That is another incorrect premise upon which you've built your position. I believe I can and will walk out my door today and not die,
and I have faith that belief is true and correct
and I act in a manner consistent with both the belief and the faith I possess.
Merely disputing my position does not disprove what I posted. Nor does it prove your own. Scripture actually states, "
justified by faith," but nowhere do we find "
justified by belief." Even if we were to infer the latter from some exegetical analysis of what scripture implies..... the explicit
always has greater veracity over the implicit. Exegetically speaking, the explicit always defines the implicit, never the other way around.
That is incorrect. Etymologically both words can be nouns and both words can be conjugated as verbs. That statement is foolish. It has no basis in fact. A selective use of scripture does not change the facts of reality. If you haven't already read it, give D. A. Carson's "
Exegetical Fallacies" a read. He addresses these kinds of appeals.
Well, it has already been demonstrated on multiple occasions by multiple posters that your exegesis is lacking. You often make verse says things they do not actually state. The word "truck" is a noun, but it is also a verb. If I were to say, "
Keep on trucking," I might mean any number of things that are completely unrelated to anyone actually in possess of a noun truck. Your use of 2 Tes. 2:13 is dubious because many translations translate
pistis as "
faith," and not "
belief." What you've just done is appeal to a selective use of preferred translation and not what the verse actually states. The KJV, for example, translates that
pistis as "
belief" but it does so unnecessarily and in error. The modern translations that have some allegiance to the KJV tradition do likewise. It is demonstrably more consistent with the whole of the New Testament to translate
that pistis as "
faith." Having preferred a selective appeal to translation, the net result is the undermining of your position, not the proving of it.
BSB
But we should always thank God for you, brothers who are loved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved by the sanctification of the Spirit and by faith in the truth.
BLB
But we ought to give thanks to God always concerning you, brothers beloved by the Lord, that God has chosen you from the beginning unto salvation in the sanctification of the Spirit, and by faith of the truth;
NAS
But we should always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
NET
But we ought to thank God always for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
The same is even more so regarding Romans 3:26. Greek trumps English every time and if we were reading Greek we would read "faith," "
pistis," and not belief. We would not read a different word over the majority usage any more than we would read a different meaning over the ordinary usage. These are all foundational mistakes that are easily avoided. Those appeals to 2 Thes. 2 and Rom 3 could have and should have been checked and verified before it was posted and that did not happen. Then, as a result of the unverified being posted, I follow up and investigate it where you did not, and find the statement incorrect and the argument fallacious.
There is also two other linguistic errors in Post 238. Salvation is not synonymous with justification (unless you are RCC and that would be a matter of RCC doctrine, not scripture) and "
by" and "
through" are not synonymous, either. We are saved
through faith. We are justified
by faith. Nowhere does scripture ever state anyone is saved
by faith. The Rom. 3:26 text is proof of what I just posted. These terms are not identical, synonymous, or interchangeable.
Therefore, what we see in the case you're asserting is numerous conflations; numerous examples of different words with different meanings being asserted as if they are synonymous or interchangeable. This is especially true for occasions of causality which, so far, you've addressed fairly accurately. Faith does not cause salvation. Faith does not cause justification. The cause of salvation is God's grace and the cause of justification is Christ's work on Calvary first and the commensurate work of God in the life of the regenerate to believe
and then have faith he or she can act upon faithfully.
The facts in evidence prove otherwise. The dissent is rife with eisegesis and fallacy.
And, for the record, my points are not being addressed. They're being avoided with non sequiturs, red herrings, factual errors, and other fallacious responses. Just a little bit of investigation would have prevented Post 238. A better response to Post posts 231, 232, 237, and everything else I've posted is warranted.
Delve into scripture first, scripture alone, and endeavor to be just as skeptical and critical of extra-biblical sourced arguments as you are of my posts. I have endeavored to post scripture, not doctrine. I delved into the text as written using the ordinary meaning of the words in normal usage as understood by the first century author and his first century readers. I went further into the language to understand first century usage of the terms instead of modern doctrinal definitions. I endeavored to form my doctrines from scripture, not make scripture say what my doctrines dictate. As a consequence, my posts have, so far, withstood the criticism brought upon them.
And, for the record, disproving something I posted does not prove your alternative. And, for the record, even if one or two of my points were disproven there are at least a dozen errors in the case you've presented. Refuting one or two of them still leaves the case problematic. Post 238 was easily avoidable and the fact it was posted evidences something other than rigorous exegesis and reason.
Would you like me to go through my posts and make a list of all the points I believe need either further clarification or correction? Rather than having to go backwards and address this post on page 3 and another post on page 10, it might be helpful to take a moment to review the alternative case and real or perceived problems in what you have posted. I don't mind doing that work
(it'll have to wait until later today or tomorrow because I'll be leaving for work soon, but I will gladly do so to summarize my viewpoints). Just let me know.
.
