|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 13, 2009 21:05:40 GMT -8
Those of us who are Christians talk about "faith" all the time but when pressed to define the word you might find that you come up a bit short in expressing the full breadth of the meaning of the word.
I want to put forward a definition which I think is pretty thorough and also helpful in rescuing the word from soft sentiment and fuzzy ambiguity.
So, here goes, followed by related Scripture references.
Faith is warranted, active trust in God despite the absence of absolute intellectual certainty.
What do I mean by warranted?
I mean that faith is not completely blind. It is only so good as the person (or idea) you are putting your faith in. Christian faith is not a random decision to "believe" in something arbitrary. We have faith in God because He has demonstrated Himself trustworthy to us in some way (or many ways- personal or intellectual or both) In other words, we have good reason to place faith in Him (2 Peter 1:16, Luke 1:2, 1 Peter 3:15, 1 Cor. 15:14, etc)
What do I mean by active?
Christian faith is not believing in a set of abstract principles. It's trust that is put into action, or, in other words, trust that is acted upon. Abraham, for instance, demonstrated his faith not by merely claiming to believe that there was one God, but by being obedient to that one God, even when it hurt. Hebrews 11, that great faith chapter, exemplifies this idea by joining the faith of the heroes of the Old Testament with their actions. Talk about a chapter of action verbs!
Next, the essence of faith is Trust in God. Faith is primarily relational, not intellectual or even emotional. It is saying "I trust you God in this circumstance, and I trust you enough to obey You". God's whole point in creating this vast universe was to enable true, free, and loving relationships to exist, particularly between Himself and His creation. Sin interrupts relationships by clouding them over with doubt and selfishness. Faith is the perfect antidote for repairing the relationship with God because it chooses to believe what is true rather than the illusions created by sin; it enables us to choose to trust rather than protect our own selfish interests.
Despite the absence of absolute certainty.
Some say that faith is blind. I don't agree. It is not completely blind, as I said before. However, faith does acknowledge that there are things we cannot fully understand, know, or prove. And, in this knowledge, faith enables us to take a leap into the unknown through the trust we have in what we do know of God.
Faith enables us to move with confidence even when we're "in the dark". (Hebrews 11:1)
Thoughts? Additions? Rejoinders?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Nov 13, 2009 21:56:06 GMT -8
I agree with the spirit of your definition, but not some specifics.
Yes it is. It's just that we are not blind.
I don't like uninformed faith, to me blindly following is silly. We are neither blind nor followers, but informed leaders, making choices based on our intelligence. What happens when our intelligence (or anyone else's for that matter) can not explain something? We choose to accept it or not, classify it as fantasy or believe it in faith.
To me, the "magic" of faith, that which makes it so wondrous and desirable, is that I don't need the explanation, the facts, the logic, or reason to put my trust in it. It is a paradox, as faith is stronger than logic, more powerful than what can be conceived in the human mind.
When science (or history, or scholastic endeavor of any kind) proves something that we previously believed in through faith, logic replaces faith. We no longer need it to believe. At some point, there comes a point when things can not be proven in such a manner, and we are left with faith.
This seems like begging the question. What of people who do not feel this way? I have heard lots of testimonies where someone has felt completely abandoned by God, but then had a conversion experience of some kind. Certainly something happened that caused them to place trust in God, but they still could not describe a logical reason to believe, more just a "feeling" that it was right, something that takes faith to accept.
This explanation would mean that I believe God is trustworthy because He is trustworthy. Either I have proof (logic) or I believe it to be true (faith). If I have proof, I don't "believe" it, I "know" it. I don't need faith.
Intellect and emotion go hand in hand with relationships, so I don't really understand this statement. We have already been intellectual in faith (pubagetics) together, I'd wager you have had faith-based emotions.
The type of faith I am suggesting has to be active, as you state. Another "magic" part of faith is that it illicits action (James 2).
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 14, 2009 10:01:02 GMT -8
Interesting that you're separating faith from ourselves. I'll have to think about that some more, but my default position is obviously to not see a distinction there.
OK. You tell me. Is there a qualitative difference between these three people's faith?
Person 1: I believe that if I have enough faith I can jump off the top of Multonomah falls and float down safety to have a nice cup of hot chocolate at the lodge.
Person 2: I have faith that everything I'm experiencing is a illusion- that in reality I am actually dreaming. Therefor nothing I do really matters.
Person 3: I have faith there is a God who created the universe.
Faith can't just be deciding to believe something illogical for no good reason.
MOre in a minute...
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 14, 2009 10:10:50 GMT -8
Now this is an interesting twist? Does this is some way answer my question above or not?
What about when science or history disproves soemthing we previously believing in through faith? What do we do then? Continue on in faith? Or abandon our faith for logic?
