“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1)
...The verse is clear that faith is about what is not seen, and not about what is unknown. It could be said that faith is not an epistemological word, which is to say that we do not acquire new knowledge through faith. Instead, faith is a response to what is revealed.
Which basically goes to say that faith is not about becoming persuaded of the truth of the resurrection by some mysterious leap into the dark, but rather about acting on the evidence. So in the here and now - we can't see God, and we certainly can't see the promise of heaven. Faith is the action of believing the evidence and putting your trust in God and waiting for heaven. This definition rings true if you're a Christian who's been in debate with a non-Christian who has been seeking God for a while - it is quite possible to answer their every objection, to explain the gospel for the umpteenth time and to be met with a response of "Yeah. It makes sense, it's just not for me." or "Perfectly honestly - I kind of agree with what you're saying, but I know if I became a Christian I'd have to stop sleeping with my boyfriend". Which if you're the Christian in that situation is about the most exasperating evangelistic experience it's possible to have - and it drives you back to prayer that God would give the gift of faith - not just to give intellectual assent to an argument, but that they would put their whole weight and trust on Christ. The bible is quite clear that left to ourselves we will reject Christianity 10 times out of 10 - but not for want of evidence, but out of our innate rebellion against God and what is good. We are blind to the truth and dead in our sins until God gives us the gift of faith by his Holy Spirit.But - none of this goes to say that the evidence for Christianity is in some way lacking, and must be made up for by "a leap of faith". Which is nice, at least if you're a question-asking type of person like me. From a Christian point of view - this is also reassuring because it means that one can have the "gift of faith" - ie what it takes to act on the truth of the gospel in terms of changed life, whilst also going back and looking critically at the evidence. This is nice - it reassures me that I'm not a raving heretic/apostate/backslider :) (Well, I probably am on other counts, but not on this one at least).
Which leaves us with looking at what Bruce Little terms "The Justification for Faith". That is - this whole aside was a bit of a red herring... Ah well. We live and learn.
2 comments:
I've had a number of arguements over the term "blind faith", it's one of those things that I have trouble being tactful when talking about. From my reading, ignorance isn't what keeps people away from the bible. So it's not that there is something missing, something that we have to suspend logic and assume that it's there just for the whole thing to make sense. After all, John believed that what he wrote was enough - he could have wrote more, but he gave enough for those reading to come to the conclusion that Jesus was the Christ (John 20:31).
I had an SU leader who used to say that having a faith that was scared of a few question wasn't worth believing in. I don't think there is a way of constructing an arguement that claims that we are to take a set of beliefs and just accept them. It's right to have questions. Note that in 1 Corinthians 15, the Corinthian church clearly have questions not unlike yours - did the ressurection actually happen or not? Paul's answer isn't of a "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" triteness, but it speaks of an encouragement to check the evidence for themselves - in their case, go ask those who saw it. Keep asking your questions and don't stop bugging people until you get your answers.
Of course, I need to say that not all questions will be answered in an authorative manner, and in these cases a certain amount of trust must be taken. But even this is still not "blind faith". Just as a court room investigates the testimony of reliable witnesses to an event to ascertain details that in all essence cannot be verified to be true by empirical methods, either by trust in their word or consistancy with the external evidence, so with some doctrine we must satisfy ourselves that, although unproveable, they fit with the evidence that has been presented to us.
I hope that is in anyway helpful. If not, feel free to disregard or delete as appropriate! I do desire to be of some sort of assistance as you wrestle with these issues.
God bless,
Mark W
I tend to agree, Mark. The definition of faith is ...hold on, let me copy it from the post..."the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". I think it's probably worth drawing a distinction between "believing in something we can't directly verify" and "believing in something for which there's no evidence" - I have absolutely no way of seeing electrons, air molecules or viruses, but I have no problem in accepting that I'll get electrocuted if a particularly violent sneeze caused by the common cold blows me into a pylon (OK, weird example) because the effects of electricity, wind and diseases are very obvious.
Similarly, faith as I understand it from Hebrews is the process by which we believe in things like our salvation - we can't possibly know it directly, but because of the evidence of how God's revealed himself to us in creation and in the Bible, we can be pretty sure it's true. What's more, because this evidence can be seen, investigated and debated, it's perfectly possible to end up doubting it, which can in fact be really helpful if it leads to a greater understanding of the evidence.
That's not to say that "blind" faith is necessarily a bad thing. If you find that you can accept something straight off, well and good, that'll make things easier at the beginning. Just don't be surprised if the first serious debate you get into about it leaves you somewhat gasping for air...
Phil
(Oh, yes - the delete-at-your-leisure thing goes equally for anything I stick on here...)
Post a Comment