What is Faith?

[RR144]

Faith as the quality by which one believes may be defined as a mental appreciation of, and a heart’s reliance upon, certain objects. This definition is based upon St. Paul’s statement, “Faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1, A.R.V.; see also R.S.V., Rotherham, Young’s Literal Translation, etc.). It will be noticed that the Apostle here gives the matter in reverse order to its actual development or unfolding, for he gives the heart’s reliance (the assurance or confidence in things hoped for) first, and the mental appreciation (the conviction, based upon the evidence or attestation of God’s Word concerning things not seen) last.

Thus, in reverse order, the Apostle shows that there are two parts to faith: one of these is exercised by the mind—mental appreciation, and the other is exercised by the heart—heart’s reliance. Neither of these can be absent in a genuine faith. Mental appreciation must be present as the foundation, and heart’s reliance as the superstructure. Both are necessary to the house of faith, as a natural foundation and superstructure are necessary to a natural house. A believing Christian exercises as his faith a mental appreciation of, and heart’s reliance upon, God and Christ in respect to Their persons, characters, words and works.

 

[for_his_glory]

Hi RR144 and welcome to CF

Going to move this thread to the Biblical Growth &Study forum for a better fit. Questions and answer forum is for those who want to ask questions.

 

[RR144]

No problem, I wasn't quite sure, it's a bit confusing. Thanks!

 

[tdidymas]

Faith as the quality by which one believes may be defined as a mental appreciation of, and a heart’s reliance upon, certain objects. This definition is based upon St. Paul’s statement, “Faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1, A.R.V.; see also R.S.V., Rotherham, Young’s Literal Translation, etc.). It will be noticed that the Apostle here gives the matter in reverse order to its actual development or unfolding, for he gives the heart’s reliance (the assurance or confidence in things hoped for) first, and the mental appreciation (the conviction, based upon the evidence or attestation of God’s Word concerning things not seen) last.

Thus, in reverse order, the Apostle shows that there are two parts to faith: one of these is exercised by the mind—mental appreciation, and the other is exercised by the heart—heart’s reliance. Neither of these can be absent in a genuine faith. Mental appreciation must be present as the foundation, and heart’s reliance as the superstructure. Both are necessary to the house of faith, as a natural foundation and superstructure are necessary to a natural house. A believing Christian exercises as his faith a mental appreciation of, and heart’s reliance upon, God and Christ in respect to Their persons, characters, words and works.

Faith is trusting in something. We trust that the Bible is the word of God, that God was able and willing to communicate to us through writings of the prophets and apostles (and other prominent Christians of the day) - so faith is an assumption about what the Bible is, and what it teaches. I'm referring to Paul's statement that Christ delivers us from the body of death, Rom. 7:24, in which he says in 8:2 that we are free from the principle of sin and death. But by saying that Christ freed us from the nature of sin, I'm also taking into account 1 John 3:9 in which I believe John is saying that the Christian living in faith is living a lifestyle of repentance, in which sin has largely receded from his life, and he continues in the direction of holiness by faith that comes from God. It's the idea that the Christian is being released from the power of the sin nature, that is, progressive sanctification that characterizes the Christian life. This is my take on Paul's phrase "believes unto righteousness." I take it to mean righteousness not only positional, but also (to some extent) formational. And the way that righteousness is formational is that the Holy Spirit puts it in our hearts to thirst for it in our lives.

So, when Paul wrote "with the heart man believes unto righteousness," he is talking about assuming that Christ has delivered us from the nature of sin (that is, the principle thereof), which is the same as using our imagination to reach out to God for making us righteous. If we are in Christ, then we are reaching to God with heart-faith for righteousness. And since deliverance from the sin principle is ongoing in this life, we continue living this heart-faith. I'm referring to Jesus' statement "blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied." So I'm speaking experientially, as opposed to judicially. So then, we seek experiential righteousness from God by faith. Granted, a right standing with God (justification) is imputed from regeneration (I take this to mean judicial, or positional). But how does that imputed justification/righteousness fulfill the individual, unless they experience something internally that they can associate with positional righteousness? When Jesus says "they shall be satisfied," I take that to mean that they experience what they long for, that peace with God becomes heart-felt, and a motivator for obedience to God's will, namely loving their neighbor with a God-kind of love.

