Fideism: "God said it, and I believe it, and that settles it."

[Mark Quayle]

Taking this thought further: If this is true, then fallen man rejects all of God's reason, or only accepts it up to a certain point (where they then reject it).

This is where man is fundamentally "broken" in nature. This also reflects sin in the real world.

For example, a lie is a deliberate rejection, twisting, or violation of deductive truth. When a person becomes regenerate, then all of God's truth in nature becomes crystal clear. The regenerate man becomes a new creation, thus "fully awake" in God's creation.

As I have said often on other forums, other threads, The Truth of God's existence (as Omnipotent Creator (First Cause) is compelling, implying things by reason that the lost are unwilling to face.

 

[SkyWriting]

Fideism: "God said it, and I believe it, and that settles it."

I can't find the word in scripture.
Where did you hear of this?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I just "regurgitate it "stream-of-consciousness" style, and then proofread/edit afterwards.



Wow. I never thought of it that way before. I like it.

But I was coming from it as an ex-atheist. Before my conversion, no one took the time to define the word for me. Everytime I heard "faith," it was just some kind of superstitious abracadabra. Even worse, those who were trying to witness to me appealed to a purely subjective definition of the term, which made me instantly react, "Oh, so more abracadabra BS."

The best definition I heard was from one of my first pastors. He said that faith wasn't subjective, but OBJECTIVE. To demonstrate, he walked away from the pulpit and went over to the piano bench.

He said, "I admit I'm a bit overweight, but I still have faith that piano bench will hold me up." Then he stood there next to it with a long awkward silence, "What's missing?"

Congregation: "YOU'RE HAVEN'T SAT ON THE BENCH YET! LOL!"

"That's right!!!" the pastor replied. "Only until after you've rested your entire weight upon it are you exercising faith in the object. That's the way it is with faith in Christ."

I'll never forget that.

Later on, I learned that there's a real history behind this argument. The definition of the word "faith" itself became 2 definitions very quickly in the past 200 years. That was because simple "objective trust" took a backseat to Kierkegaard's mystical "Leap of Faith." Or a leap of faith into the absurd. Which was absolutely devastating to Christian philosophy. It made us all into techno-barbarians. IMO, we've been living in a dark ages of theology. Most of us are just pagans wearing crosses, atm.

Oh, my! I hadn't considered modern Christendom that way. I knew I had lost a lot of respect, or at least trust, in Christians in general, because I found out I wasn't the only one --none of them had it down! I still find it sometimes almost impossible to keep my mouth shut during Sunday School or preaching. Many, maybe most, of us reject Kierkegaard's work and philosophy, yet, I think you are right, now that I think on it --we have adopted it anyway, in part or to some degree. It has become a Christian worldview.

I have always felt instinctively that Fideism (I only recently knew the term, but the principle I knew all along) should be only in the face of overwhelming 'evidences', as presented by others, (not truth), that we just don't know how to argue against. If Scripture opposes, then I go with Scripture. But if what Christendom (Orthodoxy is usually deliciously concise, thank God) says the Bible opposes it, I am immediately skeptical of both sides. Reason then prevails, always along with Scripture study.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I can't find the word in scripture.
Where did you hear of this?

It is not a Bible word --at least, not as such. It is something I believe is worth pointing out, even criticizing, a habit of laziness, sometimes, to avoid reasoning any more than necessary.

Another reason I don't like it is it makes Christianity sound unreasonable and provides excuses to the lost to ignore (or worse) the truth. It may even indirectly provide an excuse for the 1st amendment to be suspended.

But anyway, I don't know where I first heard of it, though I know it was only lately that I began to use the term as such.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I can't find the word in scripture.
Where did you hear of this?

The Bible does say, "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." (1 Peter 3:15)

To me, that seems to imply reasoning, not just faith, maybe something the lost can follow and identify with.

 

[Paulomycin]

Current Western Religion in-general is stuck on the Kierkegaardian track of defining faith as,

"belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

Which implicitly assumes the following:

1. A historical acceptance of the Enlightenment philosophy of Empiricism (namely, Hume). That's a bad thing. Hume spooked us, Kant tried to smuggle religion back in through a side-door, and Kierkegaard said (or, our Westernized Hollywood interpretation of him), "it's just a jump into insanity; no biggie!"

