Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Assumptions about faith
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 5 of 54 (428384)
10-16-2007 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by bdfoster
10-15-2007 6:16 PM


Sounds a bit like the same thing
Let me try to get this straight. You think a YEC has weak faith because if something is found out to be true, let's say an error in scripture, that this is irrelevant to what faith should really be based on, and therefore is "threatening a deeper knowledge of his creation".
But you're also saying that your faith is strong because it only relys on grace. That is, the only thing that will shake your faith is if it was discovered that Jesus did not rise from the dead. And you find that discovery to be highly unlikely, I assume.
So let's say we have this:
YEC
-holds Biblical inerrency on faith
-holds the doctrine of grace on faith
bdfoster
-holds the doctrine of grace on faith
Is this correct? You're saying your faith is better because:
1. What you hold "on faith" is specified as a "doctrine".
2. There is less scientific discovery that can disprove it.
Does that explain your position well? Or am I missing something?
I see errors in this:
First, I'm sure a YEC would also consider Biblical inerrency as "a doctrine", so I'm not sure if that point would have much meaning to them.
Second, if "fear of scientific discovery" is a motivation, why not go one step further, like this:
YEC
-holds Biblical inerrency on faith
-holds the doctrine of grace on faith
-holds that God exists as an incorporeal entity that does not interact with this world on faith
bdfoster
-holds the doctrine of grace on faith
-holds that God exists as an incorporeal entity that does not interact with this world on faith
Unfalsifiable Believer
-holds that God exists as an incorporeal entity that does not interact with this world on faith
This way, the Unfalsifiable Believer has less to worry about from science than you do. Does this make his faith better? In fact, the Unfalsifiable Believer has absolutely nothing to worry about from science, does this make his faith perfect?
If you hold that the grace-doctrice must be included, or else you don't even really "have faith" or "don't believe in the right thing"... How do you talk to the YEC who simply thinks that you don't really "have faith" or "don't believe in the right thing" because you're leaving out Biblical inerrency?
Basically, what are you using to determine what "a good faith" is? Clarify those parameters first. Then you'll have a basis for comparing your faith to a YEC faith and specifying why your faith is better, or perhaps "more developed."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by bdfoster, posted 10-15-2007 6:16 PM bdfoster has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 10-16-2007 9:47 AM Stile has replied
 Message 20 by bdfoster, posted 10-17-2007 1:54 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 7 of 54 (428393)
10-16-2007 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
10-16-2007 9:47 AM


Re: Sounds a bit like the same thing
jar writes:
I think the real question is whether or not someone is willing to consider everything they hold as a belief might be wrong.
I agree. What I am currently struggling with is that this would seem to bring up the idea that one no longer has faith. Maybe only (simply?) hope. Does tentative faith exist? Or is that just hope? Is there a difference? Is the difference that faith includes a certain amount of arrogance where hope is more honest? Does a difference even matter?
Personally, I'm under the view that the label no longer matters, and this position is simply "open to new information", regardless of what anyone wants to call it. In that case, it makes it right to me. Sort of the absolute stance of the saying "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 10-16-2007 9:47 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 10-16-2007 10:20 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 9 of 54 (428407)
10-16-2007 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
10-16-2007 10:20 AM


Re: Sounds a bit like the same thing
jar writes:
Faith is a slightly different position than just hope, a more positive one.
I don't understand. Hope is positive, and can range from slightly positive, to extremely positive. I don't see how one can get into some range that's "too positive" to be called hope. I'm under the impression that it's impossible for hope to have a limit on how positive it is, to me it's infinite.
I would not call it as much arrogance as simply a higher degree of confidence.
A higher degree of confidence based on subjective analysis? Is that even still confidence? I cannot think of much objective evidence to base such confidence on. And that small chance of not-being-true still exists, doesn't it? If any tentativity is included at all, no matter how small, can it still be called faith?
But my dictionary semantics are rather trivial, really. I think we're on the same page, if we did agree on definitions, I'm pretty sure we'ed quickly agree on the main point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 10-16-2007 10:20 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 10-16-2007 11:00 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 27 of 54 (428959)
10-18-2007 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by bdfoster
10-17-2007 1:54 PM


Still sounds like the same thing
bdfoster writes:
I think you misunderstood my position.
Yes, that's why I asked
And, actually, I'm still not clear on it. The way I read your reply to me was "No, Stile, that's not what I'm saying, this is what I'm saying..." but then you went on to repeat exactly what it was I thought you were saying in the first place. I am confused.
Perhaps my latching onto the word "doctrine" was a poor choice. I'll try again without mentioning it.
Especially since Paul said we are saved, "by grace through faith". You can whittle away all sorts of Christian doctrines as non-essential but you really can't take away that one.
This is my point. You say "you really can't take away that one". Well, a YEC would say "you really can't take away Biblical Inerrency". What's the difference? To me, it's just two people deciding that two different things are "really important". Why should I care that you think grace through faith is really important, and not care that a YEC thinks biblical inerrency is really important? I really don't see a difference. Both statements have absolutely no bearing on how I live my life here and now. Isn't that what's important? How we all learn to live together here and now?
It would be hard to come up with a theology that could be considered Christian without salvation by grace through faith.
And a YEC would say "someone who doesn't believe in biblical inerrency can hardly be considered a Christian". Why is your statement any different? It looks like exactly the same thing to me. It looks like exactly the same "we believe in this, we are True Christians" useless theology that has no bearing on how to live a helpful, fulfilling, good life. What's really important? Being part of a group? Or being part of helping society to improve upon itself?
But it is conceivable that the most basic Christian beliefs could be proved wrong.
This is the statement that actually sets you apart. This understanding that it's possible for physical things to have happened differently than we hoped. And the following implication that it really doesn't make a difference. But my question is... do you follow through with that implication?
What would happen if it was actually discovered that Jesus did not rise from the dead? Or perhaps didn't even exist at all?
If you'd remain a Christian, then the talk about the "important fundamental doctrine" isn't needed, it's extraneous.
If you'd lose your faith, then your faith in Christianity seems on par with a YEC's faith, to me. That is, based on superfluous hopes of a certain physical world that may or may not exist rather than being based on how to live one's life in the most benevolent way possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by bdfoster, posted 10-17-2007 1:54 PM bdfoster has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 10-18-2007 9:48 AM Stile has replied
 Message 50 by bdfoster, posted 10-19-2007 7:14 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 29 of 54 (428983)
10-18-2007 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by jar
10-18-2007 9:48 AM


