Can I Just Define “Faith” However I Please?
What is faith? This is a very basic question that oftentimes is taken for granted because of the word’s wide usage in many different context. Because of this and because of its importance in the Christian worldview I thought that I would do what I could to briefly explain some important elements of faith. More importantly, I hope to demonstrate as briefly as I can how faith has been redefined in the Church to the point that it is in danger of relegating Christianity to irrelevancy, having equal pluralistic status with all the other major belief systems in the world.
Bill O’Reilly, in an interview with Richard Dawkins this year, illustrated what our current conception of faith is today. As his belief in God was being challenged by Dawkins’ intellectual attacks, O’Reilly did not have much of an answer. After being questioned by Dawkins as to whether he believed in other gods such as Zeus, Apollo, or Thor, O’Reilly responds by saying that he is “throwing in with Jesus.†He goes on to say that he cannot prove that Christ is God, but that Christ is God to him because it helps him. His faith was relegated to the realm of societal and personal pragmatism. While Dawkins did not do too good considering the burden that he had, O’Reilly should not have been in this discussion representing the Christian worldview. In the end his faith rested on “throwing in.†In other words, his defense was not unlike Pascals’ wager where the defense becomes “While my faith may be a blind faith, as it stands right now your faith (atheism) is more blind. I will just choose the lesser of two evils.â€
What gets me is this. How is it that Bill O’Reilly thought it sufficient enough to blindly “throw in†on a subject that is so important. O’Reilly never just “throws in.†O’Reilly is never unprepared. He is never uninformed on a subject with which he speaks upon. Whether you agree with him or not, his passions are not blindly held in politics or social issues; in these areas that are based upon his studies and critical analysis of the issues involved. Yet when it comes to the question of God (something He holds very dear), he simply resorts to an uninformed blind faith.
In fairness to O’Reilly, this is not uncommon within the culture or in the church. Faith has become redefined to “that which you ‘throw in’ with.†The answer to the question, How do we know Christianity is true? is illustrated best in this beloved hymn: “You ask me how I know He lives? . . . He lives within my heart.†This subjective answer is simply not good enough. It is insufficient and irresponsible. If our faith is relegated to a blind leap into the dark and our answer to the hope that lies within us is limited to the typical “Because I know that I know that I know it is true,†then we don’t really have a message that shines any brighter or truer than all the religions of the world.
How did we get to this point and what is the solution?
The American Heritage Dictionary defines faith this way:
- Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
- The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
- The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
- A set of principles or beliefs.
All of these, in the right context could describe some aspect of the Christian faith. But we need to go one step further in understanding this term in a particularly Christian way.
The Reformers sought to distinguish true faith from false faith. The battle cry of sola fide (justification by faith alone) demanded that they define faith in a precise manner.
Starting with Luther and developed further by Melancthon and others, the understanding of faith was expressed in three separate yet vitally connected aspects: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.
1. Notitia: This is the basic informational foundation of our faith. It is best expressed by the word content. Faith, according to the Reformers must have content. You cannot have faith in nothing. There must be some referential propositional truth to which the faith points. The proposition “Christ rose from the grave,†for example, is a necessary information base that Christians must have.
2. Assensus: This is the assent or confidence that we have that the notitia is correct. Here we assent to the information affirming it to be true. This involves evidence which leads to the conviction of the truthfulness of the proposition. According to the Reformers, to have knowledge of the proposition is not enough. We must, to some degree, be convicted that it is indeed true. This involves intellectual assent and persuasion based upon critical thought. While notitia claims “Christ rose from the grave,†assensus takes the next step and says, “I am persuaded to believe that Christ rose from the grave.â€
But these two alone are not enough according to the Reformers. As one person has said, these two only qualify you to be a demon for the demons both have the right information (Jesus rose from the grave) and are convicted of its truthfulness. One aspect still remains.
