What is Election?

[Chopper]

You and I have the early church (after the disciples) to thank for the present day ignorance about the Jews, and the role of the law in this New Covenant.

As I'm pointing out, this ignorance we have is a big reason why we're even having this discussion about election. If we understood Paul's argument for faith/ works properly nobody would be forced to see election as having to mean 'no choice of the elect to be elected' in order to preserve a doctrine about faith/works that is not even true in the first place.

I know you think the elect is only an appointed group of ministers within the body of Christ, but even what I just said applies to that view of who the elect are, too.

Good point!

 

[jasoncran]

I wish I had 1/2 your knowledge about the apple of God's eye!

. I haven't watched that but also you can look for my happy thanksgivukah thread and also ask questions and also my posts in the God gets what he wants thread. the weekly torah reading is from genesis 41 and that is linked to channukah in the jewish Chassidic masters eyes.

 

[ezra]

There is an important distinction between God deciding beforehand and God knowing beforehand.

I personally believe (and can back up scripturally) that God knows beforehand and leaves it to us to decide whether or not to accept the gift of salvation. It is accepted by faith and faith alone.

i agree this is called free will.

 

[ivdavid]

God promised Abraham that He would give him and his seed the land "forever".
God promised Abraham that all the nations will be blessed through him.
God later gave the promise to Isaac. He made the same promise to Jacob.

Okay.

Paul said the promises belong to the fathers, that's Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He also said it was concerning the fathers that Christ came.

Here I'd like to make a distinction of disagreement - there may be some of your statements(such as the above one) that I might disagree with, simply because they're wrongly interpreted(logically or semantically) but I may simultaneously be in agreement with the core truth conveyed in your interpretation.

So, Rom 9:4-5, semantically, definitely does not say that the promises belong to the fathers, nor is the genitive relation between Christ and the fathers - rather, all these are related to "Paul's brethren, the kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites". This does not however mean what you said is false - these promises were indeed made to Abraham and inherited by Isaac and Jacob - these are the children of promise - and Christ was the seed promised in their line - all this is true and biblical, just not stated this way here. - we should get that from their respective places in the Bible.

These men never received the land. As Stephen points out Abraham never received the land, yet God had promised it to him and his seed. This why Paul says it’s not a though the word of God is of none effect. From a human standpoint it would appear that the promise to Abraham was not fulfilled.[Acts 7:1-5]

You quoted Acts 7:1-5 to show that the promise of the land was seemingly not fulfilled, and that this was the objection that Paul was refuting in Rom 9:6? And yet that very promise had a time frame decreed by God(Acts 7:6), after which God declares it will be fulfilled(Acts 7:7). The same time frame and promise fulfillment is confirmed specifically in Acts 7:17. So, who is going to object in Rom 9, even from a human standpoint, that this promise was seemingly not yet fulfilled? And consequently, how then does Rom 9:6 get explained with this?

Here[Gal 3] Paul argues that the promises were made to the “Seed” who is Christ and not the physical offspring of Abraham. Thus his statement in Romans ,’ they are not all Israel that are of Israel.’

Paul argues that the inheritance, (which is the Land) is received through the promise and not the Law.

You are here stating that Gal 3 is referring to the promise of the Land - which as I've already shown above, has been fulfilled - but anyway, Gal 3 is not referring to that promise at all. Rather, it is referring to the promise of all nations being blessed in Abraham(Gal 3:8) - the promised blessing being the Holy Spirit(Gal 3:14). So, given your connecting this passage with Rom 9, should we be reading that not all Israel(offspring) received the promised Holy Spirit, consequently being accursed from Christ? But that would refute your current position - how have you reconciled this?

Paul is making the argument that the “blessing of Abraham” comes through faith in Christ not through being a physical seed of Abraham.

I am of the same view. But everyone in the seed, Jesus Christ, too are heirs of promise(not land) and the spiritual seed of Abraham(Gal 3:29).

Paul’s argument is basically God will use whoever He chooses to use.

