Why is faith a requirement?

[LargeTrout]

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.

 

[AvgJoe]

The simple answer....because that's the way God set things up.

The long answer...

Our relationship with God is similar to our relationship with others in that all relationships require faith. We can never fully know any other person. We cannot experience all they experience nor enter into their minds to know what their thoughts and emotions are. Proverbs 14:10 says, "The heart knows its own bitterness, and a stranger does not share its joy." We are incapable of even knowing our own hearts fully. Jeremiah 17:9 says that the human heart is wicked and deceptive, "Who can know it?" In other words, the human heart is such that it seeks to hide the depth of its wickedness, deceiving even its owner. We do this through shifting blame, justifying wrong behavior, minimizing our sins, etc.

Because we are incapable of fully knowing other people, to some degree faith (trust) is an integral ingredient in all relationships. For example, a wife gets into a car with her husband driving, trusting him to drive safely, even though he often drives faster than she would on winter roads. She trusts him to act in their best interest at all times. We all share information about ourselves with others, trusting they will not betray us with that knowledge. We drive down the road, trusting those driving around us to follow the rules of the road. So, whether with strangers or with intimate friends and companions, because we cannot fully know others, trust is always a necessary component of our relationships.

If we cannot know our fellow finite human beings fully, how can we expect to fully know an infinite God? Even if He should desire to fully reveal Himself, it is impossible for us to fully know Him. It is like trying to pour the ocean (seemingly infinite in quantity) into a quart-measuring jar (finite)... impossible! Nonetheless, even as we can have meaningful relationships with others that we have grown to trust because of our knowledge of them and of their character, so God has revealed enough about Himself through His creation (Romans 1:18-21), through His written Word, the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:16-21), and through His Son (John 14:9), that we can enter into a meaningful relationship with Him. But this is only possible when the barrier of one's sin has been removed by trusting in Christ's person and work on the cross as payment for one's sin. This is necessary because, as it is impossible for both light and darkness to dwell together, so it is impossible for a holy God to have fellowship with sinful man unless his sin has been paid for and removed. Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God, died on the cross to take our punishment and change us so that the one who believes on Him can become a child of God and live eternally in His presence (John 1:12; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 2 Peter 3:18; Romans 3:10-26).

There have been times in the past that God has revealed Himself more "visibly" to people. One example of this is at the time of the exodus from Egypt, when God revealed His care for the Israelites by sending the miraculous plagues upon the Egyptians until they were willing to release the Israelites from slavery. God then opened the Red Sea, enabling the approximately two million Israelites to cross over on dry ground. Then, as the Egyptian army sought to pursue them through the same opening, He crashed the waters upon them (Exodus 14:22-29). Later, in the wilderness, God fed them miraculously with manna, and He guided them in the day by a pillar of cloud and in the night by a pillar of fire, visible representations of His presence with them (Exodus 15:14-15).

Yet, in spite of these repeated demonstrations of His love, guidance, and power, the Israelites still refused to trust Him when He wanted them to enter into the Promised Land. They chose instead to trust the word of ten men who frightened them with their stories of the walled cities and the giant stature of some of the people of the land (Numbers 13:26-33). These events show that God's further revelation of Himself to us would have no greater effect on our ability to trust Him. Were God to interact in a similar fashion with people living today, we would respond no differently than the Israelites because our sinful hearts are the same as theirs.

The Bible also speaks of a future time when the glorified Christ will return to rule the earth from Jerusalem for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:1-10). More people will be born on the earth during that reign of Christ. He will rule with complete justice and righteousness, yet, in spite of His perfect rule, the Bible states that at the end of the 1,000 years, Satan will have no trouble raising an army to rebel against Christ's rule. The future event of the millennium and the past event of the exodus reveal that the problem is not with God insufficiently revealing Himself to man; rather, the problem is with man's sinful heart rebelling against God's loving reign. We sinfully crave self-rule.

God has revealed enough of His nature for us to be able to trust Him. He has shown through the events of history, in the workings of nature, and through the life of Jesus Christ that He is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, all-loving, all-holy, unchanging, and eternal. And in that revelation, He has shown that He is worthy to be trusted. But, as with the Israelites in the wilderness, the choice is ours whether or not we will trust Him. Often, we are inclined to make this choice based on what we think we know about God rather than what He has revealed about Himself and can be understood about Him through a careful study of His inerrant Word, the Bible. If you have not already done so, begin a careful study of the Bible, that you may come to know God through a reliance upon His Son, Jesus Christ, who came to earth to save us from our sins, so that we might have sweet companionship with God both now and in a fuller way in heaven one day.

This answer was borrowed from~~~> http://www.gotquestions.org/God-require-faith.html

 

[renewed21]

because we are finite.