3. Fiducia: This is the “resting†in the information based upon a conviction of its truthfulness. Fiducia is best expressed by the English word “trust.†We have the information, we are persuaded of its truthfulness, now we have to trust in it. Christ died for our sins (notitia). I believe that Christ died for my sins (notitia + assensus). I place my trust in Christ to save me (fiducia). Fiducia is the personal subjective act of the will to take the final step. It is important to note that while fiducia goes beyond or transcends the intellect, it is built upon its foundation.
The Church today seems to lack #2. Nominal Christianity lacks #3. Postmodernism lacks #1 and #2.
The change occurred during the enlightenment. Rene Decartes introduced the criteria of absolute certainty (absolute assensus) about all things. Hume responded with radical skepticism (non-assensus) about all things. Kant provided a mediating position which provided the basic framework for our current epistemology. Kant proposed that while we cannot be certain about all things, there is no reason to be skeptical about everything either. He relegated all knowledge into two categories. 1.) The real world which can be known and understood through observation (the phenomenal) and 2.) that which cannot be known because it is unknowable (the noumenal). Religion and all matters concerning the knowledge of God and metaphysics were placed in the noumenal category. Kant was basically saying, you can believe in God, but you cannot believe in Him like you believe in your friends, car, or your popcorn machine. However, when you believe in God, you must understand that your belief is not based in knowledge and intellectual conviction, but in faith. Hence came the now popular dichotomy between faith and reason. Hence rose anti-intellectualism in the church. Hence came the unbiblical banishing of assensus from the Christian faith. Unfortunately, the church has bought into this Kantian philosophy and has been plagued with it for the last 200 years.
Bill O’Reilly and those who define their apologetics according to the “You ask me how I know He lives . . .†hymn are prime examples of the churches neglect of the importance of assensus and their uncritical acceptance of Kantian epistemology. This is why many in the church today have the right information (notitia) but they blindly trust in that information without considering it in a critical manner. Notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind faith.
Please do not get me wrong. I am not saying that this kind of faith cannot be real, but I am saying that it is dangerous. The more I read about those who have “walked away from the faith†the more I see that their faith was void of this important element that solidifies the truth in their heart. This can be illustrated by the the different seeds in the Parable of the Soils. Two of the three seeds that take root (believe) fall away after a “short time†(it is interesting that we don’t know how short the “short time†is - another blog). Why do they fall away? One reason is probably because they are not fully persuaded of the truth. In the end, other truths prove more convincing. Like the character “Pliable†in the book The Pilgrim’s Progress, never being truly convinced of any particular truth, there are those who wander from truth to truth based upon the expediency of the day. In the end, I fear, that there are many out there who like Pliable are really not convinced of who Christ is and what He did.
Am I saying that assensus is the most important aspect of faith? Not at all. All three are equally important. What I am saying is that it is the most neglected. When assensus is neglected, Christianity has no more legitimacy than any other worldview. This is unfortunate. While every other worldview must necessarily exclude assensus to some degree, Christianity is the only worldview that does not have to.
Let’s reclaim the mind for Christ and honor God with our faith.
Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Can I Just Define “Faith” However I Please?
- The Radical Redefining of Faith
- The Problem of Nominal Christianity
- Leaving Christianity for All the Wrong Reasons
- An Encouragement for Christians to Question their Faith
What is Faith? « The Way into the Far Country on 27 Dec 2007 at 11:37 am #
[...] December 27, 2007 · No Comments Michael C. Patton writes: [...]
FromTheBalcony on 27 Dec 2007 at 1:57 pm #
Michael
This blog post was a great Christmas present to me! Thank you for expressing so well the thoughts that linger in my heart.
The Meaning of Faith - From Michael Patton | Through A Glass, Dimly on 27 Dec 2007 at 2:50 pm #
[...] bring this up to refer you to a fine entry Michael Patton just wrote on the same subject, called Can I Just Define “Faith†However I Please?. He approaches it from the angle of how perceptions of faith developed through history. He uses the [...]