Why is Paul making the point that God will use whoever He chooses to use in Rom 9 - why abruptly bring up this topic? If at all so, for which of Paul's writings up to Rom 8 is he pre-empting an objection to in Rom 9:6 now?

Paul raises the question is God unrighteous for choosing Jacob over Esau when neither had done good nor evil. God had mercy on Jacob and not on Esau. So, if God has mercy on who He will’s and hardens some why does He find fault? A logical question but Paul doesn’t answer it.

"Mercy" is a forensic concept - what is the necessity for mercy in the context of Jacob and Esau when neither had done any evil or good?

Paul said that Jacob was chosen over Esau, that the elder shall serve the younger. He didn't say anything about Jacob being saved and Esau not being saved.

I Agree. But the reason Paul talks about Jacob and Esau is to conclude upon who the children of Promise are - and he wants to conclude upon who the children of Promise are, in order to uphold God's word that has not failed - and he wants to uphold God's word that has not failed, in order to negate the apparent failure in his fellow Israelites being accursed from Christ. Hence, even without actually referring to Jacob,Esau's salvation themselves - there is indeed a connecting arc between Jacob,Esau and the scenario of some being accursed from Christ. Why then is it implausible to apply the entire passage(including election apart from works) from the former parallelism to the latter scenario? If you disagree with my interpretation, which I'm expecting you to, what is your connecting arc between Jacob,Esau and Paul's fellow Israelites being accursed from Christ?

So the question of God's righteousness is raised in regard to His hating Israel. Why did God do this? It should be clear from this passage in Obadiah that God hated Esau (Edom) because of the pride.

As you say, if the evil of Esau or whatever the term 'Esau' represents, was the cause of God's hatred - it "should be clear" and should warrant no objection in the first place. But this would then contradict Paul's clarification that God's differential treatment of the two were independent of the evil or good they had done. How would you reconcile that?

 

[ezra]

jasoncran---personally i would like to learn more about the Jewish way/traditions

 

[jasoncran]

ok.you can learn them by going to them to study or messianic jews, which wont use the Talmud as I do use they don't like that. I pic and choose what i s good and bad by matching the the oral stories and teachings with the bible. you may also go chabad.org and also use an old commentary by adam Clarke as he quotes the Talmud a lot and for that time that is simple not done. he must have known a jew then willing to talk.what ramban says , Clarke will also say for the most part.

 

[ivdavid]

When Jesus said only a few would be saved, is that because...
1) ...he's only willing to show mercy to a few, but won't because of his own choice without consideration of their will?
or

2) ...he wants to show mercy to all, but can't because they have chosen of their own will to not believe the gospel?

This is a false dilemma - You are not using "mercy" here as a forensic concept at all. Can you imagine guilty condemned murderers(who chose to murder and then were found guilty of it) - being brought before the king right before they're hanged - and if the king points his thumb down, the murderer is hanged - and if the king points his thumb up, the murderer is released - can you imagine such a scenario where the king "cannot" show mercy because he has to wait for a favorable response from the condemned? How is that even mercy? Besides, doesn't Rom 9:16 clearly specify that it doesn't depend on man's will but on God's mercy?

Even so, the contextual sequence is -
1. law from God
2. rebellion from man
3. command to obey the Gospel from God
4. disobedience from man
5. judgement and condemnation by God
6. Willing mercy from God

I am saying that up to Step 5, every single man has the same result - and this takes into complete consideration, their will/choices in steps 2 and 4. The difference in result arises in step 6 dependent upon God's mercy - which is not dependent on man's will. So, will you look at only step 6, ignoring the preceding steps and conclude that - "God shows mercy to whom He wills, without any consideration of their will" - or will you look at all the steps and conclude that - "God shows sovereign mercy to whom He wills, having found all of them guilty by their own will". I'd go with the latter.

The difference I see is the potential in any one of us to love righteousness, or not. The point is we may be created by God, but God does not create our thoughts and our desires. He can influence them, but our fundamental love, or hatred, or righteousness is of ourselves, not created in us by God.

