Why is faith a requirement?

elman said:

God is the only one that save us, but we have been assured in several place in the bible and in the teachings of Jesus God will not do that for the wicked and unloving.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm not disagreeing with that, but since this thread is to address the concerns of the OP, I'm going to end this digression. Blessings though!

[LargeTrout – I’ve attempted to address some of your concerns below. Please forgive me if I sound a bit impetuous. I do not intend for it to be so, only earnest.]

I've never believed faith itself to be emotional, although having been a Pentecostal for a number of years myself, I do understand there is an emotional aspect of Christianity.

Regarding specific beliefs - the basic requirement of salvation, as found in Romans 10, is to believe in the resurrection of Jesus and declare that he is Lord. So technically there is a specific faith demand as a basis for salvation. As the writer of Hebrews says, "without faith it is impossible to please God". So in order to please God I must have faith, and, as I have said, much of the Bible requires faith in things for which there is just no evidence.

Taking a sole passage by itself and holding it up without considering the larger implications of the full context is bad hermeneutics. Relying on Romans 10 alone is like you taking an American flag, cutting out a square portion from the middle of it, and waving the square while claiming that you actually have THE flag in your hand. Yes…but NO! You have the essence of the flag, but not the flag in full. Same with Romans 10. If we take the entire book of Romans, from beginning to end, there is more than enough additional dialectical material to support that Paul also assumed that positive actions, ‘good works’, etc. is a necessary part of the faith response (eg. Rom 2:4-16; 6:17-18,21-22; 8:3-4, 12:1-15:6) . Again, I assert that the best meaning of ‘faith’ is a totalistic response, one which includes using our brains, holding correct beliefs, doing good works, and trusting God (and there may be another element or two). In fact, Paul at times appeals to the rational side of belief in encouraging people to have faith (1 Cor 15).

The New Testament is somewhat contradictory on the matter of salvation. Faith is clearly a requirement, but some of the New Testament's authors disagree as to whether works are also required. Paul is quite clear that faith in Jesus is the only requirement for salvation, which rules out the need for any moral behaviour on the part of the Christian. Jesus insisted that obedience to his commandments *as well as faith* would grant a person salvation. James states that faith and works must go together. Admittedly these discrepancies are not huge, but they are certainly puzzling when examined closely. The different New Testament writers all seemed to have varying ideas of what actually saves a person in God's eyes, but they are all clear on one thing - the need for faith.

I wouldn’t say that the N.T. is contradictory, rather I think it is more accurate to say that it does not present a single formula to be articulated in just one way. The faith to salvation dynamic is complex, and because it is complex, it can be approached from different directions. It is not clearly contradictory. You yourself say that these apparent discrepancies are not huge—I’m not sure what the word ‘huge’ is exactly supposed to denote in your statement, but I do agree that all of the N.T. writers claim the “need for faith.”

Scientifically speaking, atoms can be tested and observed. That was the point I was trying to make.

Point taken. I understand that, and I would agree. But, the N.T. is mostly a set of historical documents, not a collection of science observations in the here and now. (Although, I think Jesus does imply a moral test in the Gospel of John at 7:16-17)

Morality is an evolutionary and cultural construct.

That is a theoretical assumption, not a hard and fast fact of life. It sounds in in anthropology though.

I've read C S Lewis and I'm just not convinced that moral behaviour stems from one source (i.e., God).

Well, of course ‘moral behavior’ does not stem from one source—behavior is dependent upon the thoughts and motivation of the moral actor. Rather, it is ‘moral principles’ that emanate from the one source—our Creator. (Who could know better what we limited human need to do than the very one who created/designed/developed us.)

It can be clearly observed that different cultures have different moral values. Some things are acceptable in one culture that is considered morally repugnant in another. And moral behaviour is constantly evolving.

]This is the old Cultural Relativism argument. Just our knowing that some society or person does some action has no bearing on whether that action is moral or not, on whether it is actually right or wrong. Now you’re getting in over your head into relativism. Don’t be jerked around by that fallacy.

If morality truly comes from God alone, then it would remain fixed. There would be no need for moral adjustments in societies. For example, why do we now find slavery morally offensive when 300 years ago it was acceptable?

Uh, because we are Gentiles and not Jews, and we have been unnecessarily suckered into Enlightenment thinking—which doesn’t actually work by the way, although it gets a lot of airtime.

If our morality comes from God, we would still be owning and treating slaves as the Bible describes because God evidently did not have a problem with slavery according to both the Old and New Testaments.

Slavery still exists today, in one form or another. It is bigger and more lucrative in the world than any time previous—just not in the democratic countries. We have other methods by which we ‘use’ people.