Vance on 27 Dec 2007 at 2:58 pm #
Michael, your analysis is very accurate, I think. But some will be concerned about the “action item” you are calling on for those who already have faith, even without a thorough examination of the evidence to determine whether that faith is justified. They “trust that Jesus saves them”, but they only blindly accept that the “resurrection happened” as a factual event, without having done an objective analysis of the evidence. Many would shy away from encouraging such intense investigations since they will see the dangers of “falling away” being MORE likely after such an attempt at an objective analysis. The folks are already to a point of trust, they will say, and while that trust could be made stronger by a strong assensus, are they not as likely to conclude that the evidence is not there after all?
This position would, of course, betray a weakness in their own assensus, a fear that the evidence might point the other way if scrutinized. Their desire to “let sleeping faith lie” indicates that they don’t trust the results of such investigation. And, to a certain extent, I can understand that concern (although I would advocate the investigation anyway). I know we may disagree on this, but I am not wholly convinced that a person can truly “logic” their way to God. I don’t think that an entirely objective analysis of the material evidence will necessarily result in the conclusion that the Gospel message is the correct one. I think there is a certain degree of “evidence of things not seen” that will not subject itself to Modern (using the term purposefully) analysis. I think there is nothing in the Christian faith which is contrary to logical analysis (and that is incredibly important!), but I don’t think it is a forced conclusion. It still seems to me that assensus still requires a leap, or presumption or willingness. I guess I am saying that there might be a need for a bit of fiducia in the assensus!
The thorough investigation still has the great value of showing that the Christian Faith is not CONTRARY to the evidence, and that the door is truly open to fiducia. This provides the solid foundation you describe so well in this post. That is how it see it presently, but am perfectly willing to be convinced that the Christian Faith is not just consistent with the evidence, but required by the evidence. I know I have a strong foundation in faith either way.
BTW, when you say “We have the information, we are persuaded of its truthfulness, now we have to trust in it. Christ died for our sins (notitia). I believe that Christ died for my sins (notitia assensus). I place my trust in Christ to save me (fiducia). Fiducia is the personal subjective act of the will to take the final step”, you sound almost Arminian!
Jugulum on 27 Dec 2007 at 3:03 pm #
Michael,
You said, “Hence came the unbiblical banishing of assensus from the Christian faith.”
Are you using the term assensus exactly right, here? Is it correct to say that blind faith lacks assensus, or should we say that blind faith has groundless assensus?
When someone has blind faith, I think they would say that they are “convicted that it is indeed true”; they may have a great deal of conviction, they just don’t know why.
Here’s what I think: There are two elements being combined in the way you use “assensus”: (1) The bare fact of intellectual assent to an idea. Blind faith has that. (2) Being convinced through reasons that the idea is true.
I’m not familiar enough with the Reformers’ definition to know whether both elements are supposed to be in “assensus”. Did they mean just (1)? Just (2)? Both? (Or is (1) supposed to be notitia?)
Regardless, I agree with you assensus(2) is the most neglected element of faith, and that when it is neglected, Christianity has no more legitimacy than any other worldview.
Jugulum on 27 Dec 2007 at 3:10 pm #
Vance said,
“BTW, when you say “We have the information, we are persuaded of its truthfulness, now we have to trust in it. Christ died for our sins (notitia). I believe that Christ died for my sins (notitia + assensus). I place my trust in Christ to save me (fiducia). Fiducia is the personal subjective act of the will to take the final stepâ€, you sound almost Arminian! :)”
Hmm, so you think TULIP means that there is no subjective act of the will to take the final step. Well, I can clear that up!
It actually means that our subjective act of the will only comes after God draws us–and that he draws in such a way that it always does come. Not “We don’t choose,” but “We choose because he first chose us.”
Now that that’s clear, I’m sure you’ll whole-heartedly embrace all five points.
Vance on 27 Dec 2007 at 3:19 pm #
Yeah, I knew that Calvinists draw that distinction, but I like to poke wherever I can! :0)
Jugulum on 27 Dec 2007 at 3:28 pm #
What? You mean I didn’t convince you? Alas, you intractable Arminian, you.
