I appreciate the time you took to explain your view.
The saying "leap of faith" comes to mind when considering these notions. One doesn't need to take a leap of faith if one is certain. Leap of faith suggests some amount of uncertainty. If someone is sure, or has a guarantee, then no leap of faith is necessary.
"Being sure of what we hope for" is not at all the same thing as "a guarantee". People can hope for unrealistic things. And history is full of examples of people feeling sure of something that is simply wrong. If a person has "proof", then there is no need for "hope". Why use the word "hope" if one is sure of something?
It seems to me that your definitions render the word faith rather meaningless. What is the point of the word if God's existence is a given? The existence of God is not guaranteed or proven to the same degree of as the existence of the brick wall I just banged my face into. There is no need for faith where a brick wall is concerned.
I am not criticizing anyone for having faith. Believing in something that is not provable requires a leap of faith. I'm fine with someone having faith.
Board index ‹ Faith and Knowledge
12 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: Faith is a very suspicious requirement for salvation
by Urban » Wed Jul 27, 2022 9:50 am
- Urban
Re: Faith is a very suspicious requirement for salvation
by jimwalton » Mon Nov 07, 2022 1:04 am
Thanks for your conversation.
"Leap of faith" is neither a biblical term nor a biblical concept. In the Bible, evidence always—ALWAYS—precedes faith. Yes, leap of faith suggests some amount of uncertainty, but it's not something you find anywhere in the Bible.
> "Being sure of what we hope for" is not at all the same thing as "a guarantee".
As I mentioned, the Greek term is ὑπόστασις and was used in the business world for the basis or guarantee of transactions, so I'll have to strongly disagree with your distinction. "Being sure of" was meant as a statement guarantee—an absolute assurance of reality.
> People can hope for unrealistic things. And history is full of examples of people feeling sure of something that is simply wrong.
Of course they can. No argument there. But this is not at all what the verse is asserting.
> If a person has "proof", then there is no need for "hope". Why use the word "hope" if one is sure of something?
"Hope" in the Bible is not just wishful thinking or a bright optimism. The New Testament uses the term to refer to confidence and certainty about the things we've been taught, and therefore believe. Our "hope" is in Jesus Christ, meaning He is the foundation of all we believe, and we know by evidence that He lived, died, and rose again. Therefore we can be confident and certain that our sins are forgiven, that Jesus was who He said He was, and the relationship with Him is real, and there is life after death with Him. This is our "hope." It's what we know. "Hope" has to do with the object of our faith (Jesus and his death and resurrection, based on evidence), the content of our faith (the Holy Spirit in us and the reality of new life, based on evidence), the means of our faith (salvation by faith through the blood of Christ, based on evidence), and the goal of our faith (eternity with Jesus and our ultimate deliverance from this world, based on evidence).
> It seems to me that your definitions render the word faith rather meaningless.
Not at all, sir or madam. Faith is being sure of the reality of the object of that faith and having evidence for what we don't see.
> What is the point of the word if God's existence is a given?
As I stated in my original post, most of our lives operate operate in this realm. We can't be SURE the grocery store is there, but we make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make the assumption reasonable. So also when we go out to start our cars, turn a doorknob, or sit in a chair. I have plenty of evidence of those things and how they work, so I go through life making these assumptions that are well warranted. It's no different with God. I have plenty of evidence of God and how He works, so I go through life making these assumptions of truth based on enough evidence to make the assumption reasonable.
> Believing in something that is not provable requires a leap of faith.
There is a certain truth to this statement, but that's not the biblical use of the terms belief or faith.
"Leap of faith" is neither a biblical term nor a biblical concept. In the Bible, evidence always—ALWAYS—precedes faith. Yes, leap of faith suggests some amount of uncertainty, but it's not something you find anywhere in the Bible.
> "Being sure of what we hope for" is not at all the same thing as "a guarantee".
As I mentioned, the Greek term is ὑπόστασις and was used in the business world for the basis or guarantee of transactions, so I'll have to strongly disagree with your distinction. "Being sure of" was meant as a statement guarantee—an absolute assurance of reality.
> People can hope for unrealistic things. And history is full of examples of people feeling sure of something that is simply wrong.
Of course they can. No argument there. But this is not at all what the verse is asserting.
> If a person has "proof", then there is no need for "hope". Why use the word "hope" if one is sure of something?
"Hope" in the Bible is not just wishful thinking or a bright optimism. The New Testament uses the term to refer to confidence and certainty about the things we've been taught, and therefore believe. Our "hope" is in Jesus Christ, meaning He is the foundation of all we believe, and we know by evidence that He lived, died, and rose again. Therefore we can be confident and certain that our sins are forgiven, that Jesus was who He said He was, and the relationship with Him is real, and there is life after death with Him. This is our "hope." It's what we know. "Hope" has to do with the object of our faith (Jesus and his death and resurrection, based on evidence), the content of our faith (the Holy Spirit in us and the reality of new life, based on evidence), the means of our faith (salvation by faith through the blood of Christ, based on evidence), and the goal of our faith (eternity with Jesus and our ultimate deliverance from this world, based on evidence).
> It seems to me that your definitions render the word faith rather meaningless.
Not at all, sir or madam. Faith is being sure of the reality of the object of that faith and having evidence for what we don't see.
> What is the point of the word if God's existence is a given?
As I stated in my original post, most of our lives operate operate in this realm. We can't be SURE the grocery store is there, but we make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make the assumption reasonable. So also when we go out to start our cars, turn a doorknob, or sit in a chair. I have plenty of evidence of those things and how they work, so I go through life making these assumptions that are well warranted. It's no different with God. I have plenty of evidence of God and how He works, so I go through life making these assumptions of truth based on enough evidence to make the assumption reasonable.
> Believing in something that is not provable requires a leap of faith.
There is a certain truth to this statement, but that's not the biblical use of the terms belief or faith.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Mon Nov 07, 2022 1:04 am.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
12 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest