You can disagree all you want. But the truth is that the definition of faith is ABSOLUTELY belief without proof or certainty.
Again, that might be the modern dictionary definition of the word. But that is not the Biblical meaning of the word.
You don't even have proof or certainty that God exists.
Yes we do have proof of God's existence. Paul wrote,
Romans 1:18-23
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
I know about the four philosophical proofs for God's existence. But in this passage, Paul asks the reader to walk outside and look up at the night sky. That's all the proof we need.
Biblical faith is not another way of knowing.
And that is precisely the essence of God's word. Had God wanted to provide proof and certainty of His existence He could have done that easily, but He didn't. His objective was to assemble a people who would love Him and believe in Him.
Many people today have the mistaken belief that 100% certainty is necessary to believe something. Critics often demand mathematical or scientific proof in order to accept an argument. Unfortunately, some modern theologians have responded to this by proposing that spiritual truth can only be known through a special type of knowledge called "faith". However, this is not a biblical response to skepticism and it can sound ridiculous to others. Christians should not dismiss scientific knowledge in favor of faith, but instead recognize that both can coexist and complement each other. Faith is not the enemy of reason. Rather, fantasy is.
Bible students often refer to Thomas, known by Theologians as "doubting Thomas" as an example of "belief" apart from knowing. But such theologians need to understand what Jesus actually meant.
John 20:28-29
Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
Thomas asked for an eyewitness demonstration that the Lord was still alive. But Thomas didn't ask for anything different than what the other apostles got. Peter and John both ran to the tomb. Jesus isn't saying that one needs access to a special kind of knowing in order to accept the fact that God raised him from the dead. Nothing of the sort. Thomas relied on empirical knowledge in order to accept the resurrection. Jesus is blessing those who won't have empirical knowledge. Christians living today can't put their fingers into Jesus' side or feel his hands. But they accept the resurrection on the basis of eyewitness testimony. Atheist skeptics have no rational basis on which to reject apostolic witness. Otherwise they would be compelled to reject the eyewitness testimony in a murder trial. Eye witness testimony isn't a supernatural means of knowing and it is just as rational as empirical knowledge.
Paul, in speaking of believing in God, began with Abraham. He said, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" (Rom 4:3). Counted unto him for righteousness means that God declared Abraham to be righteous. That is what justification means. Justification means that God forgave his sins. That in part constitutes salvation. It was Abraham's faith that God counted to Abraham for salvation.
Yes, in the case of Abraham, what was unseen, i.e. justification, was made evident when God declared it to be so. The point is, Paul is not defining faith as believing truth claims apart from proof. Paul is NOT defining faith at all, and he is definitely not suggesting that faith is a strong belief in something or someone, especially without logical proof or evidence. On the contrary, Paul takes us to the OT in order to prove his assertion that whenever God voiced his approval, he was approving men and women who acted on their conviction that God was able and willing to keep his promises. There is no Biblical evidence to suggest that their convictions were unfounded.
Dogmatism is a virtue in a religious context, but not a virtue in the Bible. The Bible commends faith, not dogmatism. A little faith or a lack of faith is synonymous with a little knowledge about God or a lack of knowledge about God.
Nonsense. Faith is the basis of God's approval.
Paul doesn't say that faith is the basis of God's approval. He says that faith is the evidence of God's approval. There is a difference.
Paul said in Romans 4:20-24:
"No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was "counted to him as righteousness." But the words "it was counted to him" were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, "
So just as Abraham's faith was counted to him for salvation, our faith is also counted to us for salvation. That is what it means that salvation is through faith.
I disagree. You have a really bad translation. Ask yourself this. Was God giving Abraham what he deserved? Did Abraham merit God's justification by placing confidence in God's promises? Paul would say no, because otherwise it wouldn't be on the basis of Grace. This is why Paul says that we are saved "by" grace "through" faith. The reason why we are being saved is God's grace. Faith is the process where by God makes his salvation manifest. If we must supply faith in order to be saved then God would be unjust not to give us salvation and faith would become a wage.
And with that I will leave this discussion. The problem with discussing soteriology with Calvinists is exactly as you have demonstrated. You don't even speak the same language. Calvinists have a soteriological jargon quite apart from scripture. That of course is necessary for alignment with the erroneous and heretical doctrine of Total Depravity.
Too bad. In case you want to know, my name is not Rumpelstiltskin.