 

[Clare73]

Because Jesus said it was (Jn 3:18, 36).

In the faith,
Clare

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Basically, faith is a requirement for salvation because making one's self available to God for salvation is a relational construct. We are not getting into heaven based on our intelligence or collection of good works (although God does value those aspects of our faith response.) Rather, we are getting into heaven by 'relating with' God through the open door that Jesus provides us.

2PhiloVoid

 

[LargeTrout]

Basically, faith is a requirement for salvation because making one's self available to God for salvation is a relational construct.

AvgJoe said this too. To an extent, I agree. But faith is not the sole attribute required in a relationship. Relationships require the intellect too. I do not blindly believe everything my family and friends tell me. In fact, I have a family member who lies about everything. I have to use my reason to determine the truth every time I engage in conversation with this person. I do not believe everything this person says is true simply because they say it is.

Similarly, why should I believe something is true just because that something says it is true - such as the Bible?

We are not getting into heaven based on our intelligence or collection of good works (although God does value those aspects of our faith response.) Rather, we are getting into heaven by 'relating with' God through the open door that Jesus provides us.

This is another odd requirement. What happens when a paedophile priest who has abused children all his life gets into heaven based on his faith, yet a good person, who has never harmed another, goes to hell based on their *lack* of faith? To me, faith is a rather odd way of determining justice. And as I said in my OP, faith does not make some good. It seems to me that if I believe in Jesus and his resurrection, I can be guilty of some horrific crimes but still get into heaven, yet if I don't have faith I will go to hell even if I have lived without reproach.

This is why I asked why faith is God's sole requirement for salvation? It makes no sense. If God were obvious in the natural world, as obvious as gravity, or atoms, or any other scientific discovery, would this be so harmful? If God were obvious in the natural, and faith was not a *requirement* for salvation, but *only* for a relationship, would this not be easier on humanity? Moral behaviour would be determined by what is reasonable and just rather than by faith alone. And, given that God is obvious in the natural and not tucked away in some supernatural, non-interventionist realm, people almost certainly would behave better. With an obvious God, our purpose in life would be more obvious and all the hard questions about Biblical interpretation would be answered.

The hidden-ness of God, and his demand that people *believe* certain things about him with no evidence to support it, seems odd to me. I don't have to believe in my mother to attain her favour or be a better person.

 

[ebia]

Before you can explore the "why" you need to resolve the "what". What is faith, in the Christian sense? It's trusting God, trusting his agenda, trusting his way of doing things.

If you want to fly from New York to London, eventually you're going to have to trust the aeroplane to not fall out of the sky.

 

[Isatis]

Before you can explore the "why" you need to resolve the "what". What is faith, in the Christian sense? It's trusting God, trusting his agenda, trusting his way of doing things.

If you want to fly from New York to London, eventually you're going to have to trust the aeroplane to not fall out of the sky.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

AvgJoe said this too. To an extent, I agree. But faith is not the sole attribute required in a relationship. Relationships require the intellect too. I do not blindly believe everything my family and friends tell me. In fact, I have a family member who lies about everything. I have to use my reason to determine the truth every time I engage in conversation with this person. I do not believe everything this person says is true simply because they say it is.

Neither do I blindly believe. As I mentioned, intelligence is part of the faith response. Speaking of which, we might want to clear the air here a little. I do not perceive that the term 'faith' denotes in the New Testament the 'holding of specific belief..." Rather, faith is a wholistic human response. It includes all the faculties of my God given mind, not just the emotional part.

Similarly, why should I believe something is true just because that something says it is true - such as the Bible?

I agree with you, it isn't always wise to believe something is true just because someone tells you that it is. But the trick is, philosophically speaking, how do we assess whether that something holds any kind of truth? By which universal criteria do we draw our conclusion, and will be always be successful in doing so?

This is another odd requirement. What happens when a paedophile priest who has abused children all his life gets into heaven based on his faith, yet a good person, who has never harmed another, goes to hell based on their *lack* of faith?

There are a lot of assumptions packed into these sentences.

To me, faith is a rather odd way of determining justice. And as I said in my OP, faith does not make some good. It seems to me that if I believe in Jesus and his resurrection, I can be guilty of some horrific crimes but still get into heaven, yet if I don't have faith I will go to hell even if I have lived without reproach.

Yes, it seems to be an odd way, but quantaum mechanics is odd too, according to some theorists. Actually, from what I read in the Scriptures, if a person commits horrific crimes, they really can't become a Christian and keep doing so. Jesus did say that there will be many who claim He is "LORD," but of whom He will also say on Judgement Day, "Away, I never know you." Additionally, Scripture indicates that no one but Christ has "lived without reproach."