You mean "unrighteousness" is of ourselves - lest it amount to the Rom 10:3 self/own-righteousness? And our renewed spirit(in the inner man) is the nature of God - generating godly desires, counsel from the Mind of Christ and power of the Holy Spirit to act. Anyway, you still haven't answered my questions on this from the earlier post - I had begun by asking what causes the difference in one choosing to believe and one choosing not to believe - and you say that the difference arises in one's inherent potential to love what is right. And I'd press further and ask what causes the difference in one to have this inherent potential to love what is right while another doesn't? I agree with you that God created man in the flesh(self-nature) which 'self' generates our desires,counsel and power to implement the counselled desires - but God, to be Right on His part, has to have created every single man with the potential/capacity to love righteousness. What then causes such inherent love for righteousness to be taken away in those who now don't believe.

Think of the Holy Spirit distributing gifts in the Church - one to be a teacher, one to be a prophet etc. - -and all these add to the variance in the Body of Christ where the ear and the eye are not the same etc. - but nonetheless, there is no corruption distributed to any by God. All are gifted with the capacity to only edify. Then, if I were to ask what causes corruption within this Body, you'd point to sin and say, "there, that's the culprit and the cause of such corruption". Similarly, what has caused the corruption of one's love for righteousness? As I said before, I am okay with 'sin' or something antithetical of God being the cause.

Besides, when the oft-used-verses-in-such-cases Rom 3:10-12 states "none is righteous, none seek God, none does good" - how do you interpret that in light of this inherent righteousness doctrine of yours?

 

[ivdavid]

This is one of those misunderstandings about the law that we would have to untangle, but that's the stuff of another thread. Man is the one who made the mistake to think God gave the law to justify ourselves. God gave it to show us how utterly sinful we are. The law as a way to justification is only a stumbling block to those who want it to be that (Romans 9:30-32).

This is all completely true - but the law did specify the means to life(Lev 18:5), one of the purposes of how it will show our utter sinfulness.

Just so there is no confusion on your POV.......is this choice man's own choice, or did God give them that choice?

Man's own choice.

But as I'm pointing out, the central issue in all of this is whether or not God makes you a believer, or an unbeliever, and whether we humans have no input into the matter at all. I say we HAVE to have input into it, or else God is a liar when he says he wants all men to be saved, knowing he's only going to give the choice to a few of his choosing apart from their will or input into the matter.

I've answered the part about your false dilemma in saying man's will is not considered at all, in my previous post. Here, I ask why must God be a liar when He says He desires all(I do not wish to argue on this word now) men to be saved? Cannot God have multiple valid desires of which He chooses only one to be implemented - Jesus desired the cup to pass away but He desired the Father's will be done, more.

Okay, this is moving in line with what I'm saying, that what is predetermined is the plan and the outcome for building a kingdom through election on the basis of righteousness by faith in Christ, not on the basis of the inherent righteousness of any one person.

You're playing both sides here. What's the difference between man's 'own potential of righteousness' to believe in Christ and his 'own inherent self-righteousness' ? This is where I require to know your views on whether man believes "in the flesh(self-nature)" or "in the spirit(God-nature)" , not the same as Holy Spirit.

Why does being subject to the power of the Spirit have to automatically mean 'regeneration' and being born again? Paul was bowled over by the power of the Spirit before he was born again. The Ethiopian was moved by the power of the Spirit before he was born again, too.

You're inserting your view into mine here - I didn't say being subject to the power of the Spirit means regeneration. I said repenting and believing in Christ is evidence of having been regenerated. As to your above examples, I do not see where exactly it is mentioned that they were born again/regenerated.

These people and demons James talks about have faith, yet obviously demons aren't regenerated. Or do you think they are?

I've been saying over and over it's a semantic difference. The Bible uses the word 'faith' for both knowing, and believing, but obviously knowing and believing mean two very different things in regard to salvation.

