The source of faith is at question. Is it a fruit of the Spirit, or is it something that one possesses by nature?
If it is a fruit of the Spirit, then it is good. If it is carnal faith, IOW, a faith one possesses by nature like that of a child's belief in Santa Claus, or another's belief in global warming or the evolution of man (all of which none need the Spirit to believe), then it is evil.
Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree evil and its fruit evil.
Scan et al insist that evil trees can bring forth good fruit, and you see their hardhearted clinging to that tenet despite the clear and straighforward witness of the Spirit which was plainly laid before their eyes in this thread.
Wow... I have a couple of concerns here...
1) Aaron, you say, "If it is carnal faith..."
It seems to me that you are saying that there is more than one kind of faith. As though there is another kind of faith than what can be described as "to trust or believe or hope". How would it be described then? Enlighten me to this mysterious 'new' description! I've never heard a description matching the context of this thread that would be other than what I have proposed, so consider this your opportunity to speak truth to me that I may believe the truth!
What I think is a more accurate description of what you are doing is that you are changing the meaning of the word faith. If your definition holds true then is it even possible to have a 'misplaced' faith?
2) Aaron, you continue on defining a carnal faith as, "a faith one possesses by nature like that of a child's belief in Santa Claus"
While the object of their trust is false, their faith is 'faith' regardless. You say it is not faith at all, I say it is misplaced faith. What was Jesus describing when he said, "...unless you... become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."? Was he not speaking of our a believing and trusting attitude? How is a trust in something false different than a trust in something true? The only difference is the object of our trust. What is trusted is the difference. In Ephesians 2:8 it is being saved that is being identified here as the gift of God, not the 'trust'.
3) Aaron, you speak of "straighforward witness", which, more fairly stated, is you and not the Holy Spirit. This 'straighforward witness' uses terms that are not so straight. For example, the definition of "faith" is no longer clear from this witness. This witness is abusing the rules of language, grammar and reason. You seem to say that 'faith' cannot be 'faith' unless it's object is true. However, if that is the case then one cannot be accurate in claiming that a 'false faith' even exists for such would be a circular thought that is also internally contradictory, and therefore makes no sense. The 'sense' derived from such an idea would have to be 'other' than what the phrase can actually mean. This is absurd.
Your definition and reasoning of faith:
Premise a) Faith is only 'belief/trust/hope in a true object'
Premise b) That which is belief/trust/hope in an untrue object is not faith.
Therefore: If 'Pa' then there cannot be a logical state of 'not-Pa'
One would expect that 'not-Pa' is equal to 'Pb' but it is not since there is an error in the 'Pa' premise that makes the argument as a whole, circular.
Questions:
1.What is the word for that which is "belief/trust/hope" in an untrue object"?
2. In your opinion is there such a word for that which is "belief/trust/hope" that we could start using if you will not accept that word to be 'faith'?
