In the context if the Bible, is the word 'believe' the same as "faith'?

[cjab]

I have a few videos for you Greek scholars if you get bored. Tell me what you think. Source and content. One is Romans 1:17, and the other is Galatian 3:22. both about 12 minutes long.

This might be a case of an academic trying to be too clever. I find his ultimate argument turgid, although I would allow his first point as valid: πῐ́στῐς should be allowed to refer either to the act of believing, or to the referent of the belief. Context will determine which of these two nuances is inferred; and here I find both to be inferred. But I find some of his reasoning to be perverse:

At 9:00 ff., he says "The righteousness of God is revealed from this faith."
At 9:40 ff., he says "A very similar function is given to the faith here. It is the thing that reveals God's righteousness, without which no-one can become righteous."
At 10:04 "Just as the power of God for salvation is revealed in the gospel, so the righteousness of God from the faith."


My first point is that "ἐκ πῐ́στῐς" in Rom 1:17 doesn't lend itself to the conclusion that "faith is the thing that reveals God's righteousness."

Who is the gospel / righteousness of God" revealed to? It is revealed to those with faith, the adherents of the gospel and appropriators of its power.

Rom 1:17 must be taken in conjunction with Rom 1:16. By Rom 1:17, "In 'it' the righteousness of God is revealed," grammatically refers back to Rom 1:16 where 'it' infers the gospel. It is the gospel which is "the power of God." The righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, not 'from the faith'.

In Eph 2:8 we learn (the grace of) the gospel is appropriated "through (διὰ) faith."


So my second point concerns the prepositions in Rom 1:17. ἐκ means "out of", εἰς means "into / unto." The idea seems to be that of an appropriator of the gospel's power & righteousness progressing from a little faith to a greater faith. Different nuances to πῐ́στῐς (confidence / trust-->belief / persuasion) and allusions by Christ to "measures of faith" suggest a little-->great interpretation, as personal righteousness increases in line with faith.

Alternately, different referents to πῐ́στῐς (Moses --> Christ) suggest another equally valid interpretation. In the end, I think both coalesce in the sense it was God's purpose to increase faith by sending his Son.

 

[Dave...]

This might be a case of an academic trying to be too clever.

Hey cjab

I hear you. I allowed for that. He seems to know a lot about the languages, but still, understanding Scripture is ultimately from the Holy Spirit and does require a theologians process of interpretation, even in the original languages. He kind of reminds me of a poor mans Kenneth Wuest. A better translator than a theologian. Not that I had a problem with Wuest as a theologian. I always appreciated his stuff, but never relied heavily on him as a theologian.

I learned a long time ago that the Greek is no silver bullet that could answer all the theological questions. In reality, it's just a tool to help the theologian in us, not something to replace it. Even in the original languages, understanding context is necessary to properly interpret words. Word studies, as someone noted to me recently, can cause just as many problems as they solve, because there's no context to interpret the words properly. In short, sound hermeneutics is needed in the original languages also.

Dave

 

[Dave...]

Remember, I also hold to a person being born again apart from us doing anything to get that way.
To be more specific, I believe that a person's new birth and their subsequent indwelling ( after Pentecost ) are closely associated...

First the new birth, then the belief of God's word, then the Spirit seals us unto the day of our bodily redemption.

Hey Dave

But the new birth is what gives us the life, right? You can't have life without the new birth, and you can't have the new birth, without also having the life. Do you agree?

If yes, then I would suggest that we believe so that we can have the Holy Spirit placed into us. Which also places us into Christ and His death and resurrection, born again. That's the life. The Gospel is believe and be saved. Believe and have life. We are made alive in Christ. That's actually one of the the points of the thread. That the faith from that life, Spirit empowered, comes as a result of believing before we receive that indwelling and are born again. There's a distinction between the initial, and the ongoing. The life always results from believing.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (Also see John 11:25, 20:31)

Dave

 

[Van]

Hey Van

I see it a bit differently. We are placed into Christ Jesus when we receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13), called the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Abraham, like all OT believers, died having not received those promises (Hebrews 11:13). What promises? One was to be born again, which required the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (See Ezekiel 36:26-27, John 7:38-39, John 14:16-20, 25-26, 15:26, John 16:12-16) That promise began to be realized at Pentecost. After the transition, that is everyone who the promises were made to and owed were made whole, the transition was over. We call Pentecost the birth of the Church because those were the first to be placed into Christ, the Church. I believe that this may be why Paul wrote in Romans that we (believers of that time), were the first fruits of the Spirit (Romans 8:23).

