Hope

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Once again, if Faith is greater than Love (and it appears that it should be} then why does Jesus, when asked what the greatest good a person can do, answer this way?

Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

(Matthew 22)
 
Once again, if Faith is greater than Love (and it appears that it should be} then why does Jesus, when asked what the greatest good a person can do, answer this way?

Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

(Matthew 22)
I’m surprised we’d place anything above love. “God is love” and this Love is the entire beginning and end of our faith. It’s what we have hope and faith in and is the very source of & reason for our happiness. We can possess faith in God without love for Him -as demons do-but not the other way around.
 
I’m surprised we’d place anything above love. “God is love” and this Love is the entire beginning and end of our faith. It’s what we have hope and faith in and is the very source of & reason for our happiness. We can possess faith in God without love for Him -as demons do-but not the other way around.
I think the difficulty David and i seem to be having is trying to imagine which of the virtues is best in and of itself and why. One way to try to determine this is to see what living with only one of the three would be. It sounds like a valid point that it is impossible to love a God in whom one has no faith of His existence nor any hope that He exists.

Which do you think is a better state in which to exist, FH? to have faith in God but no love for him, or others? or to love others, but have no faith in God?
 
I think the difficulty David and i seem to be having is trying to imagine which of the virtues is best in and of itself and why. One way to try to determine this is to see what living with only one of the three would be. It sounds like a valid point that it is impossible to love a God in whom one has no faith of His existence nor any hope that He exists.

Which do you think is a better state in which to exist, FH? to have faith in God but no love for him, or others? or to love others, but have no faith in God?
I’m not sure that genuine love for others is not also love for God, if only implicitly, especially for one who may have no informed concept of Him. Faith, on the other hand, is worthless w/o love.
 
When, please God, we live by sight in Aeternum faith will not be necessary.

Love however goes on, it is a constant and un ending affection unto Almighty God.

Love is a pure will, straight from the heart. Faith seems to me as prompting love and more intellectual, it is like the ability to imagine the picture of one’s loved one in one’s mind. When we see the Beloved face to face it will all be love, the imagination will have passed away, even hope, the desire for union will have passed for union will be possessed- everything will be left to love.
 
I’m not sure that genuine love for others is not also love for God, if only implicitly, especially for one who may have no informed concept of Him. Faith, on the other hand, is worthless w/o love.
Would you say, then, that an atheist is incapable of genuine love?

Or maybe a better question to ask is this: How does the love that a sincere atheist shows for others differ from the love that a sincere Catholic shows for others?
 
When, please God, we live by sight in Aeternum faith will not be necessary.

Love however goes on, it is a constant and un ending affection unto Almighty God.

Love is a pure will, straight from the heart. Faith seems to me as prompting love and more intellectual, it is like the ability to imagine the picture of one’s loved one in one’s mind. When we see the Beloved face to face it will all be love, the imagination will have passed away, even hope, the desire for union will have passed for union will be possessed- everything will be left to love.
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

(Revelation 21)

Yes, i think i’m beginning to understand, Mark. If there is an existence after death that is in the presence of the God Love, then love for Him and His love for you or i will never end. I can see, however, that Faith, at least as you or i know her, will cease to be in that state of eternal existence. Moreover, there will be no need for Hope. She will not follow us there, for we will have the object of our hope, and as St. Paul wrote:

But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?

(Romans 8)

Thank you, Mark, for that insight.
 
Would you say, then, that an atheist is incapable of genuine love?

Or maybe a better question to ask is this: How does the love that a sincere atheist shows for others differ from the love that a sincere Catholic shows for others?
That’s a good and difficult question. I don’t think any of us-or many at least-love near well enough or anything like what God has in mind. But I can’t say that atheists can’t have selfless love. Atheism-an avowed disbelief in God -seems awfully sterile OTOH, but sometimes I think it’s really just a hard shaking of ones fist at the God they claim to not believe in-something we probably all do at times, consciously or not. If an atheist were to love better than I then he’d be judged by that and whatever other circumstances surround his life and I’d probably consider him a theist in the making, whether he knows it or likes it or not. In any case, in the end we prove our faith and any other gifts by our love.
 
That’s a good and difficult question. I don’t think any of us-or many at least-love near well enough or anything like what God has in mind. But I can’t say that atheists can’t have selfless love. Atheism-an avowed disbelief in God -seems awfully sterile OTOH, but sometimes I think it’s really just a hard shaking of ones fist at the God they claim to not believe in-something we probably all do at times, consciously or not. If an atheist were to love better than I then he’d be judged by that and whatever other circumstances surround his life and I’d probably consider him a theist in the making, whether he knows it or likes it or not. In any case, in the end we prove our faith and any other gifts by our love.
I’d have to agree with your thoughtful answer.
 
I’m wondering what you FH think (or someone else thinks) of the CCC explanation of Hope:

Quote:
1817 Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.”

Do you think i’m correct in thinking that

(a)

Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness

is defining what Hope is, and

(b)

placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit.

is actually defining the cause of Hope, which is Faith? My thought is that “trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength” is synonymous with Faith.
 
I’m wondering what you FH think (or someone else thinks) of the CCC explanation of Hope:

Quote:
1817 Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.”

Do you think i’m correct in thinking that

(a)

Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness

is defining what Hope is, and

(b)

placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit.

is actually defining the cause of Hope, which is Faith? My thought is that “trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength” is synonymous with Faith.
After perusing the Catholic Encyclopedia, I believe the following to be a pretty fair assessment:

Faith is a supernatural endowment whereby we gain the ability to believe in things we can’t see (God, heaven, eternal life, the resurrection e.g.). Hope is a supernatural endowment whereby we desire and look forward to those things coming true-seeing “face to face.” Protestantism, I believe, often mixes faith and hope, using the term “faith” to include hope, or perhaps more specifically trust, in an object.

In Catholicism, believing something to be true is still different from hoping and trusting that it will be true. The former has to do with supernatural knowledge granted while the latter is to rely or trust in the objects of that knowledge, desiring that they be true for us. Again, in Protestantism the Catholic concept of hope may actually be looked upon as a weakness, useless if one believes in the assurance of their salvation.

It’s interesting that the intellect cannot, by it’s own power, believe in these things, but the will, moved by grace, can cause the intellect to assent and we become confident in them even though we don’t fully comprehend . Perhaps due to the fact that the intellect will continue to question and seek to understand better despite its powerful conviction, hope plays its part until we’re in the immediate presence of the Lord.

At any rate, hope would not be a weaker form of faith but rather a virtue which follows from faiths’ understanding. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for…”. So the trust referred to in the CCC when defining hope is not like the overconfidence of the Reformers-it’s part of the desire-a “hopeful trust”. Anyway, that’s the best I came up with, FWIW. 🙂
 
After perusing the Catholic Encyclopedia, I believe the following to be a pretty fair assessment:

Faith is a supernatural endowment whereby we gain the ability to believe in things we can’t see (God, heaven, eternal life, the resurrection e.g.). Hope is a supernatural endowment whereby we desire and look forward to those things coming true-seeing “face to face.” Protestantism, I believe, often mixes faith and hope, using the term “faith” to include hope, or perhaps more specifically trust, in an object.
I agree your definitions sound reasonable to me. I also agree that the misunderstanding of hope is found in certain Protestant circles. For example, when a follower of the Word of Faith movement tries to tell me i will without a doubt receive everything for which i pray as long as my faith is strong enough, i like to point out these words of St. John:

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.

(1 John 5)

I then try to explain that i have faith that God gives me everything for which i ask that He actually wants me to have, but i hope that the thing for which i ask truly is something He really wants me to have.
 
In Catholicism, believing something to be true is still different from hoping and trusting that it will be true. The former has to do with supernatural knowledge granted while the latter is to rely or trust in the objects of that knowledge, desiring that they be true for us. Again, in Protestantism the Catholic concept of hope may actually be looked upon as a weakness, useless if one believes in the assurance of their salvation.
Do you think that Catholic belief is a two-sided coin? Heads is Hope and Tails is Faith?

If so, it seems that Catholic belief itself would have at least two attributes: Hope would be the attribute of desire and Faith would be the attribute of trust.

http://www.cherokeejewelry.com/images/CL130.jpg
 
It’s interesting that the intellect cannot, by it’s own power, believe in these things, but the will, moved by grace, can cause the intellect to assent and we become confident in them even though we don’t fully comprehend . Perhaps due to the fact that the intellect will continue to question and seek to understand better despite its powerful conviction, hope plays its part until we’re in the immediate presence of the Lord.
Well said.

👍
 
At any rate, hope would not be a weaker form of faith but rather a virtue which follows from faiths’ understanding. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for…”. So the trust referred to in the CCC when defining hope is not like the overconfidence of the Reformers-it’s part of the desire-a “hopeful trust”. Anyway, that’s the best I came up with, FWIW. 🙂
This certainly seems to be the case that Hope is not a weaker (or less certain or confident) form of faith. However, i’d like to explore the idea that Hope and Faith are lesser siblings of their sister Love. You stated earlier:
I’m surprised we’d place anything above love. “God is love” and this Love is the entire beginning and end of our faith. It’s what we have hope and faith in and is the very source of & reason for our happiness. We can possess faith in God without love for Him -as demons do-but not the other way around.
I think that you are being too swift to call Hope and Faith less beautiful than their sister. For the sake of defending their honor, gaining a better appreciation for them, and getting to know the two ladies better, i’d like to defend them against such slander.

If you are up for it, i’d like to challenge you to a duel (all in fun, of course!) and do my best to prove that the twins princess Hope and princess Faith are fairer than their snooty sister queen Love.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
In FH’s absence, is anyone else interested in explaining why love is greater than hope or faith?

Or does anyone else care to talk about what hope is?
It appears that I allowed myself to get caught up in the analogy and missed the forest for the trees.

Paul states:
And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
1 Cor 13:13 (NRSV)
So why does he say it is the greatest?

In the same chapter v. 3, he says without love “…I am nothing…” and “…I gain nothing…”
In v. 8 he explains the love never ends.
vs. 4-7 love has all those wonderful attributes.

This is quite a bit of evidence for the case of love.
 
You were good up to this piont. An athiest not hoping for heaven, is not the same as a christian to not hope for a real God.

These two version of hope that you are describing are completely different.

No athiest, “hopes” there is no heaven. That is ludicrious. No athiest “hopes” there is no God. The athiest does not “submit” to the hope that there is something there, because their submission to truth(which requires verifiable evidence) takes precedance.

Sigh…no-one ever understands the poor old athiest 😛
By talking of different realities I was not talking about different versions of something like the world of scientific realism, only that each has a subjective view or reality of his own, whether of not the propositions which make up that world view (such as “there is no God”) are in scientific or other fact true or not (if such psopositions have verifiable cognitive content).

So, the word “reality” is ambigious, and can mean an independent objective realm, or something more personally psychological and unique.
 
Agreed. It is possible for a person to hope for what she knows is not possible. Such a person would be out of her mind, or at the very least irrational.
Someone told me:

"Tertullian (11th century) wrote that he believed Christianity, and not only was Christianity absurd, but he believed it because it was absurd. It’s absurdity was his reason for believing it!. “Credo quia absurdum est” Kierkegaard (19th century) said that religion meant “the cruxifixion of the intellect”. "
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top