Transitive belief

[Roguish]

It seems to me that many religious folk, including many Catholics, experience and practice belief as a transitive act only: the mental act of accepting Christ’s story, His Sonship, etc., as true, and a feeling of confidence of being saved, based on having performed that mental act.

Would such a purely transitive belief be salvific?

Is transitive belief a fore-runner of an intransitive, intimate belief, so that the transitive belief would be justified as a precursory step, to be followed later by an intimate belief?

It seems to me that without the intimate, intransitive belief, Christ cannot work in oneself the transformation that I believe is required for salvation to actually materialize when one dies.

Or do appearances deceive and is belief in Christ for most, if not all, always (also) an intransitive, intimate act, and is my concern unjustified?

EDIT: See 3rd post in the thread for my attempt at clarifying what I mean by transitive vs. intransitive belief. I’m not intentionally trying to sound arcane. These are the best terms I know for what I’m talking about.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m sorry but I don’t get what you’re saying.

Are you saying people need more to be saved than just accepting Christ as their savior?

What’s a “transitive” belief vs. an “intimate, intransitive” belief?

 

[Roguish]

What’s a “transitive” belief vs. an “intimate, intransitive” belief?

I use these terms roughly the way they’re used in grammar. In the transitive case, the act of believing has a “target” at which the act of belief is directed (an “object”, in grammar terminology). The object is Christ in this case. In the intransitive case, the act of believing is not aimed at an object, but affects the “I” who does the believing (the “subject”, grammatically speaking).

So a transitive belief is a belief in which Christ is an “other”, who is known conceptually. With regard to the nature of the mental action involved, a transitive belief in Christ is not different from a belief in the existence of, say, molecules – though it is obviously different with regard to significance. Neither Christ nor molecules are visible. Either can be accepted as “truthful” concepts through an act of reason, an act of faith, or an act of hope.

An intransitive belief is a belief in which Christ is not an “other” but in which His Living Presence is experienced directly, without the mediation of thought. He is known to be “Here”. In this case “I believe in Christ” really becomes “I believe while I remain (or abide) in Christ.” (cf. John 15:4) Christ is then not the “target”, but the Living Presence in which the belief occurs.

Btw, I’m not saying that it would be healthy to have only intransitive belief. I’m rather wondering about the opposite: would it be healthy (or rather: sufficiently salvific) to have only transitive belief.

Are you saying people need more to be saved than just accepting Christ as their savior?

I’m saying it seems to me that the very “accepting” is for many people only a mental act, and I’m wondering if that alone would work the believer’s salvation. But I could be wrong, for either of the two reasons I mentioned. Either there could be more people with intransitive belief than I think – and those people might not even be able to articulate that; or, it could be that transitive belief alone is sufficient. But about the latter, I don’t see how that could be possible, which is the reason for my concern.

 

[adgloriam]

experience and practice belief as a transitive act only

Both exist and require different analyses of their personal path in the faith.

Your dichotomy transitive/intransitive is reducing of the complex relationship with the faith over time.

It is not simply an isolated person because God plays a determinant role in our conversion.

 

[adgloriam]

I’m sorry but I don’t get what you’re saying.

@Roguish your choice of keywords is metaphorical borrowing from physics and your elaboration is speculative. There are formal answers to the questions you pose, and together with those answers the correct formulation of the questions which has been refined over millennia. Answering on your terms would not only have us entering speculation but also use an incorrect taxonomy for the metaphysical and theological concepts you are trying to express.

[There is a reason why you won’t find the expression “Transitive belief” in catholic literature.]

 

[Roguish]

There are formal answers to the questions you pose, and together with those answers the correct formulation of the questions which has been refined over millennia.

I know that, but I have not found those answers adequate, and I was wondering what people on this forum think.

 

[adgloriam]

but I have not found those answers adequate

Look at the index of the catechism and place your questions using the keywords you find there. You won’t gain anything by not following sound methodology.

 

[Roguish]

You won’t gain anything by not following sound methodology.

Adgloriam, as I said I asked for the views of people on this forum. That’s my “methodology” right now. It seems you don’t like my question or the way I have phrased it. That’s okay. Perhaps others will attempt an answer. If not, that’s okay too.