C Michael Patton on 27 Dec 2007 at 5:35 pm #
Vance, I understand what you are saying, but I think that the issue is serious enough to have people call their faith into question. I think it is biblical to question one’s faith. It is indeed true that the unexamined faith may be true, but it is also true that this unexamined faith may be false. I would rather have all test their faith than to naively die with false faith.
Calvinists believe very strongly that their is a choice to be made. They would just say that the ultimate source of this choice is God’s sovereign grace that releases their antagonism (regeneration). From a human standpoint, however, God uses these means to bring people to a position where this antagonism can be relinquished and true faith acquired.
Thinking Christian » Blog Archive » What Does “Faith” Mean? on 27 Dec 2007 at 5:45 pm #
[...] ‘Faith’ However I Please?” Michael Patton asked this question at the blog of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries. We’ve discussed the definition of faith here before; there were even comments saying that [...]
C Michael Patton on 27 Dec 2007 at 5:50 pm #
Jugulum,
You said: “Are you using the term assensus exactly right, here? Is it correct to say that blind faith lacks assensus, or should we say that blind faith has groundless assensus?”
I think that this is a good point. I would then go on to ask if groundless assensus can be true assensus. Perhaps it can, but I don’t have a definite answer to this. We define assensus as “conviction.” But difficulty comes when we cannot distinguish between the types of conviction. Is the conviction from the Holy Spirit? Is it emotional conviction? Is it intellectual conviction. Is it emotional conviction grounded in intellectual conviction brought about by the power of the Holy Spirit? Does the Holy Spirit ever work without regards to our emotional or intellectual subjectivity?
Obviously when we are children, lacking the ability to develop through critical thinking, we will lack the intellectual conviction to some degree. But when we are children, we think as children. When we become adults, shouldn’t we think as adults? Or should we continue to define faith according to the intellectual stability of children? Yes, we are to have faith as a child, but I believe this has to do with the humility with which we approach God, not our intellectual engagement.
Thanks for the good comments.
Vance on 27 Dec 2007 at 6:10 pm #
Oh, I agree that our faith must be examined, and that it can be strengthened as a result. But I would just warn against going into such examination with the expectation that the result would be material evidence that, in and of itself, is objectively convincing. As you say, there are different forms and sources of conviction. Seeking out historical or scientific evidence, lets say, of a given foundation for our Christian beliefs with the idea that “if it is true, then the evidence will be clear” can be dangerous. The evidence may be ambiguous and inconclusive and this could shake someone’s faith if they are not prepared for that.
C Michael Patton on 27 Dec 2007 at 6:23 pm #
Vance, good points. You said “Seeking out historical or scientific evidence, lets say, of a given foundation for our Christian beliefs with the idea that “if it is true, then the evidence will be clear” can be dangerous.” I am not sure what foundational element is lacking for the Christian faith. There are those non-essential elements like Did Elijah really raise the widow’s son from the dead. If I were to believe this, I don’t require direct evidence for assensus to be justified, but indirect evidence of the Bible’s general reliability. If that can be established through other means, then these secondary issues, such as the healing of the widow’s son, can be justified—intellectually justified—indirectly.
Intellectual justification is never the end. In the blog I said that fiducia is necessary. Fiducia is an act of the will to place one’s trust in the object. I hope that I was not coming across as saying that intellectual assent was the end goal or even the most important element. I just believe that it is the most neglected in a postmodern world.
Vance on 27 Dec 2007 at 6:41 pm #
I don’t think any foundational element is “lacking”, but let’s take the resurrection for example. While I think that N.T. Wright has laid out a good argument for the objective evidence supporting its historicity, I am not sure we can say that this point is truly established simply on the objective evidence. I think that, even short of fiducia (trusting in the import of that event) a reasonable person could review the evidence of the fact itself and conclude that the evidence is NOT in favor of the resurrection event, even if not precluding it. So, in the absence of CONCLUSIVE evidence in favor, we are satisfied in the absence of conclusive evidence against, and still have a conviction that it is true.
Now, why do we have that positive conviction when the evidence is inconclusive? That is where something else fills that gap, whether it be the Holy Spirit or one of the other forms of conviction you mention.