This is why I asked why faith is God's sole requirement for salvation? It makes no sense. If God were obvious in the natural world, as obvious as gravity, or atoms, or any other scientific discovery, would this be so harmful? If God were obvious in the natural, and faith was not a *requirement* for salvation, but *only* for a relationship, would this not be easier on humanity? Moral behaviour would be determined by what is reasonable and just rather than by faith alone. And, given that God is obvious in the natural and not tucked away in some supernatural, non-interventionist realm, people almost certainly would behave better. With an obvious God, our purpose in life would be more obvious and all the hard questions about Biblical interpretation would be answered.

Atoms are obvious? Well, I guess I'll need to squint a little tighter.

If moral behaviour can be evaluated strictly by reason, then who gets to be the final authority in deciding what is reasonable in morality? Which code of ethics is the right one for us to reasonably use? Is it Kant's Duty Ethics, or Utilitarianism that should rule? Or is it Prima Facie duties, or Virtue Ethics, or even Ethics of Care? (But, we all know that if we could really cast our vote, an ethics of hedonism would be the obvious choice! )

My purpose in the above digression is not to make fun of you, but to show that with or without God as a working concept, human beings can still easily disagree, even when using reason.

The hidden-ness of God, and his demand that people *believe* certain things about him with no evidence to support it, seems odd to me. I don't have to believe in my mother to attain her favour or be a better person.

I agree that God's hiddenness is odd, and I think all of us would have God show Himself to us. But, if there is any truth in Scripture, it would surely be a fearful thing if He did it directly.

Now, as far as evidence is concerned, I believe that a written document that presents a testimony is considered evidence, at least historically and legally. And about your mother...well, it sound like she's a sweet person! We all wish we had mother's like that. Not everyone does.

 

[Nanopants]

In my own conversion, I had faith before I knew I had faith. To this day I still can't fully wrap my mind around what exactly faith is, but all I know is that faith isn't about turning off your mind or a test for mindless obedience; it's a matter of the heart, and in my opinion it's best described as a love for God as He was revealed in Jesus Christ on the cross.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

Faith isn't a requirement for salvation. Faith is the means through which we passively receive what God is actively doing for us.

Without faith I cannot trust the promises given to me in my baptism; without faith I cannot trust the Jesus who offers Himself to me in the Eucharist; without faith I cannot trust the Word proclaimed to me.

Reason cannot accomplish this. Reason cannot trust in the saving grace of God given through the Means of His Word and Sacraments, reason cannot confess the Virgin-born Christ, God the Word in the flesh united to our humanity, who by death on the cross overturned and crucified the violent and deathly powers of the world, and that He was raised from the dead.

These things are unreasonable, and according to reason completely absurd.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LargeTrout]

Neither do I blindly believe. As I mentioned, intelligence is part of the faith response. Speaking of which, we might want to clear the air here a little. I do not perceive that the term 'faith' denotes in the New Testament the 'holding of specific belief..." Rather, faith is a wholistic human response. It includes all the faculties of my God given mind, not just the emotional part.

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.

There are a lot of assumptions packed into these sentences.

Yes, it seems to be an odd way, but quantaum mechanics is odd too, according to some theorists. Actually, from what I read in the Scriptures, if a person commits horrific crimes, they really can't become a Christian and keep doing so. Jesus did say that there will be many who claim He is "LORD," but of whom He will also say on Judgement Day, "Away, I never know you." Additionally, Scripture indicates that no one but Christ has "lived without reproach."

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.

Atoms are obvious? Well, I guess I'll need to squint a little tighter.

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

If moral behaviour can be evaluated strictly by reason, then who gets to be the final authority in deciding what is reasonable in morality? Which code of ethics is the right one for us to reasonably use? Is it Kant's Duty Ethics, or Utilitarianism that should rule? Or is it Prima Facie duties, or Virtue Ethics, or even Ethics of Care? (But, we all know that if we could really cast our vote, an ethics of hedonism would be the obvious choice! )

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

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? 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.

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

My purpose in the above digression is not to make fun of you, but to show that with or without God as a working concept, human beings can still easily disagree, even when using reason.

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

I agree that God's hiddenness is odd, and I think all of us would have God show Himself to us. But, if there is any truth in Scripture, it would surely be a fearful thing if He did it directly.

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.

Now, as far as evidence is concerned, I believe that a written document that presents a testimony is considered evidence, at least historically and legally. And about your mother...well, it sound like she's a sweet person! We all wish we had mother's like that. Not everyone does.

I don't believe the Bible is evidence for God. If it is, then were does that leave the Qur'an? Is that also evidence? Religious literature is evidence that people believed in a God and were trying to define him and his requirements of humanity. 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).

 

[chilehed]

...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...

False premises.

Faith and reason are not opposites, they are compliments. Faith is "an act of the will by which one adheres to another who is known".

"This does not happen in reality" assumes the non-existence of God, and thus begs the question.