 

[adgloriam]

Is transitive belief a fore-runner of an intransitive, intimate belief

Define, exactly, what “transitive belief” is. And what is “intransitive belief”?

 

[adgloriam]

The initial answer would be this:

All human beings are “religious” by their very nature. (If you ask many different people if they believe in God only by exception would they say no. This, are actually the first paragraphs of the catechism, the religious nature of man.)

Then, your question develops…How does man relate to God and his own faith during his life? Well, that is a complex subject, if only because it is a relationship with God who through His divine Providence acts in our life and our soul through grace. Therefore you’ll enter the complex subject which is the economy of grace. But also mystical theology which is us seeing God’s action in our life.

 

[twoboys]

it sounds like your transitive belief refer to knowledge. pure mental knowledge of Jesus’s salvation story won’t save you of course.

 

[Roguish]

it sounds like your transitive belief refer to knowledge. pure mental knowledge of Jesus’s salvation story won’t save you of course.

By transitive belief I mean more than knowledge though. Knowledge alone does not necessarily place confidence in what is known. By a transitive belief I mean, loosely speaking, putting one’s faith in the thought of Christ. See also my first reply to @Tis_Bearself, where I tried to clarify what I mean.

 

[twoboys]

what’s the difference between faith in Christ and faith in the thought of Christ?

 

[Roguish]

what’s the difference between faith in Christ and faith in the thought of Christ?

If for you there is no difference, it seems to be that your belief is what I called “transitive”. That’s fine as far as that goes.

Another form of belief is possible, an unmediated belief. You may experience this one day, or not, I don’t know.

So my question was whether these two forms of belief are equally salvific.

 

[twoboys]

it sounds like you know the difference. i think faith in christ is heart+mind+experiential + spiritual. things on the thought level seems not spiritual. if my faith is on thought level, i would pray to the Lord to help my unbelief.

 

[ratio1]

I read a book in the past which seems to touch on a similar topic. Please tell me if this is what you are referring to?

There is a difference between “knowing about” someone and “knowing” someone.

I may know a lot about Prince Harry, when he was born, what he did, what day he got what etc without actually meeting him. But do I “know” Prince Harry? no i don’t. because one only knows someone by talking to them, experience with them, etc. Conversely I may know my sister well, but there could still be a lot of things i don’t know about my sister.

Hence knowing about God is all the intellectual knowledge, knowing God requires spiritual experience.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You guys are all smarter than me. I’m just a bear.

I love Jesus. I dunno what big word you want to use to describe it. I’m trying to be more like little children, simple, like Jesus wants me to be, not overthinking all this stuff.

I also don’t know whether it’s enough for salvation or not but I plan to throw myself on His mercy in any event. Nobody can intellectualize their way into heaven.

God bless

 

[Roguish]

There is a difference between “knowing about” someone and “knowing” someone.

That is a great way of putting it, thanks!

Yes, so my question then becomes: for one’s salvation, is it enough to know about Christ? Or is it necessary to know Christ?

And indeed, as your comparison with Prince Harry suggests, the two are different forms of knowledge. They don’t substitute for each other, although it seems more likely that knowing Christ would allows one to know about him also, than the other way around.

 

[Roguish]

I love Jesus. I dunno what big word you want to use to describe it. I’m trying to be more like little children, simple, like Jesus wants me to be, not overthinking all this stuff.

That is a fair comment. I agree that I’m indulging in overthinking here, but the reason is that I’m just worried for people that seem to derive their confidence in Christ from what appears to be a great deal of rigid thought, and seem to lack that “intimate” experience of Him. (Not a dig at anyone here. I’m thinking of certain relatives of mine.) I’ve been wondering if their “approach” to religion actually works their salvation.

But as said in my opening post, it could just be that I underestimate such people, and that their faith is deeper than it seems.

 

[joeybaggz]

To quote Jesus; " Father I thank you for hiding these things from the learned and the wise, and revealing them to the simple and the innocent…" (Not quite verbatim??) Anyway, I think the question asked can only be answered in any concrete manner if all human beings possessed the exact same mental ability. I don’t think someone who has, say Down syndrome has any understanding of transitive vs. intransitive. Yet they can have a solid and working understanding of God and his creation.
My $.02