But, yes, I agree entirely that the intellectual aspect of our Faith has become sadly neglected in the post-modern world. But, as with most things in the Post-modern movement, it is simply an OVER-reaction to a problem in the Modern world. In the Modern world, we became obsessed with providing naturalistic, scientific and absolute proofs of our Faith in everything from archaeology to history to origins issues, entirely buying into the Modern idea that these “objective” disciplines were the arbiters of all truth, and so all truth must be knowable to them.
The pendulum swings and I think you are right to point out that many are swinging too far the other way.
Jugulum on 27 Dec 2007 at 6:44 pm #
Michael said,
“If I were to believe this, I don’t require direct evidence for assensus to be justified, but indirect evidence of the Bible’s general reliability. If that can be established through other means, then these secondary issues, such as the healing of the widow’s son, can be justified—intellectually justified—indirectly.”
I’m curious… (Though this might be fodder for an entirely new post.) What do you think the implications would be if we were unable to establish the Bible’s general reliability through any means?
Note: I don’t mean, “if the Bible were strongly proven to be unreliable”. I mean, “if it were left as an open question”, or “if the evidence was entirely ambiguous”.
C Michael Patton on 27 Dec 2007 at 6:55 pm #
Jugulum,
“I’m curious… (Though this might be fodder for an entirely new post.) What do you think the implications would be if we were unable to establish the Bible’s general reliability through any means?”
I suppose that we would be on the same level as every other faith. Faith would indeed have to be defined as a blind leap into the dark.
Vance on 27 Dec 2007 at 7:51 pm #
See, Michael, that is where it gets a bit dicey. The Bible has, indeed, proved GENERALLY reliable in those areas where (1) objective, material facts were intended and (2) where such things can be ascertained. For example, where it is likely that strict literal history was intended, we have found this history to be generally reliable, in my opinion. Those areas in which skeptics point out errors or mistakes are either open for debate or are areas in which neither strict history or science was intended (flat earth, young earth, smallest seed, etc).
But, how far does that get us in those important issues to our Christian Faith? Does a generally reliable text in historical matters argue CONCLUSIVELY, or even convincingly, for the historicity of something like the resurrection? I think not, from an objective, modernistic analysis. Herodotus is considered generally reliable, but we still do not accept many things he includes as accurate history. Some we consider entirely made up, by himself or others.
No, I am not sure that the Bible’s “general reliability” provides sufficient foundational evidence for a given fact in Scripture, absent a pre-existing faith or trust that this fact is true. I think we have to bring in a lot of other evidence internally, including experiential, supernatural, etc, to “close the deal”.
I guess I am saying that I have yet to be convinced that, if a person was able to wipe their mental slate clean and be entirely objective and then looked at each of the various religious beliefs and traditions purely based on objective, material and “modernistic” evidence, that the Christian Faith would be conclusively proven. I think that there are other forces at work that provide the convictions necessary to fill the gaps of “absence of evidence”.
Willing to be convinced otherwise, of course.
Ron on 27 Dec 2007 at 7:54 pm #
As disciples of Christ, perhaps ‘trust’ is a better description of our relationship with the Messiah than ‘faith’. I can affirm with reasonable certainty the resurrection event. What I chose to do with this knowledge is ‘trust’. I trust Christ based on what I know of Him. Perhaps there is no real dichotomy, no conflict, between reason and trust. I could go on ad nausea on the subject………
In Christ,
Ron
C Michael Patton on 27 Dec 2007 at 8:22 pm #
Vance, I would not say all the history of the Bible is equal from the standpoint that we are speaking. General reliability does not mean that every event have the same reliability. Like if we are talking about a traffic accident. Witnesses would agree on many issues and may disagree on some. This make their account generally reliable, not conclusively reliable in every detail. For example, four witnesses may say that there was an accident (this is absolutely reliable). They may also say that it happened in TX (this is absolutely reliable). They may also say that it happened during the day (this is absolutely reliable). They may also say that people were driving the cars (this is absolutely reliable). They may also say that there were three cars (this is reliable). They may also say that the last car ran into the second which ran into the third (this is reliable). Though they may disagree as to the color of the last car, each says that it was dark (this is reliable). Though they disagree as to the gender of the driver of the last car, the make of the second, and the color of the light at the time of the accident, this does not make the story beyond definite historic verification with regards to the main issues. While the whole of the story has general historic reliability, it does not mean that all of the elements of the story share in equal validity.