Abraham was credited with [Jesus'] righteousness, the righteousness of God, in the same way that the believers in John 1:12-13 were given the right to become children of God, born again. Those promises, rights were realized at Pentecost, only after the Holy Spirit was given, which had to wait for Jesus to first be glorified. After Jesus was glorified, all the ingredients that save us, both positionally (legally, the Law), and practically (born again), were now reality, thus the agent of that placing into, or baptism, the Holy Spirit was given. When we are placed "In Christ" by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we are also placed into his death, and raised up with Him. This Spirit baptism, or placing into Christ, simultaneously, spiritually baptized us into His death, and then spiritually raised us up with Him, thus we are crucified with Christ (Galatians 2:20), and raised up with Him (Eph. 2:6). That's born again. Also resulting from this spiritual union from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we are imputed with the righteousness of God, the righteousness that Abraham was credited [imputed] with, but had to wait for (Romans 3:25-26). And the atonement, which can only apply after the cross. All these OT believers in Hebrews died having not received these promises. They did, however, receive them when Jesus descended for three days and preached to the spirits. After Jesus was raised from the dead, with His ascension, He took Paradise with Him to the third heaven to be in the Presence and live with the Father.

In short (too late, I know), Abraham was credited with righteousness because the righteousness that he was credited was still not yet established, that is Jesus fulfilling God's Law as fully man (on our behalf), and fully God (which made it possible). That, and the atonement, was part of what was being waited upon and is what was meant when the Bible said that Jesus needed to be glorified ("it is finished"). Which then gave all the ingredients needed to save us, so the immersion into Christ with the Holy Spirit, the placing into Christ with the Holy Spirit, the baptism with the Holy Spirit, now had the death and resurrection for us to also be placed into and born again, the death on the cross for atonement, and the righteousness of God established to impute as a result of that spiritual union. The ingredients.

Romans 4 elaborates. this really say it all quite clearly.

Romans 4:22-25, 5:1-2 And therefore "it was accounted to him [Abraham] for righteousness." Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand[/B], and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Abraham was imputed with righteousness, just as we are, but He had to wait in Hades, or Sheol, until these promises could be fulfilled.

Dave

1) We are not placed into Christ when we receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We are transferred into Christ, then undergo the washing of regeneration, causing us to be born anew, and only then are we sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit.

2) The indwelling of the Holy Spirit does not precede the washing of regeneration (being born anew). None of the verses listed support your claim! For example John 7:39 clearly says after the person believed (past tense) into Christ, the person then (present tense) would receive the Spirit.

3) Please acknowledge that your posted claims are NOT reflected in your cited verses.

4) Please acknowledge God credits the faith of individuals as the basis for transferring them into Christ. A simple statement on this issue would be helpful.

 

[Dave G]

But the new birth is what gives us the life, right?

Yes, it is what makes someone who naturally hates God ( Romans 1, Romans 3, Psalms 10, Psalms 14 etc ) into a new creature.
It's about spiritual life and having a heart-to-heart relationship with God..

You can't have life without the new birth, and you can't have the new birth, without also having the life.

I agree.

If yes, then I would suggest that we believe so that we can have the Holy Spirit placed into us.

My disagreement with you on this point, is that I see the Scriptures saying that the new birth is not a product of our own efforts, but of God's efforts in and through a person.

This means that being born again is not dependent upon bloodline, upon our will, or upon the will of another person ( John 1:13 ).
It's dependent upon a God who works when He wants to...not when we want Him to ( John 3 ).

 

[Dave G]

The Gospel is believe and be saved. Believe and have life.

The Gospel is believed by those that are saved...the Lord is assuring those that have already believed that they have been made new creatures in Christ, and been made alive with Him.
Do you see the difference?

It's not an "offer"...
It's a promise given to those that have believed, not to those that will never believe.

My friend, there's also much more to what the Lord has to say about who He loves and why He loves them, than John 3:16.
Please see the Psalms ( Psalms 5:5, Psalms 11:5, etc. ) for example, regarding who He loves and who He hates.