No wonder atheists mock us.

2. That God's existence cannot be proven, which is a wholesale rejection of 700+ years of math/logic-based apologetics.

The more consistent and reliable track is definition #1.

NOUN

1. "complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

We open fiduciary trusts, like bank accounts, wills, corporate contracts, and attorney/client relationships. "Fiduciary" comes from the Latin "fide," which means faith. All of these relationships are objective and involve real people.

We show fidelity in personal relationships. The word marital fidelity is a perfect example of this kind of objective faith (trust).

Nothing mystical about it. It's about the personal and objective relationship with a real and Living Savior.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is not a Bible word --at least, not as such. It is something I believe is worth pointing out, even criticizing, a habit of laziness, sometimes, to avoid reasoning any more than necessary.

Another reason I don't like it is it makes Christianity sound unreasonable and provides excuses to the lost to ignore (or worse) the truth. It may even indirectly provide an excuse for the 1st amendment to be suspended.

But anyway, I don't know where I first heard of it, though I know it was only lately that I began to use the term as such.

Jesus spoke on this topic when he chastised people about taking the scriptures literally.
Religious legalists were using the law to chastise people, even as much as warning Jesus about healing on the Sabbath.

 

[Paulomycin]

Many, maybe most, of us reject Kierkegaard's work and philosophy, yet, I think you are right, now that I think on it --we have adopted it anyway, in part or to some degree. It has become a Christian worldview.

< Exactly!

 

[SkyWriting]

Another reason I don't like it is it makes Christianity sound unreasonable and provides excuses to the lost to ignore (or worse) the truth. It may even indirectly provide an excuse for the 1st amendment to be suspended.

The scriptures say godly people need to keep their mouths shut.
What Does the Bible Say About Silence?
What Does the Bible Say About Gossip?
What Does the Bible Say About Keeping Quiet?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Jesus spoke on this topic when he chastised people about taking the scriptures literally.
Religious legalists were using the law to chastise people, even as much as warning Jesus about healing on the Sabbath.

Isn't that something?! I know I too will be measured by my own standard, but wow, how can people be so bull-headed as to ignore such obvious virtue, or even turn it around and call it sin??

 

[Mark Quayle]

The scriptures say godly people need to keep their mouths shut.
What Does the Bible Say About Silence?
What Does the Bible Say About Gossip?
What Does the Bible Say About Keeping Quiet?

Yep, I'm trying. Mostly succeeding, but yeah, it is hard.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Current Western Religion in-general is stuck on the Kierkegaardian track of defining faith as,

"belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

Which implicitly assumes the following:

1. A historical acceptance of the Enlightenment philosophy of Empiricism (namely, Hume). That's a bad thing. Hume spooked us, Kant tried to smuggle religion back in through a side-door, and Kierkegaard said (or, our Westernized Hollywood interpretation of him), "it's just a jump into insanity; no biggie!"

No wonder atheists mock us.

2. That God's existence cannot be proven, which is a wholesale rejection of 700+ years of math/logic-based apologetics.

The more consistent and reliable track is definition #1.

NOUN

1. "complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

We open fiduciary trusts, like bank accounts, wills, corporate contracts, and attorney/client relationships. "Fiduciary" comes from the Latin "fide," which means faith. All of these relationships are objective and involve real people.

We show fidelity in personal relationships. The word marital fidelity is a perfect example of this kind of objective faith (trust).

Nothing mystical about it. It's about the personal and objective relationship with a real and Living Savior.

I've been thinking about what you said re Kierkegaard, and it occurs to me how often I have heard the "Gospel invitation" decision presented as exactly that. Not just that they don't warn of consequences of giving oneself to Christ, but the appeal to the flesh --the thrill of the leap of faith.

 

[Freth]

Faith in man's truth vs faith in God's truth.