This is the same with regards to the biblical witness. Just because I say that we can only say (according to the evidence) that there is general historic reliability, this does not mean that any or all of the elements of Scripture are placed in jeopardy. As well, the main elements, Christ existed, Christ lived a sinless life, Christ said that he was the Christ, Christ died on a cross, Christ rose from the grave, etc, are all very reliable. Their reliability speaks against the alternatives and therefore demands our allegiance. Our non-allegiance amounts foolishness.
Hope that makes sense.
Vance on 27 Dec 2007 at 8:37 pm #
I agree entirely with your first paragraph, but I would have to play devil’s advocate with the second. I don’t think those “main elements” are those types of events which would could say are “very reliable” based on Scripture alone. I don’t see how the “general reliability” of Scripture (which I agree with) can lead to “very reliable” for these particulars. The fact that they are important to us, or even that they were important to the author, does not mean they are more likely to be reliable.
Some facts are of the type that would, from an entirely historical analysis (drawing upon my role as historian here), be “very reliable”, such as Jesus’ existence, his death, the reason for his death and its method. The fact that he lived a sinless life, however, would not hold up to much historical scrutiny and the “general reliability” of Scripture would not help much there, since not even the authors could possibly attest to that. It is entirely by faith in the inspiration of Scripture that we accept that.
I guess I still hold that we believe much of Scripture because we have faith that it is inspired, and to a CERTAIN extent that faith is reinforced and undergirded by the additional evidences of reliability. But I don’t think it can absolutely go the other way: we could never get TO inspiration FROM reliability alone.
vangelicmonk on 27 Dec 2007 at 11:59 pm #
Interesting post. I agree. I want to interject that it goes with part of my view on the eternal security of the believer, lack thereof, or at least the warnings, but that is another blog entry and another time.
-Ted.
Jugulum on 28 Dec 2007 at 10:42 am #
Vance,
I don’t think Michael was arguing that “general reliability of the Bible” leads to “strong reliability of the important particulars”. He was saying that the evidence for the important particulars makes them very reliable, even though the evidence for the Bible as a whole only makes it generally reliable.
Vance on 28 Dec 2007 at 11:02 am #
Jugulum, I would agree with that approach, if indeed the evidence for the important particulars was significant on its own. Michael can correct me, but I think his position was that the general reliability of the Bible provides the necessary support for those areas in Scripture which ARE essential, but in and of themselves may not have strong evidence. In other words, the fact that these events are IN the Scripture, which has been shown to be generally reliable, makes these events more reliable. My example of Jesus’ sinlessness. There is no particular evidence for this other than a couple of passages in Scripture which are written by people who could not possibly know it to be true as a fact. My point is that we can not parlay the general reliability of Scripture into a statement that this fact must be deemed to be historically “very reliable”.
We accept the sinlessness of Jesus because we are convinced by the MESSAGE, which means we are convinced that the messengers are telling us truth when they say that Scripture is inspired, thus we believe that it is from God, thus we believe that it is telling us Truth.
We back into the historicity if such details, not build them up from the reliability of the rest of the document.
Jugulum on 28 Dec 2007 at 11:29 am #
I agree that Jesus’ sinlessness is out-of-place in Michael’s list: “Christ existed, Christ lived a sinless life, Christ said that he was the Christ, Christ died on a cross, Christ rose from the grave, etc”. It is very theologically important, but the historical record on it isn’t strong, just as far as historical evidence goes.
A more important point is the Resurrection, which you left out of your list.
As Paul said in Romans 1:4, Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead”. (The apostles didn’t go around preaching his sinlessness the way they preached his resurrection, pointing to both themselves and many other living witnesses. See Acts 1:3.) Our confidence in his sinlessness follows from our confidence in his identity. As you say, we back into the historicity of such details.
