Faith

What is it? Specifically, what is faith within the Biblical context? Many people will have you believe that Christianity requires a blind faith. This is not the case. Faith, in the Bible, is not a blind surrender to superstition. God invites us: “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD…” (Isa 1:18). A whole book (Proverbs) in the Bible is devoted to Wisdom and throughout Scripture wisdom is praised and superstitious belief in idols (the illogical worship of inanimate objects) is scorned. Jesus talks about wise men and foolish men. In fact, Jesus is Himself described as the Word. The Greek term translated into “Word” in English is “Logos”, which means [logical] expression. Whatever faith is, it is clearly not a simpleton's acceptance of something that lacks reason; of something illogical.

So what does “faith” mean in the Bible? The first time the word faith is used in the Bible is in Deuteronomy 32:20: “And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.” The Hebrew word for faith, from this passage is “'êmûn” and literally means “established”, “trusty” or “trustworthiness”.

When Jesus says in Matthew 6:30: “…if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?”, the lack of faith in this section comes from the Greek word “oligopistos”, which means “lacking in confidence”.

Referring to the centurion that asked Jesus to heal his servant by merely speaking the word, Jesus answered: “…Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel” (Matthew 8:10). The term “faith” in this passage comes from the Greek “pistis” which means “persuasion”, “conviction”, usually of Truth.

The implication is not blind faith, but acceptance of a Truth after being persuaded of its validity. The centurion was not hoping on some superstitious belief, but he was convinced that Jesus could heal his servant because he knew about Jesus’ ability. He had probably heard of the many instances where Jesus healed the sick and might even have witnessed some of these miracles. He was persuaded about Jesus’ power; he was convinced of His authority over sickness.

Throughout the New Testament the word translated into faith in English is the same Greek word “pistis”, i.e. persuasion of truth, or the negative “oligopistos”, i.e. a lack in confidence -- not trusting something. A better modern translation than “faith” would probably be “trust”. Trust is something that comes from experience; to have confidence in something. That is why “faith in God” is not merely saying the words “I believe in God”, nay, true faith, is trusting God. And trusting God comes from having a relationship with Him.

God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His word, are all established by testimony that appeals to reason; and this testimony is abundant. Yet God has never removed the possibility of doubt. Our faith must rest upon evidence, not demonstration. Those who wish to doubt will have opportunity; while those who really desire to know the truth will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith. -- Steps to Christ; Chapter 12.

[This little book, Steps to Christ, is basically Christianity in a nutshell. Two great chapters regarding faith is Chapter 6: Faith and Acceptance and Chapter 12: What to Do with Doubt. Or download the whole book in pdf-format here. For more formats, including audio, visit this website.]

Is it all just interpretation?

In a previous post I stressed my reluctance to get involved in an argument against someone that is convinced by experience. We ultimately believe what we have experienced. If I have experienced Korea first hand, and afterwards you come to me and try to convince me that Korea does not exist, there is probably no amount of persuasion you can try that would convince me otherwise.

But the Bible warns us against experiences. Apparently experience can also fool us into believing a deception. Christ cautions: “For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders; so much so that, if it were possible, they would deceive even the elect” (Matthew 24:24). People will experience “signs and wonders”, and will be fooled into believing the truths that they propagate.

Where is the line between trusting our experience, in other words trusting our senses, and being skeptical of our senses? How can we know what is truth and what is deception?

The scientific community would propagate that one should only trust measurable experimentally-replicatable facts. But this leaves out of equation all those things that cannot be tested in a laboratory. And it is precisely those metaphysical things that concern me at present.

On the other hand the Christian community would push that the Bible, the Word of God, is our measure of things to trust.

But this is presented as an argument against Christian objectivity. Christians are accused of seeing the world through a specific Biblical paradigm, which disallow most to see anything beyond that paradigm’s framework. That is why a minority of Christians even refuse to believe in the existence of dinosaurs, because according to their narrow understanding there is no room for dinosaurs – and they are therefore unable to conceive of such creatures, even when presented with proof, such as dinosaur bones. Conversely, other Christian who believes that God also created these creatures can more easily fit the extinct beasts into their mindset.

Having had countless providential experiences myself it would be almost impossible for me to conceive a reality without God. Even though I may try and be as objective as possible, it is almost unattainable for me to interpret Life, the Universe and Everything purely materialistically, i.e. atheistically. My experiences stain my understanding.

I can imagine a reality without religion, and definitely without an innate immortal soul, but not one without God. My paradigm doesn’t allow it. And why not? Because of philosophical arguments for God’s existence, yes, but more so, because of experiences; experiences of God providence.

The only way for me to believe otherwise, is if the experiences could be interpreted differently. At the moment, there is no way I can imagine those experiences as just mere random accidental events. They were to consistently accurate to be accidents – for instance receiving exact amounts of monetary donations for pressing needs. My only interpretation is Providence. And if so, I have to believe in something behind such Providence – i.e. God.

Again, my question: Where is the line between trusting our experience, in other words trusting our senses, and being skeptical of our senses? Is there any real objectivity – or is everything merely interpretations of experiences?

I experience random favourable events as providence; you experience it as accidents – as good luck. Does everything just water down to personal interpretation?