Featured Our Undergirding

If it is a perfect illustration of a root fallacy, the burden of proof is on you to show that to be true, particularly when identifying the roots of certain words is often acceptable etymology. Even Carson admitted this much:

“The meaning of a word may reflect its etymology; and it must be admitted that this is more common in synthetic languages like Greek or German, with their relatively high percentages of transparent words (words that have some kind of natural relation to their meaning) than in a language like English, where words are opaque (i.e., without any natural relation to their meaning). Even so, my point is that we cannot responsibly assume that etymology is related to meaning. We can only test the point by discovering the meaning of a word inductively.” ( Exegetical Fallacies, 231-235, K.indle. The K.indle editions sometimes have more or less words on a page marking than the actual printed text).

Carson further stated:

"“Normally we observe that any individual word has a certain limited semantic range, and the context may therefore modify or shape the meaning of a word only within certain boundaries. The total semantic range is not permanently fixed, of course; with time and novel usage, it may shift considerably. Even so, I am not suggesting that words are infinitely plastic. I am simply saying that the meaning of a word cannot be reliably determined by etymology, or that a root, once discovered, always projects a certain semantic load onto any word that incorporates that root. Linguistically, meaning is not an intrinsic possession of a word; rather, “it is a set of relations for which a verbal symbol is a sign.” In one sense, of course, it is legitimate to say “this word means such and such,” where we are either providing the lexical range inductively observed or specifying the meaning of a word in a particular context; but we must not freight such talk with too much etymological baggage.”

That being said, I think all too often critics resort to fallacy accusations when the explication of a term conflicts with their theological terminology instead of the potential inductive conclusions that they have been helpful in deciphering etymological usage of a term.

Considering how much debate there has been among Calvinists and Non Calvinists regarding the word "faith" (As Calvinists view faith as a work and a gift, neither of which is supported by Scripture), it can sometimes be helpful to identify the roots of a word when semantics over that word has become a central issue regarding its etymology and usage.

 

Back it up another step back, as the faith to receive Christ NOT inherit within sinful beings, but has to come to us thru the Grace of God, a gfree gift!

 

You fail to look at, consider, or even quote the rest of the Thayer's entry:

Here it is in it's entirety:

πείθω ((from the root meaning 'to bind'; allied with πίστις, fides, foedus, etc.; Curtius, § 327; Vanicek, p. 592)); imperfect ἔπειθον; future πείσω; 1 aorist ἐπεισα; 2 perfect πέποιθα; pluperfect ἐπεποίθειν (Luke 11:22); passive (or middle, present πείθομαι; imperfect ἐπειθομην); perfect πέπεισμαι; 1 aorist ἐπείσθην; 1 future πεισθήσομαι (Luke 16:31); from Homer down;
1. Active;
a. to persuade, i. e. to induce one by words to believe: absolutely πείσας μετέστησεν ἱκανόν ὄχλον, Acts 19:26; τί, to cause belief in a thing (which one sets forth), Acts 19:8 R G T (cf. Buttmann, 150 (131) n.) (Sophocles O. C. 1442); with the genitive of the thing, ibid. L Tr WH; τινα, one, Acts 18:4; τινα τί, one of a thing, Acts 28:23 Rec. (Herodotus 1, 163; Plato, Apology, p. 37 a., and elsewhere; (cf. Buttmann, as above)); τινα περί τίνος, concerning a thing, ibid. G L T Tr WH.
b. as in classical Greek from Homer down, with an accusative of a person, to make friends of, win one's favor, gain one's good-will, Acts 12:20; or to seek to win one, strive to please one, 2 Corinthians 5:11; Galatians 1:10; to conciliate by persuasion, Matthew 28:14 (here T WH omit; Tr brackets αὐτόν); Acts 14:19; equivalent to to tranquillize (A. V. assure), τάς καρδίας ἡμῶν, 1 John 3:19.
c. to persuade unto i. e. move or induce one by persuasion to do something: τινα followed by an infinitive (R § 139, 46), Acts 13:43; Acts 26:28 (Xenophon, an. 1, 3, 19; Polybius 4, 64,2; Diodorus 11, 15; 12, 39; Josephus, Antiquities 8, 10, 3); τινα followed by ἵνα (cf. Winers Grammar, 338 (317); Buttmann, § 139, 40), Matthew 27:20 (Plutarch, apoph. Alex. 21).
2. Passive and middle (cf. Winers Grammar, 253 (238));
a. to be persuaded, to suffer oneself to be persuaded; to be induced to believe: absol, Luke 16:31; Acts 17:4; to have faith, Hebrews 11:13 Rec.; τίνι, in a thing, Acts 28:24; to believe, namely, ὅτι, Hebrews 13:18 L T Tr WH. πέπεισμαι τί (on the neuter accusative cf. Buttmann, § 131, 10) περί τίνος (genitive of person), to be persuaded (of) a thing concerning a person, Hebrews 6:9 (A. V. we are persuaded better things of you, etc.); πεπεισμένος εἰμί, to have persuaded oneself, and πείθομαι, to believe (cf. English to be persuaded), followed by an accusative with an infinitive, Luke 20:6; Acts 26:26; πέπεισμαι ὅτι, Romans 8:38; 2 Timothy 1:5, 12; with ἐν κυρίῳ added (see ἐν, I. 6 b.), Romans 14:14; περί τίνος ὅτι, Romans 15:14.
b. to listen to, obey, yield to, comply with: τίνι, one, Acts 5:36f, 39(); ; Romans 2:8; Galatians 3:1 Rec.; ; Hebrews 13:17; James 3:3.
3. 2 perfect πέποιθα (the Sept. mostly for בָּטַח, also for חָסָה, נִשְׁעַן Niphal of the unused שָׁעַן), intransitive, to trust, have confidence, be confident: followed by an accusative with an infinitive, Romans 2:19; by ὅτι, Hebrews 13:18 Rec.; by ὅτι with a preparatory αὐτό τοῦτο (Winer's Grammar, § 23, 5), Philippians 1:6; τοῦτο πεποιθώς οἶδα ὅτι, Philippians 1:25; πέποιθα with a dative of the person or the thing in which the confidence reposes (so in classical Greek (on its construction in the N. T. see Buttmann, § 133, 5; Winer's Grammar, 214 (201); § 33, d.)): Philippians 1:14; Philemon 1:21 (2 Kings 17:20; Proverbs 14:16; Proverbs 26:26; Isaiah 28:17; Sir. 35:24 (Sir. 32:24); Wis. 14:29); ἑαυτῷ followed by an infinitive 2 Corinthians 10:7; ἐν τίνι, to trust in, put confidence in a person or thing (cf. Buttmann, as above), Philippians 3:3, 4; ἐν κυρίῳ followed by ὅτι, Philippians 2:24; ἐπί τίνι, Matthew 27:43 L text WH marginal reading; Mark 10:24 (where T WH omit; Tr marginal reading brackets the clause); Luke 11:22; Luke 18:9; 2 Corinthians 1:9; Hebrews 2:13 (and very often in the Sept., as Deuteronomy 28:52; 2 Chronicles 14:11; Psalm 2:13; Proverbs 3:5; Isaiah 8:17; Isaiah 31:1); ἐπί τινα, Matthew 27:43 where L text WH marginal reading ἐπί with the dative (Isaiah 36:5; Habakkuk 2:18; 2 Chronicles 16:7f, etc.); ἐπί τινα followed by ὅτι, 2 Corinthians 2:3; 2 Thessalonians 3:4; εἰς τινα followed by ὅτι, Galatians 5:10. (Compare: ἀναπείθω.) [1]

Out of the 52 uses of the word πείθω in the New Testament, none of them carry the meaning "to bind."

I have yet to see any lexicon that conveys the meaning of πείθω as "to bind."

The BDAG--the Gold-standard of Greek lexica--no where refers to the meaning of πείθω as "to bind."

It does not mean "to bind," regardless of what root it may be from.

Continued....




[1] http://biblesuite.com/thayers/3982.htm (accessed 10 July 2013)

 

No, they are not.

The root fallacy--what you are committing here--is based on you not reading how the word is used, and the Lexicon you reference tells you how it is used.

In English the word "infinitesimal" has a defined meaning. It means, for lack of a textbook definition, very small. However, the root word of infinitesimal is "infinite." If one were to look only at the meaning of the root, and not the final construction or use of the word, one would come to the conclusion that something that was said to be infinitesimal was huge, which would, of course, be very wrong.

Likewise, other words, and especially Greek words, are given meaning by their roots, but not every word is "related" to its root. Words in Classical Greek often mean something different than they do in Koine, just as words in the King's English of the 1600s often mean something different now.

The main arbiter of the meaning of the word is not its root. Rather the author's usage determines, finally, the meaning. Here's an example: If I ask you to define the word "Run," you could answer several things. However, until I use the word in a sentence, you have no idea which usage I'm intending.

Given that no lexicon states the meaning of the verb πείθω as "to bind," you cannot make the conclusion that the word πείθω means "to bind."

To insist on the meaning of πείθω as "to bind" is to commit the root fallacy, and ironically, in many cases, to argue for the Calvinist's interpretation of soteriology.

Again, you don't know Greek, so quit trying to use it.

The Archangel

PS EDIT: By the way, the word δέω is what the New Testament frequently uses to express "to bind." Here's the Thayer's article on it: http://biblesuite.com/greek/1210.htm

 

Where does the faith to beieve in jesus come from?
How does John use the term in his Gospel/epistles?

 

Your insolence is simply stunning.