If Jesus is the way, the truth an the life and the word made flesh, then the word of God is the ultimate truth and we should have complete faith in it.

We have a God-given ability to reason. It's what guides us through life. God is asking us to put our trust in Him an believe in Him and His truth, over that of man. It doesn't mean we can't think for ourselves or come to reasoned conclusions, but it should be through the lens of the word of God.

The danger is when reason over-rides Biblical truth. For instance, when you start to tell yourself that accounts of important events in the Bible are just allegory (not meant to be taken literally); creation, Noah's flood, for instance. Sinful reason will attempt to explain away parts of the Bible out of convenience; out of a desire to believe man over God and as an excuse for remaining in sin.

As far as science is concerned, i.e. the knowledge of man, we have just enough figured out to be dangerous. There are aspects of science and medicine that are fly-by-night, throw it at the wall and hope it sticks. It's evidence that we don't know nearly what we think we know.

God's creation will never be completely figured out, completely understood, by man. Reason can only go so far and can do more harm than good, if left unchecked. Faith in God has no such negatives unless a "man" component is introduced, corrupting it; science, traditions of men, selfishness, sin corrupting discernment of the word of God.

Faith is letting go of the reason of men and accepting the truth of God. A shift occurs where reason comes from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, in my view, faith and the reason of man are separate, but faith and reason in the Holy Spirit are in concert with the Christian man (and woman).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Faith in man's truth vs faith in God's truth.

But that isn't the point of the OP, though well enough reasoned, haha (Just saying)

If Jesus is the way, the truth an the life and the word made flesh, then the word of God is the ultimate truth and we should have complete faith in it.

We have a God-given ability to reason. It's what guides us through life. God is asking us to put our trust in Him an believe in Him and His truth, over that of man. It doesn't mean we can't think for ourselves or come to reasoned conclusions, but it should be through the lens of the word of God.

The danger is when reason over-rides Biblical truth. For instance, when you start to tell yourself that accounts of important events in the Bible are just allegory (not meant to be taken literally); creation, Noah's flood, for instance. Sinful reason will attempt to explain away parts of the Bible out of convenience; out of a desire to believe man over God and as an excuse for remaining in sin.

As far as science is concerned, i.e. the knowledge of man, we have just enough figured out to be dangerous. There are aspects of science and medicine that are fly-by-night, throw it at the wall and hope it sticks. It's evidence that we don't know nearly what we think we know.

God's creation will never be completely figured out, completely understood, by man. Reason can only go so far and can do more harm than good, if left unchecked. Faith in God has no such negatives unless a "man" component is introduced, corrupting it; science, traditions of men, selfishness, sin corrupting discernment of the word of God.

Faith is letting go of the reason of men and accepting the truth of God. A shift occurs where reason comes from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, in my view, faith and the reason of man are separate, but faith and reason in the Holy Spirit are in concert with the Christian man (and woman).

Edit: I hit 'post reply' before writing anything here, so I'll make this brief. I basically agree with most everything you say here, except, "Faith is letting go of the reason of men and accepting the truth of God. A shift occurs where reason comes from the Holy Spirit." I think faith is a lot more and a lot simpler than that.The notion that the reason of men, or at least, the use of logic, is not good, is a bogus notion. Men use God's given gift of logic, (not just instinct as an animal), both lost and regenerate men do. I agree totally, however, that reasoning God's way is superior to men's and altogether trustworthy. The problem for us comes in though, when we fail to realize that we are still "trusting our own understanding" when we reason with or about Scriptures.

Often, we will hear Christians give a methodology for reasoning --exegesis, pray for wisdom, "ask the Spirit to clear our minds" and "reveal" and such-- and then they think the truth will out. No, we are still reasoning as men. God is faithful to keep his promises, he does lead us into all truth, but it doesn't come just like that, and like you said, we will never understand it all, not here in this flesh we won't. I have been "in Christianity" so long I have learned to ignore the hubris that exhibits with saying, "This is what this means." (Not at all saying there isn't a time for that --there is.)

 

[Clare73]

My version?
"God said it, and

I believe it, and
that settles it
(if I am reading it correctly...

