Elusive Connection...

[Berean2]

…between faith and understanding------->

At my other current thread, Contarini brought up an interesting pt. about seeing thru a broadly catholic (small “c”) lens. That made me recall the statement (was it Augustine who said it?) to the effect that to understand, you have to believe first. Now, I don’t find that to be true in my own case: I have been a believer in Christ and in the substance of the faith (as defined by the Nicene & Apostles’ Creeds) and an avid & attentive Bible reader for decades, but even tho I firmly believe in the virginal conception and all of Jesus’ miracles, as well as things like His being able to pass thru walls and walk on water, none of those become any more intellectually fathomable for me; my belief in them remains a simple trust in the truthfulness of the Biblical account (another example would be: I have no idea how the folks who forged the Athanasian Creed came up with it, and some of what it says totally eludes me, intellectually, altho it all rings right to my soul). So, I’d like to hear thoughts on this from you folks out there, whatever your particular Christian affiliation; sharpen my understanding:thumbsup: with your experiences/insights.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

…between faith and understanding------->

At my other current thread, Contarini brought up an interesting pt. about seeing thru a broadly catholic (small “c”) lens. That made me recall the statement (was it Augustine who said it?) to the effect that to understand, you have to believe first. Now, I don’t find that to be true in my own case: I have been a believer in Christ and in the substance of the faith (as defined by the Nicene & Apostles’ Creeds) and an avid & attentive Bible reader for decades, but even tho I firmly believe in the virginal conception and all of Jesus’ miracles, as well as things like His being able to pass thru walls and walk on water, none of those become any more intellectually fathomable for me; my belief in them remains a simple trust in the truthfulness of the Biblical account (another example would be: I have no idea how the folks who forged the Athanasian Creed came up with it, and some of what it says totally eludes me, intellectually, altho it all rings right to my soul). So, I’d like to hear thoughts on this from you folks out there, whatever your particular Christian affiliation; sharpen my understanding:thumbsup: with your experiences/insights.

I am not sure I can sharpen your understanding. For me I came to faith and believe that all of what we have been given through the Gospel, Bible and and Holy Mother Church is True. I can not understand all of it as being human I have limited comprehension of God, but I accept it.

 

[Contarini]

…between faith and understanding------->

At my other current thread, Contarini brought up an interesting pt. about seeing thru a broadly catholic (small “c”) lens.

I don’t think I used the small “c,” though I may be remembering incorrectly. I generally avoid it because I think it lets everyone off the hook too much. (In other words, it lets us pretend that the Catholicity those of us outside the Roman Communion claim is something other than the Catholicity to which they–and the Orthodox as their rivals–make exclusive claims.)

Furthermore, I was speaking more or less of Catholicism as defined traditionally by Anglo-Catholics, involving an adherence to the consensus of the first millennium and the Seven Councils. Catholicity as spoken of by many Protestants with a small “c” is something vaguer.

That made me recall the statement (was it Augustine who said it?) to the effect that to understand, you have to believe first. Now, I don’t find that to be true in my own case: I have been a believer in Christ and in the substance of the faith (as defined by the Nicene & Apostles’ Creeds) and an avid & attentive Bible reader for decades, but even tho I firmly believe in the virginal conception and all of Jesus’ miracles, as well as things like His being able to pass thru walls and walk on water, none of those become any more intellectually fathomable for me; my belief in them remains a simple trust in the truthfulness of the Biblical account (another example would be: I have no idea how the folks who forged the Athanasian Creed came up with it, and some of what it says totally eludes me, intellectually, altho it all rings right to my soul). So, I’d like to hear thoughts on this

I’m afraid I’m not quite sure what it is regarding which you are asking for thoughts?

The concept of C/catholicism/C/catholicity? Or the “believe to understand” idea itself?

Edwin

 

[KathleenGee]

And Revelation was the end of the Bible…but what began was, as Christ promised, the Holy Spirit coming to teach the Apostles and the Church many things.

What followed Scripture was the Church. The two go together…otherwise you have these endless circular debates with one Scripture quote vs another…

There was the Byzantine Church and the Latin Church united through the Bishop of Rome. There is work being done now to reunite, as well as that with the Lutherans, Anglicans.

Jesus never said, ‘Come to the Bible’.

He said to come to the Banquet Table…fellowship, oneness, fed on His Body and Blood that carries us into eternal life. This all changed with Protestant Reformation about 500 years ago.

