Faith? What do you mean by faith?

[leftrightleftrightleft]

"I have faith in God" seems to always be able to be translated in two ways:

1) "I have trust in God because evidence suggests he is trustworthy"
2) "I have evidence which I find compelling for God's existence"

Faith and evidence are closely linked.

In the first case, faith is akin to trust in God's abilities. This is wholly separate than faith that God exists. Consider the analogy that I have faith that my wife will come home on time versus the faith that I have that my wife exists.

The reason I have faith that my wife will come home on time is because I have personal evidence from the last 20 times that she has come home on time. However, if the next 10 times, she comes home late, then my faith will be eroded.

The reason I have faith that my wife exists is because I have compelling evidence for her existence such as photographs, face-to-face meetings, marriage certificate, etc. If anyone were to doubt her existence, I could readily arrange any of these pieces of evidence and the case would likely be settled that she unambiguously exists. However, if some lines of evidence were shown to be invalid, false or questionable (e.g. no one else could see her except me), then my faith would be eroded.

So, my faith in my wife (both in her actions and her existence) depends on evidence.


If my wife came home late every single night for the last 10 years and I still adamantly state that she will be home on time tonight, do I have faith or am I delusional and out-of-touch? Is such faith virtuous?


How many times must God fail before your faith in God's abilities gets eroded?
How many people that don't see the same god as you (or any god at all) are needed before you faith in God's existence is eroded?
How much evidence is required to erode your faith in God?

 

[anonymous person]

I had rather exercise faith than know the definition thereof.

- Thomas à Kempis

What we place our faith in tells a lot about us. One thing it demonstrates is what we hope for and where our hope is. When we trust in someone and hope in someone to a certain degree, and this trust and hope is accompanied by a willingness, yea, even a desire to take them at their word, even when we cannot see with our eyes, we are enabled to step from the seen to the unseen.

That is why God said that the just shall live by faith. Without faith, it is impossible to please God.

Check out this article. It's very good.

http://rzim.org/a-slice-of-infinity/what-is-faith-2/

 

[Soyeong]

"I have faith in God" seems to always be able to be translated in two ways:

1) "I have trust in God because evidence suggests he is trustworthy"
2) "I have evidence which I find compelling for God's existence"

Faith and evidence are closely linked.

In the first case, faith is akin to trust in God's abilities. This is wholly separate than faith that God exists. Consider the analogy that I have faith that my wife will come home on time versus the faith that I have that my wife exists.

The reason I have faith that my wife will come home on time is because I have personal evidence from the last 20 times that she has come home on time. However, if the next 10 times, she comes home late, then my faith will be eroded.

The reason I have faith that my wife exists is because I have compelling evidence for her existence such as photographs, face-to-face meetings, marriage certificate, etc. If anyone were to doubt her existence, I could readily arrange any of these pieces of evidence and the case would likely be settled that she unambiguously exists. However, if some lines of evidence were shown to be invalid, false or questionable (e.g. no one else could see her except me), then my faith would be eroded.

So, my faith in my wife (both in her actions and her existence) depends on evidence.

If my wife came home late every single night for the last 10 years and I still adamantly state that she will be home on time tonight, do I have faith or am I delusional and out-of-touch? Is such faith virtuous?


How many times must God fail before your faith in God's abilities gets eroded?
How many people that don't see the same god as you (or any god at all) are needed before you faith in God's existence is eroded?
How much evidence is required to erode your faith in God?

"Faith" is synonymous with "trust" and it doesn't make much sense to trust someone to exist. We must first have reason to believe that God exists before we can trust Him to do something.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
Hebrews 11:1 NIV
http://bible.com/111/heb.11.1.NIV

 

[bling]

"I have faith in God" seems to always be able to be translated in two ways:

1) "I have trust in God because evidence suggests he is trustworthy"
2) "I have evidence which I find compelling for God's existence"

Faith and evidence are closely linked.