I respect that we'll probably disagree on this issue. As an atheist I see no reason to believe that my moral behavior comes from God - especially given that much of the Bible is littered with atrocities.

Again, you see the Bible littered with atrocities because you already take for granted the ideas of our present culture. The basic truth is this—don’t be a slave to sin, obey God, and you’ll most likely find yourself a free person.

I have come to respect the fact that there is no single "correct" interpretation of the Bible.

Again, that is relativism. Just because the bible may be hard to understand, or that aspects of its ancient culture may be lost to us, doesn’t mean that there isn’t specifically one (or two) meaning that the writers originally intended.

Christian history is replete with schisms and divisions on doctrines and dogma. The danger is when one person claims to know the truth and expects others to see it as they do.

Yes, human beings are limited, and Christian faith does not promise discernment for everyone. Actually, the only danger is that some fanatic things the correct application is to FORCE others to obey. Expecting others to understand is not the same thing as physical force; expecting is a normal part of life in any endeavor. When you go to your job, does your employer unfairly expect you to understand what needs to be done?

Why would be afraid of God communicating with us in a direct and obvious way? Many of the Bible's central characters took God's presence and communications for granted, and without fear. In fact, some even argued with God like an equal.

Not at Mount Sinai, Babylon, or the Island of Patmos…although Abraham seemed to get a good deal, as well as the 12 disciples.

I don't believe the Bible is evidence for God. If it is, then were does that leave the Qur'an?

In the ahistorical dust.

Is that also evidence?

Not in the same way that the Bible is.

Religious literature is evidence that people believed in a God and were trying to define him and his requirements of humanity.

Not if they were writing in reaction to things they experienced or trusted. If it is that simple, then I only BELIEVE that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

There is much in religious literature that has been disproved scientifically if read from a literal stance (i.e., modern science just does not agree with a literal reading of the first 10 or so chapters of Genesis).

Then don’t read everything from an ultra-literal stance—such as the first 10 chapters.

[I know this feels like mental boxing, but please know that I know you are a bright individual, and I have no hard feelings. I appreciate your earnestness and thinking.)

Blessings,
2PhiloVoid

LargeTrout said:

As per the title; why is faith a requirement for salvation?

Click to expand...

God said so.

Why not reason?

Click to expand...

Is love based off of 'reason?'

Of course, I'm not saying the two are mutually exclusive; obviously many religious beliefs are attained through using the capacity for reason. However, there is much in the Bible that defies reason and thus faith in certain doctrines is preferred over reason. For example, in order to be a Christian I must believe that Jesus rose from the dead. My reason tells me this just does not happen in reality.

Click to expand...

One can only assume this if he is sure Christ was just another man.

If Christianity is true then there must be some reason why God prefers unwavering faith over rational analysis.

Click to expand...

Rational analysis praises the intelect of the one who has found God. Why would God demand a specific level of rational for salvation if not everyone has that ablity? If He did God would have condemned stupid people to Hell for being stupid. As it is all we need is the faith the size of a mustard seed. Any consciencous human can muster this required level of faith. Your way eddifies the proud, God's way rewards the Humble. We are told we must Humble ourself before God not approach with the 'pride of our intelect.'

salida said:

The most religious have the most crime? Not all religions are the same.

What About Atrocities That Have Been Done in the Name of Religion?
What About Atrocities That Have Been Done in the Name of Religion
Is religion the cause of most wars?
Is religion the cause of most wars?

Death by Government
20TH CENTURY DEMOCIDE (Genocide and Mass Murder)

(communism leads)
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.4.GIF

Athieism not religion has killed more
Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
MILITANT ATHEISTS/ATHEISM CRIMES AND EVILS OF COMMUNIST ATHEISM

I said my peace.

Click to expand...

Murders done IN THE NAME OF GOD are not OF GOD . But, murders done in the ideology of atheism ARE OF atheism. Atheism is the by far the worse in just the last century alone with 100,000,000 + murders of Jews and Christians . Atheism constructs are also the reason for ALL of our current social ills , especially those resulting from godless casual sex to use another for a mere copulation ., being directly responsible for the 4,000 murders of developing unborn human beings, per DAY.

LargeTrout said:

Your comments on this matter continue to isolate many people who believe they are "true" Christians yet struggle with sin. What if you found out your best friend, a "true" Christian, has struggling with porn all his life? Would you "encourage" him by telling him that he is clearly not a "true" Christian because he is living in sin? I doubt you would, if you truly care about this friend.

As I've said, I've known many Christians who have struggling with various problems, or sins, during their lives. I've always found that it's the ones who know they have a problem that are the genuine believers, the "true" Christians. The ones who don't care about their personal vices are those who aren't walking their talk.

Click to expand...