 

[FantomScholar]

And Revelation was the end of the Bible…but what began was, as Christ promised, the Holy Spirit coming to teach the Apostles and the Church many things.

The book of Revelation was the last apostolic writing. Its events, however, cover everything from John’s day until the second advent. Therefore, everything within it is true of the entire span of church history.

What followed Scripture was the Church. The two go together…otherwise you have these endless circular debates with one Scripture quote vs another…

That is true, inasmuch as the Church must interpret Scripture. The Church, however, does not automatically mean a caste system within it. The Church encompasses every Christian who is a member of it.

Jesus never said, ‘Come to the Bible’.

No, but He said to come unto Him. He is the author of Scripture. By coming to Scripture, we approach His very breath and the self-revelation of Himself in a way that nothing else the Church possesses can compare. Jesus prays that we may be sanctified in the truth…and that the word of the Father is the truth.

 

[MelanieAnne]

…between faith and understanding------->

At my other current thread, Contarini brought up an interesting pt. about seeing thru a broadly catholic (small “c”) lens. That made me recall the statement (was it Augustine who said it?) to the effect that to understand, you have to believe first. Now, I don’t find that to be true in my own case: I have been a believer in Christ and in the substance of the faith (as defined by the Nicene & Apostles’ Creeds) and an avid & attentive Bible reader for decades, but even tho I firmly believe in the virginal conception and all of Jesus’ miracles, as well as things like His being able to pass thru walls and walk on water, none of those become any more intellectually fathomable for me; my belief in them remains a simple trust in the truthfulness of the Biblical account (another example would be: I have no idea how the folks who forged the Athanasian Creed came up with it, and some of what it says totally eludes me, intellectually, altho it all rings right to my soul). So, I’d like to hear thoughts on this from you folks out there, whatever your particular Christian affiliation; sharpen my understanding:thumbsup: with your experiences/insights.

With all due respect, you don’t have to understand, you just have to believe.

And, contrary to what many may require, first you believe and then, maybe, you “see”. It’s not the other way around ~ see first, then believe. “Seeing is believing” doesn’t always work.

I can’t tell you how to think but I can tell you that what gave me peace was looking at the plain simple words of Jesus and not over-thinking them. Just as an example (one fraught with contention on these fora but OH WELL!) Jesus introduced the Eucharist by saying “this is my Body” and “this is my Blood”. He prepared His followers for this well ahead of time and many went away. When it came right down to it, there were only 12. He still said the same thing. He didn’t say it was a symbol. He said it was His Body and Blood.

I believe Him. Not because it makes sense to me, not because when the Precious Body or the Precious Blood is presented to me looks like Body or Blood, but because Jesus is God and He said so and I believe Him.

Maybe you really do have to believe before you see. Maybe that’s what happened to me, I don’t know. I just know that the plain simple words of Jesus, in the end, made more sense to me that all the other blather, that is ~ all the explanations of why He said one thing but meant something else. Somehow, I can’t really believe that God would have been obscure about something so important. The only alternative is that He was completely clear and the plain clear meaning of the words He said is what I believe.

It all comes down to ~ do you believe Jesus, or not? I do. It’s just that simple.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Read the Summa by St. Thomas Aquinas and you will understand.

newadvent.org/summa/index.html

Also, the key is not simply to understand. One must know how to understand. Learn a little about logic and conclusions.

 

[TheQuestioner]

With all due respect, you don’t have to understand, you just have to believe.

And, contrary to what many may require, first you believe and then, maybe, you “see”. It’s not the other way around ~ see first, then believe. “Seeing is believing” doesn’t always work.

I can’t tell you how to think but I can tell you that what gave me peace was looking at the plain simple words of Jesus and not over-thinking them. Just as an example (one fraught with contention on these fora but OH WELL!) Jesus introduced the Eucharist by saying “this is my Body” and “this is my Blood”. He prepared His followers for this well ahead of time and many went away. When it came right down to it, there were only 12. He still said the same thing. He didn’t say it was a symbol. He said it was His Body and Blood.

I believe Him. Not because it makes sense to me, not because when the Precious Body or the Precious Blood is presented to me looks like Body or Blood, but because Jesus is God and He said so and I believe Him.