"With the heart man believes..." - meaning that we actively imagine God helping us live at all times. So God is with us at all times, and not someone "out there, demanding we do things by our own strength and willpower". So the ethical commands aren't "do this or be condemned," but rather "Christ has done so much for us, that we are so grateful as to love Him with all our heart, to do whatever He says.

"...unto righteousness" - so that our right standing with God is not merely a position in Christ, but is an active and vital role that God is producing right living through us. And here is James also using the idea, since he says "faith without works is dead." He is emphasizing that the right kind of faith is that kind which obeys Christ's command to love others in a practical way. Yet, when he says "faith without works," he is stooping to the level of the gnostics (or whoever is claiming to have faith in the wrong way) in his usage of the term, in order to distinguish between the claim of faith and actual faith in Christ. James is rebuking people for the wrong usage of the term "faith." I'm agreeing with James that "faith without works is dead," - that is, a so-called faith that is a claim to believe in Jesus, but does not trust Him enough to do what He says, is merely a fantasy. This is not to define salvation or explain the process of sanctification. The focus is only on faith, and what exactly is it that justifies us with God.

And we can see the same idea taught by the writer of Hebrews (a third witness) when he wrote about those people who died in the wilderness of Numbers, saying about their unbelief "they did not mix what they heard with faith." (Heb. 4:2 - I come to this paraphrase after comparing different translations). He uses the term faith in the same manner. He is talking about the failure of the nation to obtain rest, which is a type of the spiritual Jew who fails to obtain rest because of unbelief, which I take it to mean that the Jewish Christian doesn't get assurance of his salvation in Christ because he has a residual belief in his mind that he has to sacrifice animals to obtain atonement for his sins. This is how I read Hebrews. And so, in application to the Christian life, he is saying in ch. 4 that the Christian fails to enter rest (that is, assurance of salvation) because of doubting the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice. Thus, my statement that his usage of the term faith is the same as Paul and James' usage. I believe that his description of it in ch. 11 shows his understanding that faith is trusting God.

So what James is writing against is the idea that someone having faith in Christ can do just anything they want (namely practice class prejudice) and still be saved. He is saying that's not real faith in Christ, and that's why it's "dead." Someone having real faith is going to love their neighbor in the same way that Christ does and commanded us to do. Since the Reformation, the term "antinomianism" has been applied to the hypothetical behavior that James is rebuking. I am using the phrase "class prejudice" to refer to James' rebuke of people who neglect the needs of others, or place rich people in privileged positions while excluding the poor. Such people have not obeyed Christ concerning loving one's neighbor. But the "real faith" that James is advocating does obey Christ because of their motivating faith.

This is the only kind of faith that makes “sola fide” correct in the Biblical framework. “Sola fide” is one of the “sola”s of the Reformation. It's the only kind of faith that measures up to what the whole NT is about. I'm contending against the idea that the “fide” in “sola fide” means generic faith. I'm debating that faith in this context is not generic the way the world uses the term, which is the error of the Catholic and Orthodox churches (in addition to many Protestants). Rather, it is faith that is heart-felt and motivates obedience to Christ's commands, because it is an inherent trust in His integrity, words, and promises.

Therefore, faith is trusting in something. Christians trust in God, and believe the Bible is true, whereas atheists trust in themselves, and believe their opinion is true.

 

[LoveBrokeThru]

Faith, is the absence of doubt.

Its : Trust.

 

[eddif]

I am going to approach it this way:

1. We hear about sin and decide we need to repent.
John’s baptism of repentance.

All of a sudden we hope there is a way out of this sin issue we have just realized. ( thing hoped for ? )

2. We hear good news, Jesus died that we might have eternal life. The hope of a way beyond repentance becomes faith in what Jesus accomplished.

The quickening spirit Jesus became knocks at our door. If we open the door assurance begins to develop.

3. We decide others might need this message. We read that power comes from on high that we might be witnesses. Jesus is at the right hand of the Father and can baptize us in the Holy Spirit and fire.

Does not sound very theological, but fits the great commission fairly well. Not just a ceremony but 3 aspects of baptism. Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
Teaching all things. Hidden man of Heart.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[eddif]

Faith, is the absence of doubt.

Its : Trust.

Welcome aboard.
This is your first post, and looking forward to more.

eddif

 

[christian1724]

I think that it is pretty clear that faith goes beyond mere belief. Perhaps, as you stated, it is associated with the quality of the belief. Faith is the manifestation of a held belief.