 

[hedrick]

Unfortunately Christians do not agree about what faith is or what salvation is.

When people ask the OP's question, often they are thinking "why does God require us to believe so many strange things before he's willing to give us eternal life?" That is, it sees faith as believing lots of things, and salvation as going to heaven. The question assumes that there things aren't intrinsically connected, and God just arbitrarily decides to reward faith with salvation.

In my view, however, they are intrinsically connected. Faith is the primary orientation of our life, and salvation is the whole process of having our life renewed so that we become God's image-bearer.

Faith is not just intellectual belief. When I read Paul broadly, not just looking for proof texts, I get the clear impression that for him faith is a basic orientation. It's not separate from being in Christ, and being spirit-oriented. The Reformers saw it as trusting God. I believe it plays the same primary role for Paul that love of God plays for Jesus.

Similarly, salvation, for both Jesus and Paul, is the whole process of God rebuilding us. Calvin saw salvation is being built on justification, but including the entire Christian life.

I hope it is clear that faith is the basis for salvation. It's by orienting our life on God that we are in a position for it to be renewed and to develop in the right way.

I'm giving the briefest possible answer. I'm not mentioning the closely related concept of justification, nor how we come to faith in the first place and how it is maintained.

 

[Faulty]

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.

They aren't different at all. True faith that results in salvation has a fruit of obedience to the commands of God resulting in good works.

If you aren't being obedient to the commands and doing the good works due to your own desires and nature to do so (not striving in legalism), then scripture makes it plain that the faith is not genuine and there was no real conversion.

You'll find a lot of passages that tell one that that those who are born of God will not continue in a lifestyle of sin. This another way of saying that if their faith is genuine, they will keep the commands of God as part of their nature.

Anyone living a lifestyle of sin without repentance, no matter how much they insist they are christian, is not born again. You mentioned a pedophile priest getting into heaven, but one who lives that or any other sinful lifestyle show themselves to be not regenerated. The sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Likewise, the one you mentioned who hurt no one, but chose to reject God nonetheless and live on his own terms, that person will also not inherit the Kingdom of God, because they lived a lifestyle of pride in themselves, and both will stand condemned on their day of judgment.

 

[LargeTrout]

You'll find a lot of passages that tell one that that those who are born of God will not continue in a lifestyle of sin. This another way of saying that if their faith is genuine, they will keep the commands of God as part of their nature.

Anyone living a lifestyle of sin without repentance, no matter how much they insist they are christian, is not born again.

Christians "sin" just as much as non-Christians. Is saying sorry to Jesus every night before bed the only difference between the saved and unsaved? I know, and have known, Christians who have struggled with porn, alcohol abuse, drugs, etc, for years yet they still call themselves Christians.

There's clearly a very fine line between who is and who isn't a Christian. Also, having been involved with Christianity most of my life, I know that Christians themselves don't agree who is and who isn't a Christian. Some will say that once you are saved you are always saved, but others argue that unrepented sin will "unsave" you. Whatever the truth is, it's obvious to me that because Christians themselves cannot agree on this matter that salvation is thus a huge grey area.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.


Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Blessed are those who believe, and have not seen.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Christians "sin" just as much as non-Christians. Is saying sorry to Jesus every night before bed the only difference between the saved and unsaved? I know, and have known, Christians who have struggled with porn, alcohol abuse, drugs, etc, for years yet they still call themselves Christians.

There's clearly a very fine line between who is and who isn't a Christian. Also, having been involved with Christianity most of my life, I know that Christians themselves don't agree who is and who isn't a Christian. Some will say that once you are saved you are always saved, but others argue that unrepented sin will "unsave" you. Whatever the truth is, it's obvious to me that because Christians themselves cannot agree on this matter that salvation is thus a huge grey area.

It's a grey area for those who are lukewarm, and abide not in the Light, and in the Spirit of Truth.

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

 

[LargeTrout]

It's a grey area for those who are lukewarm, and abide not in the Light, and in the Spirit of Truth.

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

As I said, the requirements for salvation is a grey area because Christians themselves have such divergent views on this topic, and you have proven me right.

Also, if I were a "once saved, always saved" type, I'd be rather offended at being called lukewarm, as you just did above. Are you saying that all Christians who sin are lukewarm?

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

As I said, the requirements for salvation is a grey area because Christians themselves have such divergent views on this topic, and you have proven me right.

Also, if I were a "once saved, always saved" type, I'd be rather offended at being called lukewarm, as you just did above. Are you saying that all Christians who sin are lukewarm?

I'm saying true born again from above, Holy Spirit filled Christians do not live in sin.

Just because one calls themselves a Christian does not mean that the Spirit of Christ dwells in them. If they live in sin then they are of another spirit, which is of the devil.