If you deny that the resurrection is “very reliable” historically, that would be the key point of difference.
Vance on 28 Dec 2007 at 12:21 pm #
Oh, I think the resurrection is historically reliable, but the “very” part is subjective. As I said above, I think N.T. Wright, in his “Resurrection” book did a masterful job of laying out the arguments in favor it’s being historically convincing and I think that, even as an historian (I have a degree in ancient history) I would be convinced regardless of my pre-existing religious beliefs. So, from a purely objective point of view (that of a non-believer) I would say that the evidence should be sufficient, but I would not say it was dramatically or overwhelmingly so.
But, my main point was that the general reliability of the Bible as a book does not get me there. It is the evidence of the behavior of the apostles and the early Church, both during the NT period and after which carry the day.
We must also remember that the Bible is an anthology of texts written over 1500 years by many different authors. So, from a purely objective point of view, the reliability of, say, Luke (the best historian of the bunch), would not ensure the historical reliability of another writer. UNLESS we first buy into the idea of inspiration, which is a theological conclusion.
Even if we want to say that this theological conclusion of the inspiration of Scripture is based on the historicity of the resurrection and other historical events described in the Bible, you have to work hard to avoid circular reasoning and justification if pre-existing beliefs.
Jugulum on 28 Dec 2007 at 1:22 pm #
“But, my main point was that the general reliability of the Bible as a book does not get me there.”
And I agree. You’re critiquing the idea “that the general reliability of the Bible provides the necessary support for those areas in Scripture which ARE essential”. I think we should distinguish between areas that are theologically essential (such as the sinlessness of Christ, essential for his deity and the atonement), and areas that are more “historically” essential.
I’m not sure that’s quite the right term. Roughly, I’m talking about the historical realities that are essential for establishing the faith–the historical facts that are sufficient grounds for calling us to fall down at the feet of Christ as Lord. If we are convinced of Jesus’ existence, his claims about himself, his death, and his resurrection, then we must submit ourselves to him as Lord. (This list might need refinement, but it’s a fair start.) Based on that, we recognize and accept the reality and theological importance of things such as his sinlessness and the inspiration of Scripture.
But as you say, we do not base our confidence in his sinlessness on the Bible’s demonstrable general historical reliability.
Michael can explain whether he does think that Jesus’ sinlessness is one of those historically essential areas that can be well-established through historical evidence. (I doubt it.)
Note: I’m sure a presuppositionalist would have some interesting things to say about this line of reasoning. There might be some valid criticisms that should cause us to tweak these ideas. (For instance, I don’t believe there is such a thing as a sufficiently objective unbeliever; an unregenerate person apart from the drawing of the Spirit will reject the Resurrection, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.) But I think it’s at least sound as an outline. (It has the advantage that it fits well with Romans 1:4 and Acts 1:3.)
Vance on 28 Dec 2007 at 1:47 pm #
I think your last paragraph there gets to a good point: is a person still unregenerate going to be convinced by “objective” evidence? Unless the evidence is objectively conclusive, I don’t see that as likely, and that is why I say that very few people can ever “logic” their way to God. I don’t think God provided us with sufficient objective evidence of ANY type to get us from point A to point B alone. I think there has to be the response to the Holy Spirit’s prompting (whether that be the Arminian or Calvinist flavor of “response”).
At that point, Scripture says that our eyes are opened, so I think your point is a good one. Where I think the education and study comes in is in confirming that it ALSO is logically supportable, even if not conclusive, that there is nothing CONTRARY to logic and evidence, when considered correctly.
Jugulum on 28 Dec 2007 at 3:51 pm #
“Unless the evidence is objectively conclusive, I don’t see that as likely”
My first thought: I don’t see it as likely even if the evidence is completely, utterly, overwhelmingly objectively conclusive. People deceive themselves, and suppress knowledge of the truth.