Maybe you really do have to believe before you see. Maybe that’s what happened to me, I don’t know. I just know that the plain simple words of Jesus, in the end, made more sense to me that all the other blather, that is ~ all the explanations of why He said one thing but meant something else. Somehow, I can’t really believe that God would have been obscure about something so important. The only alternative is that He was completely clear and the plain clear meaning of the words He said is what I believe.

It all comes down to ~ do you believe Jesus, or not? I do. It’s just that simple.

Correct. Belief is all that is essential. Everything else is for leisure/ the glory of God…also prayer is essential.

 

[Berean2]

I don’t think I used the small “c,” though I may be remembering incorrectly.

Mea culpa: I understood it to mean small “c,” but you did use the capital.

I’m afraid I’m not quite sure what it is regarding which you are asking for thoughts? The concept of C/catholicism/C/catholicity? Or the “believe to understand” idea itself.

The latter: I’m curious to know what kind of increase (if any) in understanding people had once they believed.

With all due respect, you don’t have to understand, you just have to believe.

But see, Mel, what about the Great Commandment, which includes loving God with all our mind/understanding? Proverbs reiterates that when it exhorts us to get insight above all. I realize that certain things will always remain out of reach intellectually (the Trinity, Jesus being very God and very man, and many others), and of course I accept those as I mentioned in my OP, but since the Scripture is not just a picture book, but a marrowy compendium of words and ideas, it seems to me that there’s more than just belief involved, as important as faith is, of course.

Read the Summa by St. Thomas Aquinas and you will understand… One must know how to understand. Learn a little about logic and conclusions.

The last 2 sentences are a bit cryptic: are you saying I’m illogical? If so, please indicate where. Also, “how” to understand has a lot to do with assumptions and paradigms, does it not? So, are you implying that the only way to really “understand” the Scripture is via St. T’s lenses? But if that is what you’re suggesting, he didn’t come along till the 13th century, 1200 years after the Scriptures were penned (bec. of course they were already extant before they were collected together into what we call the N.T.)

Belief is all that is essential.

On the one hand, belief is all that is essential, on the other hand, I’m supposed to wade thru the Summa.:ehh:

 

[MelanieAnne]

But see, Mel, what about the Great Commandment, which includes loving God with all our mind/understanding? Proverbs reiterates that when it exhorts us to get insight above all. I realize that certain things will always remain out of reach intellectually (the Trinity, Jesus being very God and very man, and many others), and of course I accept those as I mentioned in my OP, but since the Scripture is not just a picture book, but a marrowy compendium of words and ideas, it seems to me that there’s more than just belief involved, as important as faith is, of course.

My name is Melanie. Mel is a man’s name.

My point is saying that you need to believe first is part of a process. Once you believe, then you see. It’s not the other way around. Many people attempt the reverse, and come up short, thinking that first they have to see and understand, then they can believe. But believing actually helps you to see. I’m not negating the importance of applying your intellect.

 

[StrawberryJam]

My name is Melanie. Mel is a man’s name.

My point is saying that you need to believe first is part of a process. Once you believe, then you see. It’s not the other way around. Many people attempt the reverse, and come up short, thinking that first they have to see and understand, then they can believe. But believing actually helps you to see. I’m not negating the importance of applying your intellect.

Hello MelanieAnne,

When I read your post, I wondered if I should let you know how it sounded to me from the view of a non believer.
There is a bridge over the river. Now, I know you can’t see it, but once you drive your car over it you will see it. Many people attempt to actually see the bridge before driving across it. But, driving on it without seeing it helps you to see it. I see that bridge, and you will too if only you drive on it.



Just letting you know how all this spiritual talk sounds to us non spiritual types.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Hello MelanieAnne,

When I read your post, I wondered if I should let you know how it sounded to me from the view of a non believer.
There is a bridge over the river. Now, I know you can’t see it, but once you drive your car over it you will see it. Many people attempt to actually see the bridge before driving across it. But, driving on it without seeing it helps you to see it. I see that bridge, and you will too if only you drive on it.



Just letting you know how all this spiritual talk sounds to us non spiritual types.

Do you put your trust in certain people and ideas? Do you have faith in other people whom you love that they won’t do bad things to you, and in the hope that you will live through today and many more years?

You don’t know this for certain, but you have faith.

It’s not a difficult concept.

I believe in God. I have faith and hope and trust in Him.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Do you put your trust in certain people and ideas? Do you have faith in other people whom you love that they won’t do bad things to you, and in the hope that you will live through today and many more years?