Isolate? This guy is right. Christ said you will know them by their fruits. Yes, people have struggles but a pedophile priest is hardly a christian.

Mt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Lets revisit your statement that crime rates are higher in religious countries.

Different countries and cultures have different ideas of what constitutes crime
Some crimes like murder are accepted and ignored in some cultures.
Therefore they will not report such 'hidden' murders as murder.

And some nations that are supposedly Christian or religious are in fact only marginally so.

The Japanese have a family culture, but forgiven though it may be, their treatment of my country's soldiers during the 2nd world war, in the Pacific was barbaric and murderous.

http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del...elty&allTags=1

Who causes the most murders in history?
Is religion to blame for the most killings in history?
Isn't religion to blame for most of history's killings?
Judaism and Christianity throughout history: 17,000,000
Anti- or irreligious forces over the last 100 years:
6,000,000 + 9,000,000 + 40,000,000 + 24,000,000 + 25,000,000 + 22,000,000 + 2,000,000 + 1,000,000,000 = 1,128,000,000
Thus it is erroneous to state that organized religion, or the name of Christ, is the cause of all or even most of history's killings. Quite to the contrary, modern history shows that the killings associated with the denial of divine authority outnumber the killings of professing Jews and Christians on an order exceeding 66 to 1.

I have given you more info than you asked because athiests sometimes like to blame religion for everything and this is a weak argument.

LargeTrout said:

but many Christians and Muslims do harbour hatred for those people who are deemed to be sinners and/or unbelievers.

Click to expand...

This goes back to the issue of just because someone says they are a Christian does not make it so. A Christian is to love sinners, unbelievers and enemies, not hate as you have stated.

All Christians are sinners, all Christians were unbelievers at some point. Therefore to hate these people would be tantamount to hating ourself.

TheyCallMeDave said:

Murders done IN THE NAME OF GOD are not OF GOD . But, murders done in the ideology of atheism ARE OF atheism. Atheism is the by far the worse in just the last century alone with 100,000,000 + murders of Jews and Christians . Atheism constructs are also the reason for ALL of our current social ills , especially those resulting from godless casual sex to use another for a mere copulation ., being directly responsible for the 4,000 murders of developing unborn human beings, per DAY.

Click to expand...

I was answering LargeTrout. Agree with you-but look at my info on murders.

LargeTrout said:

I don't blame religion for everything. Like any other man made idea, religion can be used for good or evil. Sometimes religion can make someone a better person, just as much as it will turn another person into a bigot. Religion can also give people hope, and hope is always a good thing (if the thing hoped for is itself good, of course). In essence, I'm well aware of the intrinsic value of religion, but I'm also aware of its dangers. One of those dangers is that religious people can sometimes develop a distorted sense of morality. Religious texts like the Bible and the Qur'an promote homophobia, misogyny and division (based on those who believe and those who don't). Those who read their scriptures literally can potentially be a danger to society (i.e., religious terrorists such as was seen on 9/11). Of course, the vast majority of religious people do not resort to terrorism, but many Christians and Muslims do harbour hatred for those people who are deemed to be sinners and/or unbelievers.

Click to expand...

Ok, christians arn't afraid of homos and we don't hate sinners. Our morality is different because our morals isn't based on what the culture dictates which changes like the weather. This is a good trait because it protects one from being socially engineered and brainwashed from those who want to change society for the worse and control the masses. Division? I can get along with people who arn't christians as there are some in my family but if people are against religious freedom they are causing division not me. Plus, gays who keep telling untruths that christians hate them are building their own wall of division.


http://pryordailytimes.com/religion/x143113562/One-cannot-be-saved-without-faith/print

LargeTrout said:

As per the title; why is faith a requirement for salvation? Why not reason?

Click to expand...

We are not saved by our own understanding. (Thank God!) the best insight I can shed into your question is to have you ask yourself - why did God make us such that He is invisible to us? These ideas go hand-in-hand ...

LargeTrout said:

So there must be another reason that faith is the preferred human response to God's message.

Click to expand...

Electricity requires a conduit to be able to move. Copper is not the only conductor, just a very good one. It is not the best.

Faith is the "conduit" in which God can move in our lives. There are many different forms: wavering faith, little faith, common faith, mutual faith, great faith - right on up to the gift of faith!

What we are to pursue, is the Faith of Jesus Christ Himself. The same Faith He has.

You seem to be saying here that you have no moral problem with slavery because it is "Enlightenment thinking" which "doesn't work". And whether or not slavery is still practised illegally or legally I still find it morally repugnant.

Click to expand...

No, I’m not exactly saying that I have no moral problem with slavery. Frankly, like most people who live in my own democratic society, I greatly appreciate that slavery is no longer allowed, and I appreciate that the old prejudices are in some ways eroding.