I wrote:
First off, the demonstration need not be primarily intellectual, as I said above. It might be intuitive or emotional, but it is still a demonstration that God is worthy to be trusted.
This dichotomy of yours isn't true to experience, Kirby.
For instance, do you trust me? We don't know each other super well, but we have met (as adults) and had a good time together. We've had great dialogue online and, I presume, have gain respect for each other.
In other words, because of your actions, you have gained my trust and my faith. But I still need to have faith because I have no guarantees that you truly are trustworthy. I can't prove that I'm right to put my trust in you as a friend. But I do because you have demonstrated yourself trustworthy to some extent.
I wouldn't under normal experiences just grab some random person off the street without any experience with them and just decide to "trust" and "have faith" in them.
You're only talking about proof and faith. What about evidence which leads us to faith?
I think God definitely doesn't expect our faith without first demonstrating it is trustworthy in the first place.
1 John 4:19
We love because he first loved us.
Love takes faith and trust. But it made much easier because God loves us first- gives us evidence of his trustworthiness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 14, 2009 10:14:24 GMT -8
That's why I said that faith is primarily relational. But I shouldn't have said "Faith is primarily relational, not intellectual or even emotional." if that implies it doesn't have an intellectual or emotional component. My point was that faith, in the Christian sense, doesn't have to have attendant emotions all the time and it isn't faith in ideas, it is faith in a Person.
Lastly, I like your suggestion that faith is not only active but illicits action. Do you have more to say on that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 15, 2009 19:58:20 GMT -8
BTW, kirby, do you think that disciples had to have faith despite the fact that Jesus appeared to Him (proving His resurrection to them)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Nov 16, 2009 20:33:45 GMT -8
Crazy busy weekend and crazy busy day at work...I will respond, hopefully tomorrow...
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Nov 18, 2009 20:47:20 GMT -8
Why not? If I have a good reason, it is no longer illogical. You make good points. I guess what I'm getting at is that empirical evidence at best justifies our faith, but does not lead us to faith. At some point, there is a time when I choose to believe without evidence (the childlike faith in Mark 10) and then I suppose I could feel better about my decision when presented with evidence. I still think faith ceases when reason takes over. True faith. It is not reasonable to believe that someone would survive this. Not faith. Reason has already explained this possibility away (Descartes, Sartre et al.) Faith is belief in that which can not be reasoned, not something that is contradictory to reason. I'm not using faith as my excuse to believe whatever I want, I am separating faith and reason as two different ways of believing. It is not so much a dichotomy as it is a trichotomy: reason, unreason, and that which can not be reasoned. For me, it is impossible to know and understand God, it can not be reasoned, which is why faith is necessary. Faith. That can't be reasoned. Not faith. Intelligent Design theories have shown that origin accounts can be reasoned. Thanks. I think we should differentiate between Faith and faith though (you catch my drift?) I mean, faith in another human is another ballgame..we are talking about Faith in the unknown and the unknowable, rather than human experience. I guess on some levels they are similar, but is that what we are talking about? I don't know. You are making me think. Stop it.  More on action and the disciples faith later. |
|
|
|
Post by sarah on Nov 19, 2009 7:38:31 GMT -8
ok, so this is over simplified but this phrase has always spoken to me about one aspect of faith, I can't remember who wrote it but..
"Faith is accepting ordinary as God's best for me when I want to be special, special, special"
Now of course there are a lot of caveats to this, (we are all special children of God of course!). But it speaks to me on several other levels
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 22, 2009 20:58:57 GMT -8
Sarah, I like the quote!
Kirbstomp wrote:
Well, some report that evidence did lead them to faith (among other things)... C.S. Lewis would be a case in point.
Evidence has led me to faith at times as well (faith not being neccessarily a monumental one time decision but a daily choice)
Reason has not abolutely disproven the theory, so we still must exert some degree of faith that the world is not an illusion. And if this has not been absolutely disproven, there is at least a miniscule error bar on everything reason states, requiring some degree of faith for everything we hold to be true.
On another note, are you saying that absolutely no aspect of God can be reasoned?
In regard to having faith that God exists, how can you say reason doesn't enter into the equation.
Actually, scientific evidence weighs heavy on my mind when I think about why I should believe that God exists.
I absolutely do not think we should differentiate. Faith and trust are faith and trust regardless of whether they are applied to God or other humans. The only difference is the orders of magnitude, not the essential essence.
You must understand that I don't think God is completely unknowable or unknown. Neither does the Bible.
1 John 1:1
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.
Jeremiah 24:7
I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart.
Jeremiah 31:34
No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD.
John 10:14
"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—
Do you think the God you believe in is completely unable to make Himself known in some way?
And if He can make Himself known in some way, does He not demonstrate His trustworthiness in some way as well?
You coming to Pubagetics?
|
|