"Faith is Action based upon a Belief and sustained by the Confidence that when God says something then it is forever settled in heaven!"

Gene Scott on the "ABCs of Faith":​

For example, Jesus' encounter with the Canaanite woman whose daughter was vexed by a devil is highlighted as an example of faith, something significantly beyond mere belief. She didn't just sit at home with her daughter and hope for the best.

Another example: The woman seeking heeling from an issue of blood for 12 years struggles to touch the hem of Jesus' garment and is immediately healed. Jesus doesn't doesn't apparently know that she is about to touch the hem of His garment. And He doesn't proclaim "I hereby heal thee." He proclaims that her faith has healed her.

Both women already possessed unshakable belief before manifesting their action of Faith!

Mere belief is like a lantern hidden under a bushel or a seed not planted. Neither performs it’s function and may well be cast aside as unfruitful.

 

[Runmyramble]

Faith as the quality by which one believes may be defined as a mental appreciation of, and a heart’s reliance upon, certain objects. This definition is based upon St. Paul’s statement, “Faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1, A.R.V.; see also R.S.V., Rotherham, Young’s Literal Translation, etc.). It will be noticed that the Apostle here gives the matter in reverse order to its actual development or unfolding, for he gives the heart’s reliance (the assurance or confidence in things hoped for) first, and the mental appreciation (the conviction, based upon the evidence or attestation of God’s Word concerning things not seen) last.

Thus, in reverse order, the Apostle shows that there are two parts to faith: one of these is exercised by the mind—mental appreciation, and the other is exercised by the heart—heart’s reliance. Neither of these can be absent in a genuine faith. Mental appreciation must be present as the foundation, and heart’s reliance as the superstructure. Both are necessary to the house of faith, as a natural foundation and superstructure are necessary to a natural house. A believing Christian exercises as his faith a mental appreciation of, and heart’s reliance upon, God and Christ in respect to Their persons, characters, words and works.

Religion
Trust
Mental

 

[Runner]

Faith, is the absence of doubt.

Its : Trust.

This is one of those things that "sounds good" but can be dangerous.

The nature of religious faith is yet another epistemological issue. (Boo! Hiss! Sorry, but it is.) If you're interested, which you're likely not, this is quite a good discussion: https://iep.utm.edu/faith-re/.

Most people understand that religious faith is somehow different from the faith I have when I step onto a ladder, trusting it won't collapse beneath me, or when I trust that my wife won't cheat on me during her business trip. The question is, "How and why is it different?"

Christians typically think it's different because they're indwelt by the Holy Spirit. They have the internal witness of the Spirit providing a level of assurance that otherwise wouldn't exist. Thus, Christian faith involves the participation of God (or is even described as a gift from God), which faith in a sturdy-looking latter doesn't.

This is probably the best way to view it. "Faith" in a Christian context is inherently different from "faith" in a secular one. Or at least Christians believe it is. An atheist would say the supposed indwelling of the Spirit is delusional. which is why atheists like Richard Dawkins are so dismissive of claims of religious faith.

Another question is whether religious faith must be rational or evidence-based. Many serious Christian epistemologists say no, so we'll let it go.

But does religious faith have to be free from doubt? Most epistemologists, even Christian ones, would say no. Many would say doubt is inherent in the concept of faith. As famed theologian Paul Tillich wrote, "Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith."

If I'm certain of something, why do I need faith? I don't.

Innumerable giants of Christianity, from C. S. Lewis on down, have admitted doubt - doubt about the existence of God, about God's goodness, and other core aspects of Christianity. Did they "lose their faith" during this time? Did they become unbelievers? No, they continued to trust.

This is why it's dangerous to equate "faith" with "freedom from doubt." It can cause someone to think he's lost his faith when he is simply experiencing the doubts almost all honest believers admit to experiencing.

Many years ago, I formulated my own definition of faith: "Living as though what I believe is true." This leaves room for doubt that it might not be true.

I think faith is basically trust. Trust when there is no doubt and trust when there is. In fact, I discovered later, my definition is one of the standard epistemological ones.

The article I linked above makes this point (quoting William James, famed author of The Varieties of Religious Experience):

In “The Sentiment of Rationality” James concludes that faith is “belief in something concerning which doubt is still theoretically possible; and as the test of belief is willingness to act, one may say that faith is the readiness to act in a cause the prosperous issue of which is not certified to us in advance.” So, faith is not only compatible with doubt, but it requires its possibility.​