That being said, I wish you well in your studies, and God's blessings upon both you and all who read this.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

In the context if the Bible, is the word 'believe' the same as "faith'?

Like you say, "In the context" has to be examined in each different application of whichever word you are considering, to determine the various nuances that may be expressed in each case, by the way they are used (in context, etc.).

I put this article Attached in a file below, or it can be found at: How do faith and belief differ?

It covers some territory and puts various usages of 'faith' and 'believe' in organized categories,
such as:

1. Overview of the Terms.
2. Scriptural Foundations.
3. Distinction in Christian Teaching.
4. Practical Biblical Examples.
5. Responses to Common Questions.
6. Archaeological and Historical Corroborations.
7. Applying the Distinction in Daily Life.
8. Concluding Observations;

"Belief and faith are closely related but distinct. Belief is the necessary intellectual foundation-accepting fundamental truths about God’s existence, Christ’s resurrection, and the reliability of Scripture. Faith builds upon belief, forging a relationship with God that results in trust, obedience, and life transformation.

"According to the biblical record, faith and belief together produce spiritual substance, hope, and a lived response to God’s revealed truths. “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith” (2 Corinthians 13:5) is an invitation to move beyond intellectual assent and into a vibrant, enduring trust. This harmony of mind and heart brings the assurance, joy, and purpose promised throughout Scripture."

While that is their best shot at a conclusion to differentiate the two, first, we do know that 'faith' and 'believe' can be and are used interchangeably in many cases; I personally try to talk about the word 'believe' having been used to describe the fact that the devils believe and tremble, as you know, and then tell the story about the guy who had a wheelbarrel full of rocks.

This fellow takes that wheelbarrow full of rocks and balances it, walking on a rope stretched out over a huge waterfall and back again.

One onlooker asks another, "can you believe that?"

The second guy answers, "of course I believe it. We just sit here and watched him do it".

Then the first guy tells him, "if you believe so much in what you just saw him do, now you get him to take out all the rocks, and you get in the wheelbarrel, and let him walk you across the river over the waterfall and back".

He gets a "no", for a reply from the second guy, so the first guy tells him, "so, you 'believe' what we just saw him do, but you don't 'trust' him."

That story introduces another word, 'trust' to the equation, but it works out really well to illustate that the kind of 'belief' that the devils have is very different from the times when 'believe' is used and actually does sometimes mean 'trust'.

'Trust' in the story, makes 'believe' to have a usage which refers to a mere 'observational', impersonal 'belief', when for example, our 'belief' that comes to us in salvation is entirely and unarguably something we 'believe' because we have experienced it ourselves personally.

Then, 'believe' is sometimes used more akin in meaning to the word 'faith', when 'believe' also means 'trust', just like 'faith' in some instances.

So, 'believe', faith', and 'trust' are sometimes synonymous and yet are as different as 'believing' you see someone drinking a pop (you assume) and then comparing that observation you have and 'believe' took place to when you come to 'believing' that it is actually pop they were drinking, after you personally experience drinking some of it yourself.

You FIRST, by observation, 'believed' it was pop, but SECONDLY, after you drank some personally, you "really believed" it was actually pop, for certain.

So, you have 'believing' being used to indicate
"IT LOOKS LIKE IT" COMPARED TO "I UNMISTAKENLY KNOW FOR SURE, NO DOUBT".

Belief and faith can be differentiated by the amount of conviction whether or not intellectual.

There it is.

These are fine statements, too, regardless of how it is said, from
"Evangelism 101: Laying the Foundation" by Matt Waymeyer;

"Have you ever seen a camel walk through the eye of a needle? Of course not. That would be impossible. And that is precisely why Jesus told his disciples it would be "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:25). He wanted them to understand it was impossible.

"Recognizing the implications of Jesus’ startling statement, the disciples responded with the obvious question: "Then who can be saved?" (Luke 18:26) This, of course, was an appropriate inquiry. If it is impossible for even a rich man to be saved, then who can be saved? It would seem that no one can. But listen instead the reply that Jesus gave to the disciples: "The things impossible with men are possible with God" (Luke 18:27).