However, what I am attempting to say is that the enslavement of other people as presented in the Old Testament (i.e. that which the Jews specifically partook of) does not cause me much consternation. That form of slavery was specific for those people at that time. It was a part of the Jewish Law, and was something God allowed and abridged to enable the Jewish people to take a stand and make a statement of His election of them in the face of hostile nations on all sides.

As for Christians, slavery is a social phenomenon that should be worked against. One reason for this is that the concept of spiritual Freedom was injected into the world by Jesus and His early disciples, and that general idea has slowly catalyzed an awareness of the benefits and possibilities of political and social freedom. Christ's Kingdom works to also bring about an egalitarian world. The trick of it all is to understand that this only works if done under the lordship of Christ and within the social context of Agape Love.

Where we go wrong today is that we confound the idea of Freedom with an over extravagant emphasis on Liberty. It is the concept of liberty, in all of its myriad degrees and manifestations, by which many of us cut our cords from the Living God. So, in sum, I am not disparaging the Enlightenment in total, but I am asserting that it was with the onset of the Enlightenment that a new, rebellious attitude and spirit has reared itself in society, and I am saying that even though Enlightenment thinking has its benefits, (borrowing some from Kingdom ethics) it also has its own hypocritical flaws, flaws which most people seem to ignore (flaws which are not borrowed from the Kingdom ethic.)

So if I obey God all the evil atrocities in the Bible will suddenly become examples of exemplary moral behavior that I should model? Will supporting genocide, ethnic cleansing, slavery, eternal torture by fire, etc make me a free person?

Click to expand...

No, I’m not saying that violence and slavery IN GENERAL become exemplary if you obey God. What I am saying is that for us to enjoy the blessings of freedom, we must obey God, or he will take our freedom(s) away. Obviously, as Christians we, like William Wilberforce during the early 19th century, want to work against the abuses of un-Christian socio-political constructs in our societies, and the world if possible. At the same time, we realize that God is Sovereign, and as our wise and just Creator, He has the right to give life and to take it away. He has the right to bestow blessings and privileges upon nations, or to debase them into the dust.

If we want to be free, we can only do so by following the Lord Jesus Christ.

You have avoided my aproach in my post 28?

LargeTrout said:

As per the title; why is faith a requirement for salvation? Why not reason? Of course, I'm not saying the two are mutually exclusive; obviously many religious beliefs are attained through using the capacity for reason. However, there is much in the Bible that defies reason and thus faith in certain doctrines is preferred over reason. For example, in order to be a Christian I must believe that Jesus rose from the dead. My reason tells me this just does not happen in reality.

If Christianity is true then there must be some reason why God prefers unwavering faith over rational analysis. It cannot be for moral reasons because, outwardly at least, Christians are no more moral than non-Christians. To paraphrase Hitchens, there is no moral action that a religious person can undertake that cannot also be done by a non-religious person. So there must be another reason that faith is the preferred human response to God's message.

Click to expand...

You're substituting the word "faith" for "belief," but the two are not the same. Faith requires both belief and action, which is why "faith without works is dead."

The reason faith is a requirement instead of belief is because there are a lot of Christians who simply believe the gospel but whose lives are not at all affected by it. Jesus did not come to start a fan club, He came to bring real change in people. And Jesus hated the overly religious people of His time. These are the people I'm sure you're keenly aware of. They use scripture to put others down and to make themselves look good.

As for your original question, the answer is pretty similar. Faith is preferable to reason because reason doesn't change us. We can create a reasonable argument for why we should give food to the hungry, or hand out warm blankets to the homeless, but if you don't physically go out and do these things, then what good is your reason?

Now you'd probably ask why we can't just do good things to get into Heaven, since this seems to be the thing that both reason and blind belief lack. But this isn't the only thing they lack. We can do good things for the wrong reasons, can't we? Powerful companies give to charity not from the goodness of their hearts, but for the tax deduction. So doing good things on its own doesn't mean a thing. The heart is the issue. This is why scripture says God views these "good works" as "filthy rags" (AKA dirty diapers).

There's also the fact that we could never do enough good things to deserve Heaven. It doesn't matter how good natured you are, all of us are flawed, which automatically disqualifies us from intimacy with God, which is the number one thing that makes Heaven perfect. The only justification for God allowing us broken people to enter Heaven is Jesus' sacrifice. He took our place on the cross, the king of Heaven coming as an innocent man to suffer on the cross. His role was turned upside down, and it provides our only chance of escape. We also must have our roles reversed. We begin as broken people, but we pick up our cross and follow in Jesus' footsteps, then God can look on us as His children, pure as Jesus was pure.

Faith is more than mere belief or behavior modification.