This entry was posted on Friday, May 9th, 2008 at 3:52 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Pages:
Feeds
Categories:
- Administration (6)
- Apologetics (20)
- Church Growth (13)
- Culture (122)
- Devotional (13)
- Media (8)
- Misc. (27)
- Philosophy (18)
- Podcasts (20)
- Question (9)
- Scripture (15)
- Testimony (6)
- The Church (59)
- The Outlaw Church (3)
- Theology (70)
- Uncategorized (129)
Archives:
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
Meta:
Faith Is Not Just About Evidence
05.9.2008 by Chad McIntosh
Many Christians are turned off by apologetics, philosophy, and things of that sort because “evidence leaves no room for faith.” For example, in his popular commentary of 2 Corinthians, N. T. Wright says
“People tell us we’re stupid to go on believing [things by faith]: where is the evidence, they ask? But if everything was obvious, or at least could be proved in some way, where would faith be? We must beware of any suggestion that the Christian faith gives us the kind of ‘certainty’ that people often crave. If I have that kind of certainty, I no longer need to trust God.” (Paul for Everyone: 2 Corinthians [WJK, 2004], p. 57)
What is especially odd about this is the apologetic value characteristic of Wright’s work. For example, at the end of his massive defense of the historical reliability of the resurrection narratives, Wright himself states that the empty tomb and appearances have an historical probability which is so high as to be “virtually certain,” like the death of Augustus in A.D. 14 or the fall of the Jerusalem in A.D. 70. (The Resurrection of the Son of God [Fortress Press, 2003], p. 710)
Then there are those Christians who, enthusiastic about what apologetics and philosophy can show, smugly assert “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist”, or that “even atheists accept things on faith.” I want to suggest both attitudes misrepresent what Biblical faith is.
Faith, in the Biblical sense, is actively placing your trust in what you have reason to believe is true. But don’t stop there. This act is essentially a response to the Holy Spirit, which in turn confers an attitude of confidence, assurance, and, I would say, certainty of what John Edward’s called “the great things of the Gospel.” The problem with both positions above is that they exclude the Spirit’s role in faith by assuming it is only a matter of evidence. Hence, Peter’s exhortation to all those who bore witness to the Spirit’s presence at Pentecost (Acts 2.36):
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified”
May 10th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
To quote myself from earlier this year:
“I have a book on my shelf entitled, “Faith and Reason.” I hate the picture on the front of this book, because it implies that reason is “standing on certainty” and faith is “taking a leap.” I have always felt that the picture suggests that when reason is not enough, just jump off the cliff and trust that all will be ok. My point is, the problem with “cliff diving faith” is that the coefficient of gravity is a universal constant and actions (even ones with the best intentions) have consequences. God does not call us to be mindless drones in the cogs of the Kingdom. He gave us the ability to reason so we might use it to “test and approve what God’s will” for our life is and make sound decisions that honor Him.”
Perhaps NT Wright forgot Paul’s definition of faith, that it is “being sure of things hoped for and certain of things unseen.” (Heb. 11:1)
May 11th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Assuming Paul wrote Hebrews and that Heb 11.1 is intended to be a definition… ;-)
May 11th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
ya, I agree that Heb. was probably not Paul’s work, but since we lack an actual author’s name I tend to accept tradition.
As far as it being a definition, I refer you to Webster’s:
Definition: \de-fə-ˈni-shən\ n. a statement expressing the essential nature of something
I believe it meets that criteria. Whether or not is was “intended to” can’t really be known, only speculated upon. ;-) right back at cha! :)
May 11th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
It is an extremely sketchy hermeneutic to define a term so rife with theological significance by its use in a single passage. At best the author of Hebrews was offering a description of faith, not a definition. Besides, all you have to do to show that Heb 11.1 does not meet Webster’s criteria for a definition is observe the number of different ways the word ‘faith’ can be inflected in the Greek, each of which has carrying with it its own unique slant, not to mention what additional connotations may be contextually infused.
This is to say nothing of the number of different ways Heb 11.1 itself can be translated.
Besides besides, the phrase “essential nature” needs a lot of clarification before it can pass as a criteria for definition.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Words have multiple definitions depending on the context in which they are used. But thank you for accusing me of sketchy hermeneutics.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:39 am
BTW, define and describe are synonomous.