Ok fair points, but now I have a question is there is a difference between dleshly faith and spiritual faith? Because in scripture and by scripture it speaks of faith by hearing the word of God now in every instance you mentioned there was no word of or from God so why did the scriptures say faith is produced by that if faith itself can be produced without that?
You asked, " is there a difference between fleshly faith and spiritual faith?"
Basically they are the same. the difference is what the "object " of faith is, and how said faith is "applied," and how long they take to become fact.
using the examples i gave you for temporal faith and faithing.
In 1) the objects of faith are the food (the parts of food you can't see and are invisible).
2) the object of faith is the air, invisible and unseen.
3) the object of faith is the car, specifically all the working engine parts. they are unseen, invisible.
4) the intersection, the object of faith are the people in the other cars, and what they are doing at that moment. unseen, invisible.
Not much different in the spiritual relationship with the living God, unseen, invisible. the difference between the flesh and spirit, is i can have the food tested and proven to be safe, faith over, it's a fact now. I can have the air quality tested and proven to be safe, faith over, it's a fact now. I can have my engine looked at and proven to be safe, faith over, it's a fact now. So all theses acts of faith in the temporal are becoming facts at some point. And, some day our faithing relationship with the living and invisible God will become a fact also, and that act of faith will be over, and will be a fact now. It's just going to take longer. ( we just need to make sure we are fulfilling pisteuo correctly with a continually surrendered life and living a life inspired by such surrender. And not by the mistranslated words believe, believer, and believing in Gods word. the object of Faith and faithing has to be God himself.)
As for Rom. 10:17, this is the problem.
1) the word "Faith" in that passage is the noun pistis, 4102 "a thing" and is translated to mean conviction, reliance upon, ( it's not the verb "pisteuo" where we get the mistranslated words believe, believer, and believing.)
2) the word "hearing", used twice in that passage,189, also a noun, a thing, and means a thing heard, ( in the strongs, it notes that this kind of hearing needs to be compared to a courtroom hearing. in which a decision is always made.)
3) the other important word in Rom. 10:17 is the word "word". 4487, Rhema and means "an utterance, narration, instruction." ( not the word euaggelion which is the Greek word for gospel)
4) the word "God" 2316 and means supreme deity.
So this is how rom. 10:17 should read, in relation to God and His word.
"So then Faith ( conviction and reliance upon God) comes ( added by the translators) by hearing, (a thing heard) a hearing ( a thing heard ) by the word (utterances, narration, and instruction) of God . (the supreme deity.)
It's when we try to make the word "faith" a verb and insert the mistranslated words believe, believer, and believing in this passage is error. And insert the word gospel for "word" in this passage which is error also. and try to use the word Lord or Jesus in the Passage instead of God. And yes , before you go ballistic on me, i understand all about the trinity and am in full understanding of it. But the passage uses the word "God" which specifically means "supreme deity".
So in my discernment, Rom. 10:17 is highlighting more of the call ( utterance, narration, instruction, of the Father to Christ when this was written. Not the gospel as we know it today. so even though we (should) have a better understanding of "the gospel" today, we need to be careful not to use it to support a bad understanding like the believe and recieve doctrine. IMU