And I've been saying that you've got it wrong the other way around. "Believing" is to hold a premise as true. "Believing [in/upon]" is a phrasal verb that is the verb form of the noun "faith", both meaning exactly the same in their respective parts of speech - ie. to hold as true, the sufficiency of a person to fulfill an expected/promised outcome on the basis of their own nature/abilities.

And where has the Bible used the word 'faith'[Strong's G4102] to mean mere 'knowing' - and when the Bible has used the word "believe"[G4100] in James 2:19, why must I reject that from the Bible for an "obvious" unsubstantiated definition?

is man 'in the flesh(self-nature)' or is he 'in the spirit(God-nature)' while choosing to believe - where the 'spirit' here does not refer to the Holy Spirit but to the new nature in the 'inner man' (distinction seen in Rom 8:16)

the church has been taight to only understand the power of the Holy Spirit as either you have it as a born again person, or you do not have it as a lost person. But we see in the scriptures people coming under the power of the Spirit and being led to a decision for righteousness that then saves them.

Firstly, what are these Scriptures and tell me how they deny my views on this? Secondly, let's assume the church and I have gotten it wrong - so I'd think the best way to prove it is by taking a stance on this and proceeding to answer/clarify this - you do realize you haven't answered this question yet. I'm also fine with you bringing up a new consistent theory to propose that man could neither be in the flesh nor in the spirit while believing in Christ.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Am I being to simple in saying faith without works is useless? Faith by itself is useless, Works by themselves is useless, so real conversion, immediately upon receiving Christ as Savior produces works. So faith with works is Biblical salvation.

You are not being too simple at all. The truths of the Bible are simple, but it seems all of us tend to complicate things along the way on our individual journeys to learning the truths of God. As if real learning can only come by complexity. It's amazing how simple truth really is once you learn it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This is a false dilemma - You are not using "mercy" here as a forensic concept at all. Can you imagine guilty condemned murderers(who chose to murder and then were found guilty of it) - being brought before the king right before they're hanged - and if the king points his thumb down, the murderer is hanged - and if the king points his thumb up, the murderer is released - can you imagine such a scenario where the king "cannot" show mercy because he has to wait for a favorable response from the condemned? How is that even mercy? Besides, doesn't Rom 9:16 clearly specify that it doesn't depend on man's will but on God's mercy?

Even so, the contextual sequence is -
1. law from God
2. rebellion from man
3. command to obey the Gospel from God
4. disobedience from man
5. judgement and condemnation by God
6. Willing mercy from God

I am saying that up to Step 5, every single man has the same result - and this takes into complete consideration, their will/choices in steps 2 and 4. The difference in result arises in step 6 dependent upon God's mercy - which is not dependent on man's will. So, will you look at only step 6, ignoring the preceding steps and conclude that - "God shows mercy to whom He wills, without any consideration of their will" - or will you look at all the steps and conclude that - "God shows sovereign mercy to whom He wills, having found all of them guilty by their own will". I'd go with the latter.

So, without me debating the content of your six points (which I could), is it fair to summarize your argument as being, "few are saved because God simply refuses to have mercy on them entirely at his own discretion, and not based on any input owned and provided by the individual themselves whatsoever?" Yes, or no?

You mean "unrighteousness" is of ourselves - lest it amount to the Rom 10:3 self/own-righteousness?

No.

I mean the element that is within ourselves is whether the soil of our heart will receive a planting of righteousness, or will not receive a planting of righteousness. (Because of Adam it already raises a harvest of unrighteousness all by itself.) Do you see the difference between that, and what you're saying?

There is something inherent in any one person's 'soil' (the soil of their heart) that, when cultivated, and planted, and irrigated with the Word, and the grace, and mercy of God that will either bring that work of righteousness sown in that soil to fruition, or won't bring it to fruition. Land that doesn't bring forth a harvest useful to the farmer working that land will, in the end, be burned (Hebrews 6:7-8), the grace of God having had no effect on what God wants to grow in that soil despite his attempt to do so. The problem ultimately being in the soil itself, not in what God did or didn't do in that soil. Even though it's clear nothing would happen in the field anyway if he did not farm it in the first place.