Re: Two points.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't disagree with anything you wrote in your reply. I'll have a go at clarifying what I was trying to say, though.
TrueChristian writes:
In the first of the two, when the new evidence is brought forward person A says "Yep, point taken. I will abandon that item of Faith."
In the second, when the new evidence is brought forward person B says "Nope, not convinced. If what you say is true then I would have to abandon my belief and I will not do that."
Are those two reactions equivalent?
No, they're not equivalent at all. One position abandons their faith, and the other clings to it. But I didn't really mean to talk about either of those positions in my message. There are two other options, the two I was thinking of (and probably wasn't clear on) in my message are:
1. Abandoning your faith because some physical data is overturned by science (similar to your A).
2. Keeping your faith and accepting that physical data doesn't have much meaning to the faith. As in, it doesn't matter if there actually was a flood, or that the world wasn't created in 6 days, or if the Bible's inerrent.
--when I say "your faith", I'm talking about an individual's main faith in Christianity in general as the correct path in life. One that will help lead to living in harmony with our neighbours. Not the particular faith in the particular belief that has been discovered to be incorrect.
Those are the two stances I was contrasting.
One possibly falsifiable part of the Nicene Creed is the claim that Jesus rose from the Dead. If it was somehow possible to prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then that would certainly falsify a strongly held belief and one of the defining items of Christianity.
The question then is "How would Christians address that issue?"
They could
  • deny the evidence.
  • revise the definition.
  • abandon the belief.
Are there other options?
I'm not sure. The point I was trying to make was that keeping their faith and continuing to attempt to live a good life (isn't that what Christianity is mainly about?) would show a stronger faith than abandoning their faith in the religion because a certain belief was understood to be incorrect. Regardless of how "core" some people regard any certain physical belief, even if that person is Jesus himself.
I guess it all depends on what you think the important aspect of Christianity is. Is it to follow what Jesus says no matter what he says? Or is it to follow what Jesus says because it helps to teach people to live in harmony? I'm of the thought that the second option is a deeper-understanding than the former.
-------------
PS. I find your new name a bit confusing, doesn't this forum already have a True Christian persona? Or perhaps he doesn't post much anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 10-18-2007 9:48 AM jar has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 53 of 54 (429890)
10-22-2007 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by bdfoster
10-19-2007 7:14 PM


Re: Still sounds like the same thing
bdfoster writes:
Well of course a YEC could say that. They do say it all he time. My point is they're wrong. To require ANYTHING else in addition to belief in Christ is a contradiction of the gospel of grace alone. Yes they're all doctrines but to require belief in those doctrines contradicts a more basic doctrine, that all we have to do is believe in Christ.
I agree that you think a YEC has, lets say, "more than he needs" in his theology. What I don't see is why you think the line you've drawn in your theology is any different, or even necessary. That is, different in it's approach to faith, it's obviously different in quantity.
You say a belief that Jeses was real and was actually resurected is required. I don't see why that's true. I certainly can still have faith in grace, and faith in the teaching of Jesus Christ to show me how to live a good life, and faith that Jesus Christ is the way to the afterlife... I can have all that faith and not believe that Jesus Christ was real. I can have all that faith and not "bank my theology" on the physical resurrection.
Does that give my faith a more solid foundation in the same way your faith is more solid than a YEC's?
I have indeed founded my faith in Christ on hopes of a certain physical world that may or may not exist, specifically the resurrection. But if a YEC would lose his faith in Christ on the discovery that the earth is older than a literal reading of Genesis allows, then he has founded his faith on hopes of a certain physical world that has already been shown not to exist, instead of the resurrection. Which faith has a more solid foundation?
Well, my faith does. Because yours has a possibility of being proven wrong on a physical level. Mine does not. And we both have faith in Christianity. We both have faith in the Christian afterlife. We both have faith in Jesus Christ. We both have faith in Jesus' wondrous teachings. We both have faith in God's grace.
My faith just has a more solid foundation, by your reasoning, anyway
If you want to say that I need to have faith in Jesus' physical resurrection... why? How does that change any of my faith statements above? And how is that any different from a YEC proclaiming that your theology needs to include faith in biblical inerrency?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by bdfoster, posted 10-19-2007 7:14 PM bdfoster has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024