"In this verse, Jesus revealed two elementary truths about salvation: (1) It is impossible with man, and yet (2) it is possible with God. The first half of this equation was covered in chapter one—man is not able to do anything to save himself. But what did Jesus mean in saying that salvation was possible with God? How can a man be saved?

"The key to answering this question is simple, yet profound: Although man is inherently unable to respond to the gospel (impossible with man), God is able to open his heart to respond (possible with God). In Acts 16, Paul was preaching to a number of women in Philippi.

"As Paul preached that the women should repent of their sins and believe in Christ, a woman named Lydia was listening. Because of her spiritually depraved condition, however, Lydia was inherently unable to respond to Paul’s message. And yet we know from verse 14 that she did respond. How did this happen? How was she saved?

"The answer to this question is that "the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul" (Acts 16:14). God intervened and demonstrated that what was impossible with her was possible with Him. When a person repents and believes in Christ, it is because God has opened his or her heart to respond to the gospel.

"What is impossible with man is possible with God. This same pattern can be seen clearly in Jesus’ teaching: "No one can come to me [impossible with man], unless the Father who sent me draws him [possible with God]; and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:44). In this verse Jesus teaches that although no man is able to come to Christ, God the Father is able to draw men to Christ and does so when he calls them unto salvation. This is commonly known as effectual calling.

"For this reason, Scripture teaches that faith and repentance are gifts from God. When an unbeliever repents of his sins and believes in Christ, it is not the fruit of his inherent ability to repent and believe but rather the result of God opening his heart and granting him repentance (Acts 5:31; 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25) and faith (Acts 13:48; 18:27; Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 1:29; 2 Pet. 1:1).

"Therefore, repentance and faith are not works that man performs in order to earn his salvation—they are the change of heart brought about by God Himself. Salvation is by grace from start to finish".

And that is all, whether we call it 'belief', 'faith', or 'trust', etc.

Yes, if you believe the scriptures then the object of faith is believed in trust and confidence in the object of our faith, that is, G-d.

I must say that I wholeheartedly agree with each statement you made.

In particular, this is a rare emphasis you discerned when Abraham "believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for Righteousness." is after Abraham had been convicted of his sins through the word when in Genesis 15:1 it says, "after these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram" where he learned that it is God Who "JUSTIFIES THE UNGODLY". Then, as we know from the New Testament, in Galatians 3:8, "...the scripture, foreseeing that God would Justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed".

So, Abraham learned he was "ungodly" and was preached the Old, Old Story of the gospel of his Savior and was saved. Abraham knew of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus and then believed, and he had faith IN THE OBJECT OF HIS FAITH, JESUS CHRIST, WHERE IT SAYS ABRAHAM "believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for Righteousness".

 

[cjab]

Hey cjab

I hear you. I allowed for that. He seems to know a lot about the languages, but still, understanding Scripture is ultimately from the Holy Spirit and does require a theologians process of interpretation, even in the original languages. He kind of reminds me of a poor mans Kenneth Wuest. A better translator than a theologian. Not that I had a problem with Wuest as a theologian. I always appreciated his stuff, but never relied heavily on him as a theologian.

I learned a long time ago that the Greek is no silver bullet that could answer all the theological questions. In reality, it's just a tool to help the theologian in us, not something to replace it. Even in the original languages, understanding context is necessary to properly interpret words. Word studies, as someone noted to me recently, can cause just as many problems as they solve, because there's no context to interpret the words properly. In short, sound hermeneutics is needed in the original languages also.

Dave

Good points. I think his key mistake is not to see that "from (out of faith) unto faith" must be taken an indivisible phrase, as most commentators see it. The implied comma should go after ἀποκαλύπτεται (is revealed), to give "is revealed, from faith to faith," and not interposed after "from faith" as he would have it, which gives the wrong sense. Also, perhaps, he seems to not directly connect the "righteousness of God" to the faith of believers: I think they are different ways of referring to the same essential concept, one from the direction of God's origination, the other from the direction of man's response.

That the "righteousness of God" applies to believers comes from ".....made the righteousness of God" in 2 Cor 5:21.

So I see it that Rom 1:17 effectively means, "the righteousness of God manifested in (the faith of) believers," from faith to faith.

In the parallel passage in Rom 3:21,22 which interprets Rom 1:17, Paul says "The righteousness of God by (διὰ) faith....." which corresponds to Eph 1:8.