Of course I understand the root fallacy. You have not yet demonstrated that you understand what you are talking about, and you certainly have not demonstrated, to any level, a facility with or understanding of Greek.

You certainly did by saying: "So fundamentally, the Greek term means "binder" or that which binds"

"Faith" does not carry the connotation of "binding" regardless of any root it is from.

The way you tried to address Hebrews 11:1 does not follow with the rest of the passage. In the passage, if you replaced the instances of the use of "faith" with "binding," the passage would not make any sense.

Also, on another matter, it is not "disparaging" to point out where you are wrong in your thinking or exegesis or in your thinking that you know Greek. Playing the martyr or playing the pariah will get you nowhere--except deeper into your own errors.

You edited your post to add:

I do not deny that because of God's work of regeneration and salvation, and all that that encompasses, that we are "bound" to Christ in some way (hence Paul's self-pejorative use of δουλος ("bondservant"). However, "faith" does not mean "to bind." Is it faith that binds us to Christ or is it the Holy Spirit? Is it faith that saves or is it God?

If "faith" is taken as the agent of salvation, then one only has faith in faith, not faith in God. Faith is not what saves; God is who saves. The difference is huge.

The Archangel

 

Then stop playing with Greek, you'll only burn yourself further.

Thayers never said the usage of pistis was "to bind." There is a huge difference in root and usage.

The views are not sound because the conclusion you reach is based on a false understanding of the language. You have merely taken my rebuttal of your non-existent facility in Greek as a personal attack.

Keep on chasing your windmills.

The Archangel

 

I just happened across this and copied it to the thread. It is the opening of a greater section taken from Strong's Greek:

4102 pístis (from 3982/peithô, "persuade, be persuaded") – properly, persuasion (be persuaded, come to trust); faith.

Faith (4102/pistis) is always a gift from God, and never something that can be produced by people. In short, 4102/pistis ("faith") for the believer is "God's divine persuasion" – and therefore distinct from human belief (confidence), yet involving it. The Lord continuously births faith in the yielded believer so they can know what He prefers, i.e. the persuasion of His will (1 Jn 5:4).

[4102 (pistis) in secular antiquity referred to a guarantee (warranty). In Scripture, faith is God's warranty, certifying that the revelation He inbirthed will come to pass (His way).

Faith (4102/pistis) is also used collectively – of all the times God has revealed (given the persuasion of) His will, which includes the full revelation of Scripture (Jude 3). Indeed, God the Lord guarantees that all of this revelation will come to pass! Compare Mt 5:18 with 2 Tim 3:16.]
1. The root of 4102/pistis ("faith") is 3982/peithô ("to persuade, be persuaded") which supplies the core-meaning of faith ("divine persuasion"). It is God's warranty that guarantees the fulfillment of the revelation He births within the receptive believer (cf. 1 Jn 5:4 with Heb 11:1).

Faith (4102/pistis) is always received from God, and never generated by us.
Ro 12:3: "For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith (4102/pistis)" (NASU).

Eph 2:8,9: " For by grace you have been saved through faith (4102/pistis); and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast" (NASU).

Gal 5:22,23: "22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
patience, kindness, goodness, faith (4102/pistis), 23gentleness,
self-control; against such things there is no law."

2 Thes 1:11: "To this end (glorification) – indeed each time we pray about (peri) you for the purpose (hin) of our God counting you worthy of the call – even that He may fulfill (His) every good-pleasure that comes from (His) goodness and work of faith, in (His) ability."

Reflection: Faith is only (exclusively) given to the redeemed. It is not a virtue that can be worked up by human effort.
​

This goes on and for more reading be sure to click the link above.

 

You keep editing while I'm writing...

But, of course, you didn't say faith was "heart-felt conviction," did you? Of course not. You said faith was "to bind." Again, a huge difference.

You know, if you were an engineer trying to convince someone that your bridge or building were sound by using "engineer-speak," and yet you claimed that you knew nothing of engineering, many would seek to point out that you have no qualifications to build a bridge or a building. That, of course, wouldn't be a personal attack. No, in fact, others would be pointing this out for the safety of those who, not knowing any better, might be duped by your claims.

That's all that's going on here. People need to beware that your speaking as an authority on Greek when, by your own admission, you "know no Greek."

Now, I'm sure you'll see me as nothing more than a mean, old Calvinist. But, others need to know that, regardless of your theology, you're nothing more than a blind guide when you reference Greek.

The Archangel

 

van, are sinners like you and me saved by or thru faith in Christ?

 

reminds me odf when under oath in a courtroom, the Elders of the JW admitted that they could not even read Greek alphabet, but still could trnsalate from greek the great watchtower NT bible!

 

Repeating and reposting this, even a million times, will never make it right.

Just as you cannot legitimize your error through repetition, Greek will never have a word "piq" through your repitition.

Still on the chase--after those distant windmills.

The Archangel.