fair chance to retract your agreement, or at least qualify that you only agree with the parts you quoted, because if you read the entire set of quotes again, you'll find that both Bultmann and Mounce argue that faith is certainty, which is the exact opposite of your position. Or are you going to admit that you were wrong there?
there is nothing to retract Jac....please read this again to understand why there is nothing for me to retract(I have added a few words that might help you follow my reasoning):
yes, faith/belief means to regard something as true...but you go too far in asserting that this can only mean that there is no doubt ever. You must keep in mind that both Bultmann and Mounce understand that "believing" is not a flash-in-the-pan thing that may only last a second.....both see "belief" as something that lasts long enough to produce action/obedience....neither quote you give establishes that either Bultmann or Mounce hold that absolute certainty must be maintained throughout the time period that is required for obedience/action to blossom and bear fruit. However, as I have been saying, I think that it is fair to say that "belief" is full of certainty such that doubt does not establish itself to an extent necessary to entirely defeat the obedience/action.
from your response I can tell that you can't understand how I can agree with Bultmann and Mounce and disagree with you....so read the above till you can understand how it is that I agree with Bultmann and Mounce
So, I'm still waiting on you to show me a lexicon - a Greek dictionary - that defines faith or belief as something containing doubt or less than certainty or what have you. As of right now, you haven't. And, you won't be able to do it, because it is not what the word means.
Part of the problem is that you understand "belief" to be like a light switch ...it is either fully on or fully off and there is no in between. So when a lexicon defines it as "to think to be true" you read it as "to think to be true with absolute certainty". Consider the possibility that the authors of the lexica understand "belief" the same way as I do....that is it is like a dimmer switch that can range from being fully on to being fully off and anywhere in between. Archer is saying that modern usage understands belief to be almost anywhere but fully off...and that OT usage is closer to other end of the spectrum. We understand that a person of faith is a person who has a fairly bright light and not (like you would suggest) only a fellow whose light is fully on. Reread the bits from the lexica that you have provided whilst keeping in mind what I have just told you about my perspective and then tell me what it is that I should find disagreeable...and when you think you got something, look again b/c I can't find something to disagree with (and I believe I that I understand my beliefs better than do you)
You are a better debater than that. You are well aware of what you are doing. There have been more than a few, but let's take this little beauty:
You wrote:
Now modern usage doesn't tell us much about "aman", but what I find interesting about this bit of our discussion is your determined refusal to acknowledge a meaning of "certainty" that can be found in a fairly common modern usage.... when it is of very little or no significance to the actual issue at hand. (no doubt you are already deciding how to explain away 43500 hits of the one phrase alone). In light of that determined refusal one can only marvel at the level of determination that must exist in your desire to hold onto all things that are of actual importance to free grace soteriology.
This is beautifully played. You have spent up to this point a couple of days arguing that "certainty" doesn't mean absolute certainty - that there can be levels.
no, I had been arguing that modern usage wrt "belief" doesn't mean absolute certainty.
And before this, you argued that the lexicons didn't define "faith" as "certainty."
show me where....I can see where I would have argued that OT "belief" does not mean absolute certainty (as I would describe your view)....but, please show me where I made this argument.
Now that I've proven both of those arguments wrong,
no you haven't...tell me, (cuz I'm curious) what colour is the sky in this imaginary world of yours?
1) You act as if it really isn't important, in attempt to portray me as argumentative....
modern usage isn't that important...but I expect you are inclined to argue that point
2) You run to "popular usage,"....
I didn't run there...you brought out the modern dictionaries...and ended up providing an expert who agreed with my position...again thank-you
.... as if that proved anything about our argument,
already said it didn't prove anything wrt OT usage...
.... totally ignoring the proper usage that the LEXICONS USED, and then attack me personally by painting me as overly closed minded.
I have been happy to look at the lexica, it seems that you are rather defensive wrt this matter...is it b/c you are sensitive about your close mindedness?
Subtle. Left handed. Beautifully played. Not to mention deceptive, deceitful, and nothing more than a debate tactic.
BTW, whilst I am helping you with terminology, please understand that the term is "left-handed compliment"...your insults here, however, are bold-faced and are not "left-handed"
I've provided what . . . five or so such references now, plus offered a brief discussion on related words to further the point? I've provided theological evidence that the position is wrong, and the point of the four soils has never even been challenged, much less refuted. You're going against Jesus' words here, not mine.
not from my point of view, I am of the belief that I am going against your flawed understanding of Jesus's words, your flawed understanding of the apostles' words, your flawed understanding of modern words, your flawed understanding of the words you find in lexica and your flawed understanding of what you think I have said....alas, so many mistakes and so little time
....and since you have crowed that your point of the four soils has never been challenged, please allow me to dismiss that flawed point as well....please wait here while I try to find it.....I found this brief bit:
However, I would like to see you deal with Jesus' interpretation of the parable of the seeds and soil. It is in 100% contradiction to what you are saying. I would also say that you can't argue "But we have to take the whole Scriptural witness into account" unless you want to admit that there are contradictions in the Bible. I'm sure you don't believe that. If Jesus says here, as I assert, that MOST saved believers will not produce good works, then you cannot argue "Yeah, but the rest of the Bible teaches that we will produce good works if we are saved!" You create a contradiction. Either you get this parable to line up with what you are saying, or you have no foundation to stand on.
is that the unchallenged point? If so, the answer is simple... Jesus doesn't say in that parable, as you assert, that MOST saved believers will not produce good works. Hopefully, you can recall that (from the very start) I have argued that a "flash in the pan" type of faith does not save...so from my perspective the second type of soil is not about a saved group. Also, I have argued that a "shallow faith" that has the holder loving the world and not loving Jesus is a type of faith that does not save....and so from my perspective the third type of soil is not about a saved group. I expect that you look at verses such as Luke 8:11-13 which read:
11 "This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts,
so that they may not believe and be saved. 13 Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.
...in particular you read the bold bit and infer that the three other groups represent those who are saved...but that is an inference.
On the other hand, one might look at these verses from Matt 13:
13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; 15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'....23 But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
...if so, you would note that only the last soil is said to understand the word...and in the context of the quote from Isaiah, those that do not understand may be rightly viewed as the lost. As such, wrt the 2nd and 3rd soils it doesn't expressly say whether they are saved or not and it doesn't expressly say whether they understood or not. It merely says that they believe and fall away and are unfruitful. You are inclined to believe that the 2nd and 3rd group described saved individuals and I am inclined to believe otherwise...ironically, I am inclined to see greater support for a very strong/extreme lordship soteriology in that parable than for your free grace soteriology. In any event, this parable can be understood as being compatible with a number of soteriologies and is therefore not a trump card for your free grace view.
), this should destroy your, hmm, 'faith' that Calvinism relies on works for salvation. Works only play a part in sanctification; justification, which ensures salvation forever, is an unmerited gift of God, and has nothing to do with works.
Maybe we can stop assaulting each other now . . . we've dug sufficiently to ah . . . level the field. Or would you care to claim the moral high ground?