In the first case, faith is akin to trust in God's abilities. This is wholly separate than faith that God exists. Consider the analogy that I have faith that my wife will come home on time versus the faith that I have that my wife exists.

The reason I have faith that my wife will come home on time is because I have personal evidence from the last 20 times that she has come home on time. However, if the next 10 times, she comes home late, then my faith will be eroded.

The reason I have faith that my wife exists is because I have compelling evidence for her existence such as photographs, face-to-face meetings, marriage certificate, etc. If anyone were to doubt her existence, I could readily arrange any of these pieces of evidence and the case would likely be settled that she unambiguously exists. However, if some lines of evidence were shown to be invalid, false or questionable (e.g. no one else could see her except me), then my faith would be eroded.

So, my faith in my wife (both in her actions and her existence) depends on evidence.


If my wife came home late every single night for the last 10 years and I still adamantly state that she will be home on time tonight, do I have faith or am I delusional and out-of-touch? Is such faith virtuous?


How many times must God fail before your faith in God's abilities gets eroded?
How many people that don't see the same god as you (or any god at all) are needed before you faith in God's existence is eroded?
How much evidence is required to erode your faith in God?

I think you are confusing “knowledge” and “faith”.

We have “knowledge” of stuff from the evidence we have collected. This “knowledge” can be scientifically verifiable, but does “knowledge” help us in the fulfilling of our initial earthly objective?

The true “Christian” might need personal assurance of God’s existence and assurance God will keep His promises, which is given the Christian in the form of a personal indwelling Holy Spirit, but would that help the nonbeliever?

What is the initial objective of the nonbeliever and how does “faith” help?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
Hebrews 11:1 NIV
http://bible.com/111/heb.11.1.NIV

In other words, being sure of things because you want them to be true, not because you have any good reason to.

No thanks.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

In other words, being sure of things because you want them to be true, not because you have any good reason to.

No thanks.

Close, but not necessarily. The key words here are "confidence" and "assurance". Ask yourself, what brings you confidence and assurance in something or someone?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Close, but not necessarily. The key words here are "confidence" and "assurance". Ask yourself, what brings you confidence and assurance in something or someone?

I have confidence and assurance in something or someone based on reasons and evidence. Or, in the parlance of the scripture you quoted, by what I 'see'.

Which is exactly the thing that faith is not based on, as per your scripture.

Hence why I have neither the need nor desire for it.

 

[Soyeong]

In other words, being sure of things because you want them to be true, not because you have any good reason to.

No thanks.

We have confidence only because we have been given reason to have confidence, not because we want something to be true. For example, if you have a friend who has been trustworthy in the past who makes a promise to you about what they will do in the future, then you can have good reason to have faith that they will keep their promise even though the future is unseen.

 

[anonymous person]

I have confidence and assurance in something or someone based on reasons and evidence. Or, in the parlance of the scripture you quoted, by what I 'see'.

Which is exactly the thing that faith is not based on, as per your scripture.

Hence why I have neither the need nor desire for it.

God respects the boundaries we mark out and the walls we erect around ourselves.

He respected my walls and boundaries as He respects yours.

He reveals Himself to babes and hides Himself from the wise and prudent.

The little child has no walls or boundaries around itself. A simple, naked, unpretentious trust is what characterizes a child and that is why Jesus took a little child and stood him in the midst of a group of self-centered, egotistical men who were arguing about who would be the greatest among them.

He then said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

The principle is clear and the path to knowing God begins here. The kingdom of heaven is barred against people who have not turned and become as children.

It is forever barred against those who trust in themselves and their abilities, knowledge, intellect, opinions, and whatever else they hope in. Such people are unable to perceive spiritual matters because such matters are not accessible to them through the means in which they hope and trust in.

The hardest thing I have ever had to do in my thirty one years was get down on my knees, humble myself, and cry out to God to forgive me of my sins on the merit of Jesus' finished work on the cross. It required me to tear down those walls and boundaries I had erected, to lay my wisdom and intellect and knowledge and learning down at the foot of the cross and acknowledge that for them all they were powerless to save.