My second thought: Well… An unregenerate person will never come to Christ apart from the drawing of the Spirit. But I suppose it’s possible that the sheer weight of evidence might convince someone to acknowledge the resurrection but still reject Christ–they might still deny his identity, or they might recognize his identity but refuse to acknowledge & trust in him. (The demons believe, and tremble.)
My concluding thought: Hmm, I’ll have to give this some more thought.
“I don’t think God provided us with sufficient objective evidence of ANY type to get us from point A to point B alone.”
Be sure to distinguish between two things: The sufficiency of the evidence to justify a conclusion, and the sufficiency of the evidence actually to break through into someone’s mind and convince them. The former depends only on the quality of the evidence itself. The latter depends also on the person.
In those terms, I suspect that God has given us sufficient objective evidence to justify us moving from point A to point B. (Possibly even overwhelming objective evidence. I don’t know.) When we don’t, it is on our own heads; we are without excuse.
(We may need to expand our definition of “evidence”. There is historical evidence, which is what we have been talking about. There is also the “evidence” of presuppositional apologetics–the type of argument where you seek to demonstrate the logical incoherence of other worldviews.)
Vance on 28 Dec 2007 at 4:34 pm #
It’s all very interesting, my only caution is to consider that we are people convinced trying to argue how we would become convinced if we were not already convinced!
Jugulum on 28 Dec 2007 at 5:38 pm #
Ah, but I’m a Calvinist. I don’t have to worry about HOW I go about convincing people–I can use the worst apologetics in the world, and if people are elect, they’ll be persuaded.
Er…Isn’t that the way it works?
Troy Pearsall on 28 Dec 2007 at 5:48 pm #
I want to first thank you in giving a name to many thoughts that I had concerning Faith. In my heart I understood these things (principles) but their nomenclature completely eluded me (Nottia, Assensus, and Fiducia)
Moreover even though I had these thoughts in my head, I found it very difficult to express them to others. Many times in trying to express this kind of thing they would resort to blind faith and rebuke me because I had not done the same thing.
As time as passed I have seen many fall from the faith just as you have but have to admit that those that were more accepting of this type of understanding have far outlasted all the rest.
Troy Pearsall on 28 Dec 2007 at 5:51 pm #
I want to first thank you in giving a name to many thoughts that I had concerning Faith. In my heart I understood these things (principles) but their nomenclature completely eluded me (Nottia, Assensus, and Fiducia)
Moreover even though I had these thoughts in my head, I found it very difficult to express them to others. Many times in trying to express this kind of thing they would resort to blind faith and rebuke me because I had not done the same thing.
As time as passed I have seen many fall from the faith just as you have, but have to admit that those that were more accepting of this kind of thinking have far outlasted all the rest.
Doyle on 04 Jan 2008 at 7:44 pm #
I believe that faith occurs in the spirit, because the mind is too evil to hold it. The real question is “What is the spirit?”. It’s already been proven by science that some commands to the body aren’t given by brain cells, but instead by some unknown force. If we know what the spirit is, we will eventually know exactly what faith is. But all Patton said was true.
Troy Pearsall on 11 Jan 2008 at 10:47 am #
I agree with Vance, We are people already convinced, and in being already convinced we we are contemplating on how it came about.
I think this type of thinking has its place, but not occpy too much time in our lives where we should be giving the Gospel to those that are not convinced.
In fact other than a tool for understanding how we an bring others into the Body this ( type of thinking) should not be of great value in our spiritual life.
melcartera on 20 Jan 2008 at 1:23 am #
Which is impossible without the work of the Holy Spirit—so that no one may boast, either that one was “reasonable” enough to believe the evidence, or that one used good arguments and was very persuasive in presenting the case for the Gospel.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. There can be no real saving faith, no real saving convincing apart from the Spirit of God.
Peace!
Michael Card « Questions and Challenges on 03 Mar 2008 at 11:13 pm #
[...] faith in God means. I was stimulated not just by the reactions to my posts, but also by the post Can I Just Define “Faith” However I Please? and the reactions to it in Reclaiming the Mind, and also by the latest posts and comments in [...]