And our renewed spirit(in the inner man) is the nature of God - generating godly desires, counsel from the Mind of Christ and power of the Holy Spirit to act. Anyway, you still haven't answered my questions on this from the earlier post - I had begun by asking what causes the difference in one choosing to believe and one choosing not to believe - and you say that the difference arises in one's inherent potential to love what is right.

How is that not an answer? It comes down to whether you have soil, when given the chance, that wants to support righteous growth, or soil that doesn't want to support righteous growth.

God doesn't determine who will have good soil, and who will have bad soil. But it's certainly true that good soil will never come to fruition without God's purposeful intervention of his grace and mercy. That's the element of salvation that makes it to his credit, not ours. But the potential of the soil itself is our doing, not his. But if you want to argue that he is the one who makes people with either good or bad soil, then you have no choice but to say God was lying when he said that he desires that all men be saved, all the while knowing he's really only going to make a few that can be saved.

And I'd press further and ask what causes the difference in one to have this inherent potential to love what is right while another doesn't?

Again, if you want to argue that it is God who literally gives us our thoughts and intentions and desires apart from any consideration of we ourselves having our own thoughts and intentions and desires then you have no choice but to accept the glaring contradiction between the Biblical fact that God says he wants all men to be saved with the fact that he will in the end only enable a very few people to have the potential to be saved.

I agree with you that God created man in the flesh(self-nature) which 'self' generates our desires,counsel and power to implement the counselled desires - but God, to be Right on His part, has to have created every single man with the potential/capacity to love righteousness. What then causes such inherent love for righteousness to be taken away in those who now don't believe.

It's not taken away. It is captured and suppressed by the evil one. Take away the suppression/oppression of the evil one and the person is now free to act in accordance with his fundamental love for, or hatred toward righteousness. That's God's whole mission is in this fallen world--find who will be shown to have the right soil for righteous growth, and who will not. He finds out by doing a little, or a lot, of planting, watering, and weeding.

Besides, when the oft-used-verses-in-such-cases Rom 3:10-12 states "none is righteous, none seek God, none does good" - how do you interpret that in light of this inherent righteousness doctrine of yours?

It's not an inherent righteousness (nobody but God has that). What it is in an inherent desire to either love and accept righteousness, or hate and reject it, when given the opportunity to choose (for now, in Adam, it has no choice). It's about being soil that wants to support righteousness, vs soil that does not want righteousness from God planted in it. That's what God's calling is all about. Those who want the promise of God's righteousness are elected to salvation. Many are called, few are chosen. Not because God determined that, but because most men don't want God's righteousness growing and flourishing by his grace in the soil of their hearts.

Obviously, you can see I'm referring to the parable of the sower. None of the different soils had any righteous growth in them--they didn't even have the seeds of righteousness in them. What the farmer finds out by spreading seed in the soil is what soil will, of it's own fundamental potential, accept and bring the seeds of righteousness of the farmer planted in it to fruition, and which soil will not.

I contend that the fundamental potential of the soil lies within us, not God. God's grace and mercy is what realizes the potential. A potential that in no way shape or form can be realized by the soil by itself, and that's what makes any righteousness that does grow there, in the end, dependent on the farmer who planted it there, not the soil that nurtured it and, therefore, all to the glory of the farmer, not the soil it was planted in.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This is all completely true - but the law did specify the means to life(Lev 18:5), one of the purposes of how it will show our utter sinfulness.

Some of the fallout of the church separating itself from the Jews way back in the third and fourth centuries was now being unable to understand 'salvation' in terms of the quality of life now, not just in the life to come.

It's absolutely true now, as it was then, that if you do not obey God you can not walk in the life that he promises in this life to those who do obey him. But the church can only understand 'life' in terms of being condemned at the Judgment, or not being condemned at the Judgment.