You neither need nor desire that which we speak of because you confess to have no sin. After healing a man blind from birth, the Pharisees denied that he was even blind and Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.”

Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, “Are we also blind?” Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.

You are just like the Pharisees. They saw themselves as wise intellectuals. Their pride blinded them from seeing their truly wretched state. They swore up and down that they were able to see and because of this, Jesus said their guilt remained.

They would have said they neither needed nor desired Jesus and Jesus respected that.

That is why God has so ordained that justification come through faith. It is because God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.

If you ever demand evidence for the truth claims of Christianity without having first humbled yourself as a child, acknowledging your helplessness, then you place yourself right along with those who desired to crucify Jesus. You place yourself among the pretentious, prideful, hard hearted and self righteous religious leaders who demanded signs and wonders. Jesus called such people wicked and adulterous.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

We have confidence only because we have been given reason to have confidence, not because we want something to be true. For example, if you have a friend who has been trustworthy in the past who makes a promise to you about what they will do in the future, then you can have good reason to have faith that they will keep their promise even though the future is unseen.

Oh, I get it. So when scripture says that 'faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see', it actually means 'faith is not confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do see'.

And here I was under the impression that words have meaning. It sure is nice to have believers around to explain these things to me.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I have confidence and assurance in something or someone based on reasons and evidence. Or, in the parlance of the scripture you quoted, by what I 'see'.

Which is exactly the thing that faith is not based on, as per your scripture.

Hence why I have neither the need nor desire for it.

So, why do reasons and evidence give you confidence and assurance?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Oh, I get it. So when scripture says that 'faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see', it actually means 'faith is not confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do see'.

And here I was under the impression that words have meaning. It sure is nice to have believers around to explain these things to me.

Please don't with the sarcastic strawman. I sincerely want to help you understand.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

God respects the boundaries we mark out and the walls we erect around ourselves.

He respected my walls and boundaries as He respects yours.

He reveals Himself to babes and hides Himself from the wise and prudent.

The little child has no walls or boundaries around itself. A simple, naked, unpretentious trust is what characterizes a child and that is why Jesus took a little child and stood him in the midst of a group of self-centered, egotistical men who were arguing about who would be the greatest among them.

He then said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

The principle is clear and the path to knowing God begins here. The kingdom of heaven is barred against people who have not turned and become as children.

It is forever barred against those who trust in themselves and their abilities, knowledge, intellect, opinions, and whatever else they hope in. Such people are unable to perceive spiritual matters because such matters are not accessible to them through the means in which they hope and trust in.

The hardest thing I have ever had to do in my thirty one years was get down on my knees, humble myself, and cry out to God to forgive me of my sins on the merit of Jesus' finished work on the cross. It required me to tear down those walls and boundaries I had erected, to lay my wisdom and intellect and knowledge and learning down at the foot of the cross and acknowledge that for them all they were powerless to save.

You neither need nor desire that which we speak of because you confess to have no sin. After healing a man blind from birth, the Pharisees denied that he was even blind and Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.”

Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, “Are we also blind?” Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.

You are just like the Pharisees. They saw themselves as wise intellectuals. Their pride blinded them from seeing their truly wretched state. They swore up and down that they were able to see and because of this, Jesus said their guilt remained.

They would have said they neither needed nor desired Jesus and Jesus respected that.

That is why God has so ordained that justification come through faith. It is because God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.

If you ever demand evidence for the truth claims of Christianity without having first humbled yourself as a child, acknowledging your helplessness, then you place yourself right along with those who desired to crucify Jesus. You place yourself among the pretentious, prideful, hard hearted and self righteous religious leaders who demanded signs and wonders. Jesus called such people wicked and adulterous.

You and every other stripe of believer on the planet imagine yourselves to be possessors of some profound 'truth' which you can't even coherently define, let alone demonstrate in any meaningful fashion whatsoever. Yet I'm the 'pretentious' one... that's almost to pathetic to be laughable, but not quite.