You don’t know this for certain, but you have faith.

It’s not a difficult concept.

I believe in God. I have faith and hope and trust in Him.

I have faith that an elephant won’t be outside my door when I open it up in the morning to grab the paper. It is possible an elephant could be outside my door on any given morning. But, I’ve never seen one in all the years of opening doors. So, while it is possible it is very improbable.
Even more improbable would be for me to believe the elephant is outside the door first, before opening the door. I would be a victim of confirmation bias if I did that, so I can’t believe the elephant is there before opening the door. Even if I saw an elephant outside, I would have to wonder if I caused my self to see things if I believed it was there before seeing it.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I have faith that an elephant won’t be outside my door when I open it up in the morning to grab the paper. It is possible an elephant could be outside my door on any given morning. But, I’ve never seen one in all the years of opening doors. So, while it is possible it is very improbable.
Even more improbable would be for me to believe the elephant is outside the door first, before opening the door. I would be a victim of confirmation bias if I did that, so I can’t believe the elephant is there before opening the door. Even if I saw an elephant outside, I would have to wonder if I caused my self to see things if I believed it was there before seeing it.

Sounds like you sort of expect to see an elephant someday outside your door!
Keep the faith!

 

[KathleenGee]

I don’t think people are grasping here what I am saying that after Revelations then begins Christ in the life of the Church, the incarnation of the Word of God Made Flesh.

Baptist, of course the Gospels and the rest of the Bible speak of the events of salvation. But there is the other half of the Word of God and that is its people…I would think there is new history to be written regarding the new believers now that Christ’s mission is completed. Now is the new kingdom of Christ now time…and there is much truth and guidance from the Holy Spirit for the believers.

If the Jews have had their history, than why not the Christians—creation awaited the Messiah…and it doesn’t end with Him…it begins His kingdom that is already here on earth.

So you can’t find everything in the Bible, meaning the new life found in Jesus Christ in each generation. That is found in the Church. You have the saints, the bishops, the teachings, you have theologians relating the Word of God to present times. Do the Baptists have teachings on social justice, stem cell, eugenics, etc. that is universal?

For Christ’s Church, the Holy Spirit is given by the Father through Christ to guide us…Scripture and Tradition are entertwined.

 

[Berean2]

MelanieAnne: Sorry about that, no offense intended. I just have terribly lazy fingers.

SJ: For me, the hub of my Christian faith is the Resurrection, which is 3-D proof. Everything else is “spokes.” There are a lot of things in the Bible that confuse me (or even sometimes fluster me!), but I know that it’s His Word, bec. Jesus gave His stamp of certification to it (both backwards and forwards, iow O.T. & N.T.). Everything revolves around Him (I mean in terms of the scaffolding of my faith). He is truly my “Rock.” Doesn’t mean I don’t have a zillion questions (my middle name should’ve been “Query”), and sometimes, I have doubts, tho never about the core things of the faith (i.e. what’s summed up in the Nicene & Apostles’ Creeds). But that God exists, and that He sent His Son to be one of us and to die for our sin, that is the linchpin of my faith, and my ultimate hope (Gk. “elpis” meaning “confident expectation”—not to be confused with wishful thinking).

Now, admittedly, I’m what RC’s would probably call a “fideist,” bec. ultimately, I don’t think that you can reason somebody into faith: no matter how good your apologetics, no matter how articulate you are, how skilled a debater, another person’s coming to faith in Christ is ultimately a mystery, something very elusive (HA! Full circle back to the title of this thread!). Matter of fact, I honestly think apologetics is for BELIEVERS {gasp}! Because ultimately, faith has to do with the soul, and the soul isn’t reachable by arguments (those are mind’s domain). My sophomore year of college, right before I finally came to Christ, I was an existentialist (sympathizer, not card-carrying/fervent). That was the conclusion my mind had finally settled on (after first trying out Deism/pantheism, w/o knowing them by that name). But the whole time I believed that stuff “upstairs”, my soul “downstairs” was like a bronco, bucking with fierce resistance. Soul didn’t want that junk food; Soul knew that there was genuine protein (Jesus calls it the Manna) somewhere; Soul was like an infant who’s wired for mother’s milk, and will not calm down except for the Real McCow (no, I’m not saying faith is infantile, tho Jesus does say one has to have the faith of a child).