God was not lying when he said a man will 'live' if he obeys the law of God. What we don't understand is he wasn't saying a man is made righteous (justified) if he obeys the law, as if that was possible to do. But self-righteous people will, by God's design (IMO), perceive it that way, and serve God's purpose of dividing the humble from the proud--those who know God is the only source of righteousness and will fall on his mercy and be saved, and those who think they are righteous in themselves and will not fall on his mercy and be saved.

Going to bed. I'll finish the rest of your post as I can tomorrow. I'm staring down three solid days of homework.

 

[jasoncran]

lol, nice siggy jethro.

Chopper, as jethro argues the law with its works and faith as means of salvation. that is close to how the jews see the torah and they see it as instructions from God as a means to teach us what to do and what he wants.

 

[Chopper]

lol, nice siggy jethro.

Chopper, as jethro argues the law with its works and faith as means of salvation. that is close to how the jews see the torah and they see it as instructions from God as a means to teach us what to do and what he wants.

Thank you Jason, I love your reply's to me, your point of view teaches me soooo much! As a side note, have you heard anything from Marshall or any of the ones I'm praying for?

 

[Chopper]

I think we can be a little bit more specific.
Jews and Christians use this age as an age of accountability.
But each child's learning ability varies.
Each person will be able to make moral decisions at a different time in their lives.
We can go a bit further.
What about people who are "slow" or fully retarded?
I find that if you tell both groups about Jesus, they will love Jesus (I'm sure there are exceptions).
But basically, they will all be saved.

You are absolutely right, my friend, It is so important IMO that Christian parents stay aware of their childrens perception of right & wrong,as you have mentioned. Those who have mental challenges are so special in Jesus' heart, He wraps His arms around them their entire lives until He brings them home. It certainly is different for each person. We, sometimes are not very sensitive toward their needs but Jesus is, praise His wonderful Name.

 

[jasoncran]

Thank you Jason, I love your reply's to me, your point of view teaches me soooo much! As a side note, have you heard anything from Marshall or any of the ones I'm praying for?

no, hmm but I have talked david.

 

[jasoncran]

i do know a way to find a way about marshall. i was planning to go to graves my family and do the kaddish prayer and leave my menorah, i can call that man and ask , i know he would know about him if he is alive. i believe both klines are in contact with him

 

[Chopper]

i do know a way to find a way about marshall. i was planning to go to graves my family and do the kaddish prayer and leave my menorah, i can call that man and ask , i know he would know about him if he is alive. i believe both klines are in contact with him

OK, thank you, I still pray for those who you listed.

 

[jasoncran]

daivid, roy, and all the cranmans are on fb but its rude for me even though i am jewish to talk to them about the lord in their eyes. i have to be very subtle with them. my bro is better at that then i am.

 

[Chopper]

daivid, roy, and all the cranmans are on fb but its rude for me even though i am jewish to talk to them about the lord in their eyes. i have to be very subtle with them. my bro is better at that then i am.

Thanks.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This is all completely true - but the law did specify the means to life(Lev 18:5), one of the purposes of how it will show our utter sinfulness.

More on this...

This is actually the scripture that I think caused the Israelites to think the law was how they could be made righteous:

"25 And if we are careful to obey all this law before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness.”" (Deuteronomy 6:25 NIV)

Humble people know God is saying you'll be showing your righteousness by your obedience to the law (and realize they have no righteousness of their own), while proud and arrogant people will see this as God saying you will be made righteous by obeying the law and be deceived (by their own arrogance) that they have the righteousness God is looking for.

Here, I ask why must God be a liar when He says He desires all(I do not wish to argue on this word now) men to be saved? Cannot God have multiple valid desires of which He chooses only one to be implemented - Jesus desired the cup to pass away but He desired the Father's will be done, more.

"32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!" (Ezekiel 18:32 NIV)
Feel free to explain how God can say he desires that man not die for choosing sin, at the same time that he also made them without the free will to do that.

You're playing both sides here. What's the difference between man's 'own potential of righteousness' to believe in Christ and his 'own inherent self-righteousness' ?

I'm just scrolling through your posts in order. I'm confident my previous posts have answered this for you. It's not about the soil of men's heart being righteous, or unrighteous in and of itself. It's about whether or not the soil will receive and maintain a planting of God's righteousness in it.