).​

[See 1 Corinthians 13:12.]

My version: God said it, that settles it, I believe it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

My version: God said it, that settles it, I believe it.

But I doubt you would agree that excuses or even excludes reasoning. I don't think there's any excuse for intellectual laziness.

 

[Freth]

But that isn't the point of the OP, though well enough reasoned, haha (Just saying)

I think faith is a lot more and a lot simpler than that.The notion that the reason of men, or at least, the use of logic, is not good, is a bogus notion. Men use God's given gift of logic, (not just instinct as an animal), both lost and regenerate men do.

This is why I made it a point to say, "It doesn't mean we can't think for ourselves or come to reasoned conclusions, but it should be through the lens of the word of God."

 

[Nathan@work]

According to Dictionary.com
Fideism:
noun
exclusive reliance in religious matters upon faith, with consequent rejection of appeals to science or philosophy.

Wikipedia says:
Fideism (/ˈfiːdeɪ.ɪzəm, ˈfaɪdiː-/) is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths (see natural theology). The word fideism comes from fides, the Latin word for faith, and literally means "faith-ism".[1] Philosophers have identified a number of different forms of fideism.[2]....(and it continues)

So, is faith independent of reason? Does it depend totally on reason? Does it oppose reason?

Your thoughts?

I think that it all depends on how you define faith.

I am a bit on one edge I’ve found over the years, in that I do not view Faith(true Faith) as a trust or belief.

Faith, the way I understand it, is a firm knowing.

I explain it this way to some; there are things I think, there are things I believe, and then there are the things I know. Faith is in the “things I know” part.

Seriously, if you look at the ‘examples’ of Faith(Hebrews 11), not a single one has any sense of doubt or uncertainty.

Faith doesn’t mean you know everything about something, but it does mean you ‘know what you know’.

With that definition of what true Faith is, Fideism is an impossible notion. Faith and reason are actually impossible to be separate from each other.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think that it all depends on how you define faith.

I am a bit on one edge I’ve found over the years, in that I do not view Faith(true Faith) as a trust or belief.

Faith, the way I understand it, is a firm knowing.

I explain it this way to some; there are things I think, there are things I believe, and then there are the things I know. Faith is in the “things I know” part.

Seriously, if you look at the ‘examples’ of Faith(Hebrews 11), not a single one has any sense of doubt or uncertainty.

Faith doesn’t mean you know everything about something, but it does mean you ‘know what you know’.

With that definition of what true Faith is, Fideism is an impossible notion. Faith and reason are actually impossible to be separate from each other.

I like that. It fits right in with the fact that Godly faith, (salvific and subsequent faith of the regenerate believer) is generated by the very Spirit of God --not by the believer. It is God's work in me. My ignorance or my apprehension of truth, my integrity, my intelligence, my emotion or will power, my steadfastness or faithfulness etc etc are none of them, even all put together, capable of producing such faith. "Apart from me, you can do nothing."

 

[Nathan@work]

I like that. It fits right in with the fact that Godly faith, (salvific and subsequent faith of the regenerate believer) is generated by the very Spirit of God --not by the believer. It is God's work in me. My ignorance or my apprehension of truth, my integrity, my intelligence, my emotion or will power, my steadfastness or faithfulness etc etc are none of them, even all put together, capable of producing such faith. "Apart from me, you can do nothing."

I agree. I word some of it a bit differently. Faith is a 'gift' given - Ephesians 2 - but I can also see how it also would be 'generated' after in the life of a believer.

The only aspect of a person of Faith is that they believe.

That might sound contradictory to some because modern culture has deemed "belief" and "faith" as synonymous. The truth is that we have the ability to reject God's Faith, and oftentimes people do it and try to replace it with their own 'faith' which is really only belief.

The difference between Faith and belief is 'reason'. Belief in something is oftentimes not complete, and it most certainly can be swayed. Faith, on the other hand, is a choice based on reason.

The book of James is a fine example of the difference between the two. Right out of the gate he says, "Count it all joy when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing."

This could easily segue into so many different topics so I am going to stop here. lol