Let me put it to you another way: faith is a 6th sense, an additional “sight,” another layer of perception. Until it’s “switched on” (which ultimately is God’s doing), we can’t grasp the Gospel. Another analogy would be: the man who’s color blind can’t understand the ravings of an art connoisseur going on and on about the glories of Van Gogh’s paintings. The woman whose olfactory system is dead won’t be able to appreciate the inebriating fragrance of wusteria or honeysuckle. Someone who’s tone deaf will think I’m crazy for being in love with the strains of “The Moldau” or “The Messiah.” No way can any of those people “identify” with what they’re simply not wired to perceive, no matter how excellent an explanation of the missing experience they might receive from even a wordsmith like Shakespeare or William F. Buckley. But that doesn’t mean that the colors aren’t magnificent, the perfume’s not divine (heh), or the melodies aren’t to die for.

 

[KathleenGee]

Interesting, Berean, your faith history is very similar to mine.

My father was in the Benedictine seminary. He left, met my mother, a convert from a post Baptist background, and they chose to live a very simple life. I always had faith in Christ and the Eucharist, but had abusive nuns for teachers, and it displaced my formal belief in the Catholic Church as the true church.

But I continued to go to Mass, and with Vatican II, it helped alot. My father told me I never had faith in the Church. When I was 21 I made an act of faith to believe that the Catholic Church was indeed founded by Christ and His apostles.

Yes, it is an act of faith. The way of faith is really a testimony of believers and the Oral Tradition. But I also believe in the sacraments and the Mass. I have gone to Protestant services and Bible studies, besides seeing a common faith, I also see them so alone with the Bible. There is much more to Christianity than devotion and nurturance on the Word of God.

That is why I saw I believe in the Word Made Flesh…the believers becoming church, being nurtured by the sacraments, and learning to recognize and be faithful to the construct of faith based on the apostolic tradition.

Our pastor at Mass was saying today that a Protestant ministry leader came to visit our parish. What he saw right away was the universal character. If a Catholic doesn’t like his church, he can get up and move to another parish. But when you come in to a Catholic community, you will find so much diversity. You see rich, poor, middle class, different races and ethnic groups. In every parish you will find so many different ways of looking at an issue…just in one parish church. The man was saying the Protestants tend to group together more in a specific way of looking at things.

So our liturgies are very inclusive, we study the entire Bible in parts, so it takes 3 years to get through it. We know all the same stories and testimonies. We don’t literally memorize passages but rather the intent and put it into practice.

Our neighbors are Nazarene Christians, very generous. They had a ecumenical Bible study. There were 3 of us Catholics. We would read a certain passage. But they would look at individual words, pull out their dictionaries, and study in depth what individual words meant. The three of us Catholics sat there respectfully, but it was like we heard the passage, but the Eucharist, our nourishment was already drawing on it, and then leading us to go out and serve…to go out and give Him…very different response.

 

[Contarini]

The latter: I’m curious to know what kind of increase (if any) in understanding people had once they believed.

Are you familiar with Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Kuhn criticized the traditional picture you get from scientists, which is that they just go out and look at the world neutrally and perform objective experiments to see how things work, which results in the progressive displacement of ignorant opinion with solid knowledge. Instead, Kuhn concluded that most scientific work is done on the basis of faith in a “paradigm”–a set of assumptions about how the world works, about what kinds of questions are relevant, and about what kinds of answers to those questions count. All paradigms have problems–there are always things that don’t quite fit. And so a second level of scientific work is tinkering with the paradigm to make it fit new evidence. But sometimes, some scientists conclude that the paradigm itself is flawed. This happens when the problems with the paradigm appear particularly serious and relevant, on the one hand, and an alternative paradigm presents itself, on the other. In those cases scientists essentially “convert” to the new paradigm. If enough scientists do this, the new paradigm becomes dominant and a “scientific revolution” has occurred.

Some folks criticize Kuhn for being relativistic. I couldn’t really figure out on the basis of the book whether he was a genuine relativist or not. I myself certainly believe that there is truth “out there.” But it also seems obvious to me that my only access to truth is through my own “window” of perception. I am not God–I don’t see all reality at once.

So even from a purely rational perspective, in order to know and do anything I have to work within a paradigm–a set of assumptions. I have to take that paradigm on faith, and then the paradigm helps me understand my world better.

This may not be exactly the answer you were looking for. . . .