This is where I require to know your views on whether man believes "in the flesh(self-nature)" or "in the spirit(God-nature)" , not the same as Holy Spirit.

The problem is you are trapped in the indoctrination in the church of what these terms mean and can't imagine that the Spirit can move in the hearts of both believers, and unbelievers. Even now some are thinking that is so utterly blasphemous because we are taught in the church that the activity of the Spirit is only the privilege of the already born again. But we see in scripture that it is necessary that the Spirit move first in a person's heart before they can come to Christ.

You're inserting your view into mine here - I didn't say being subject to the power of the Spirit means regeneration. I said repenting and believing in Christ is evidence of having been regenerated.

I know what you said. You said a man must be regenerated first before he can believe in Christ. I only used the word 'regeneration' because you did. Regeneration means 'born-again'.

As to your above examples, I do not see where exactly it is mentioned that they were born again/regenerated.

We can learn more by looking at where we know they weren't born-again/ regenerated. Look at God talking to Paul through the power of the Holy Spirit before he was regenerated/saved in Acts 26:12-18 NIV. And look at the Ethiopian coming to faith in Christ because the Holy Spirit first ministered the truth to him of who Jesus is so he could then place his faith in Jesus in Acts 8:29-38. Do you think both Paul and the Ethiopian had to be born again first in order to hear the testimony of the Spirit? No, of course not. It was the testimony of the Holy Spirit giving them the faith to believe that then resulted in them getting born-again.

And I've been saying that you've got it wrong the other way around. "Believing" is to hold a premise as true. "Believing [in/upon]" is a phrasal verb that is the verb form of the noun "faith", both meaning exactly the same in their respective parts of speech - ie. to hold as true, the sufficiency of a person to fulfill an expected/promised outcome on the basis of their own nature/abilities.

And where has the Bible used the word 'faith'[Strong's G4102] to mean mere 'knowing' - and when the Bible has used the word "believe"[G4100] in James 2:19, why must I reject that from the Bible for an "obvious" unsubstantiated definition?

I've been saying that it's not about the syntax of the word 'faith', it's about the semantics of the word 'faith'--IOW, what the word 'faith' means in any one context it is used in.

James talks about 'faith' that is not salvic, and how that faith is mere knowing (the demons know 'God is One'), and is (obviously) not trusting in God for salvation. But you insist that 'faith' has to always and without exception mean 'regeneration/salvation'. And thus your argument that man must be regenerated first in order to know the gospel is true. I'm saying you have to know that the gospel is true first before you can place your trust in it and be saved. That prerequisite for 'knowing' is by definition 'faith':

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1 NIV)

Obviously, a person has to first be convicted that what the Holy Spirit is telling them is true before they can then place their trust in that truth and be saved as a result. You were......right? I was. That's only logical.

Firstly, what are these Scriptures and tell me how they deny my views on this? Secondly, let's assume the church and I have gotten it wrong - so I'd think the best way to prove it is by taking a stance on this and proceeding to answer/clarify this - you do realize you haven't answered this question yet. I'm also fine with you bringing up a new consistent theory to propose that man could neither be in the flesh nor in the spirit while believing in Christ.

It's not about being 'in the Spirit', or 'in the flesh' when being subject to the testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking to an unbeliever's heart. You're trapped by these little catch phrases and not considering that hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit is just a matter of...well...simply hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit. But the church is conditioned to automatically assume that only regenerated/born-again people can hear the Holy Spirit. But I showed you two examples, Paul and the Ethiopian, that show that simply is not true. Here we see John talking about this activity of the Holy Spirit wooing people to a salvation experience:

"It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.7 For there are three that testify:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son." (1 John 5:6-10 NIV)

We see that some reject the truth when it is shown to them to be the truth. They know it's the truth but choose to not retain that truth. But you are, in effect, saying they can only know it's the truth if they are first born-again. That's not what I see. I see God showing men the truth SO they can be born-again.