Sermons bore me. Come back when you have an argument.

 

[anonymous person]

Please don't with the sarcastic strawman. I sincerely want to help you understand.

He's not here to understand. He's here to mock and scoff and ridicule. Our response should be Christ's response to such people. Silence.

 

[Soyeong]

Oh, I get it. So when scripture says that 'faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see', it actually means 'faith is not confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do see'.

And here I was under the impression that words have meaning. It sure is nice to have believers around to explain these things to me.

Your misunderstanding is that you think that what we do not see are the reasons for being confident rather than having reason to be confident about something that we do not see, such as what will happen in the future. For example, if someone's car has been reliable in the past, then they can have confidence that it will continue to reliably get them to their destination even though the future is unseen. Confidence doesn't spontaneously come from nowhere, but rather it comes from being given reasons to have confidence, but you've arbitrarily decided that the confidence must come from wanting something to be true, which is not supported by the verse, the rest of the Bible, or reality.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You and every other stripe of believer on the planet imagine yourselves to be possessors of some profound 'truth' which you can't even coherently define, let alone demonstrate in any meaningful fashion whatsoever. Yet I'm the 'pretentious' one... that's almost to pathetic to be laughable, but not quite.

Sermons bore me. Come back when you have an argument.

Let me ask you an honest question. Do you truly want to understand the answer to the question or was the question only raised in order to put the topic on the table for mockery and ridicule? If you truly want to understand, please explain to me why evidence and reasons give you confidence and assurance.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Your misunderstanding is that you think that what we do not see are the reasons for being confident rather than having reason to be confident about something that we do not see, such as what will happen in the future. For example, if someone's car has been reliable in the past, then they can have confidence that it will continue to reliably get them to their destination even though the future is unseen.

Sounds like regular old belief to me. I have a word for that already. It's called 'belief'.

So at best, given this definition, 'faith' is superfluous, and I still have no need of it.

Confidence doesn't spontaneously come from nowhere, but rather it comes from being given reasons to have confidence,

Right so far.

but you've arbitrarily decided that the confidence must come from wanting something to be true, which is not supported by the verse, the rest of the Bible, or reality.

Nope, you're the one being arbitrary. You've decided, a propos of nothing, that the category of 'things unseen' refers specifically - indeed, exclusively - the future events, which is not indicated in the scripture. You've just gone with that because it happens to suit your apologetic.

That doesn't really matter, though. As I've said, the very best you're getting at here is a definition of 'faith' that is superfluous. So, take it or leave it.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Let me ask you an honest question. Do you truly want to understand the answer to the question or was the question only raised in order to put the topic on the table for mockery and ridicule?

That's a loaded question, as I'm not yet convinced that there is anything to understand in the first place. You're jumping ahead further in the line of discourse than you've yet earned.

I will say, it is very telling of the religious mindset that basic scrutiny is looked at as 'mockery and ridicule'.

If you truly want to understand, please explain to me why evidence and reasons give you confidence and assurance.

I don't get it. You seem to be asking why are reasons for believing something grounds for thinking a thing is true.

In other words, why are reasons for believing something... reasons for believing something?

Are you trying to ask something else, or do you really want to get into the philosophy of language?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

That's a loaded question, as I'm not yet convinced that there is anything to understand in the first place. You're jumping ahead further in the line of discourse than you've yet earned.

I will say, it is very telling of the religious mindset that basic scrutiny is looked at as 'mockery and ridicule'.



I don't get it. You seem to be asking why are reasons for believing something grounds for thinking a thing is true.

In other words, why are reasons for believing something... reasons for believing something?

Are you trying to ask something else, or do you really want to get into the philosophy of language?

Let me break this down into smaller bites for you. In the original greek, confidence and assurance is ὑπόστασις, εως meaning that which provides the basis for trust and reliance—‘trust, confidence, assurance.’ So the previous poster is correct in his statement that it is based on trust. Knowing this now, can i safely assume "evidence and reasons" give you confidence and assurance because you trust them?