Was the early church "high and dry" being without Scripture until the 3rd centrury?

[itsjustdave1988]

Protestantism has proven that it really does not matter if the early church was “high and dry” being without Scripture until the 3rd century or not. Protestantism shows that even if one has Scripture in hand (incomplete as the Protestant bible is), it’s no guarantee to orthodox interpretation unless one hold’s fast to Heb 13:17, and puts aside their private interpretation and obeys the leaders placed in the care of our souls, the apostolical men, as Athanasius calls them. Or as Protestant scholar JND Kelly admits, it was important to hold fast to that tradition which the early Chruch "recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation**,** for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness"

 

[michaelp]

itsjustdave1988:

Protestantism has proven that it really does not matter if the early church was “high and dry” being without Scripture until the 3rd century or not. Protestantism shows that even if one has Scripture in hand (incomplete as the Protestant bible is), there’s no guaranteed to orthodox interpretation unless one hold’s fast to Heb 13:17, and puts aside their private interpretation and obeys the leaders placed in the care of our souls, the apostolical men, as Athanasius calls them. Or as Protestant scholar JND Kelly admits, it was important to hold fast to that tradition which the early Chruch "recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation**,** for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness"

I agree to some extent with all you said, but the article does clearly show that the 30,000 number is not true. Many of the divisions are doctrinal, true. But, for the most part, Protestants can be divided unto Calvinistic traditions and Arminian tradtitions. Then there are many differnt ways of expression and government within those two. I do not think it is fair to include all the cults and those who would not even claim to be Protestant like sect of Anabaptists and all their traditions. Again, the 30,000 is abused and illinformed. It is a polemical devise for those who have not truly understood the nature of the divisions.

Besides all of this, if the are 1000 or 30,000, to me, right now, you are just one option among the many.

This however is the subject of the other thread. I think that it has been exhaused.

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

I agree to some extent with all you said, but the article does clearly show that the 30,000 number is not true. Many of the divisions are doctrinal, true. But, for the most part, Protestants can be divided unto Calvinistic traditions and Arminian tradtitions. Then there are many differnt ways of expression and government within those two. I do not think it is fair to include all the cults and those who would not even claim to be Protestant like sect of Anabaptists and all their traditions. Again, the 30,000 is abused and illinformed. It is a polemical devise for those who have not truly understood the nature of the divisions.

Besides all of this, if the are 1000 or 30,000, to me, right now, you are just one option among the many.

This however is the subject of the other thread. I think that it has been exhaused.

Michael

A politician, they say, is someone who can explain away an earthquake, leaving us with no clue as to why all the buildings are in ruins.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Similarly, the explanation that there are two main traditions in Protestantism doesn’t take into account that there are differences within those traditions that keep splintering and re-splintering Protestant churches.

As to us being just one opinion among many, the operative word there is “one.” We remain whole and united. We do not continually splinter and divide.

I think we can agree that the mission of Christ’s Church is to teach the truth. And I think we can agree that there is only one truth.

To find the Church with that truth, look for one that remains constant and whole over 2,000 years.

 

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

A politician, they say, is someone who can explain away an earthquake, leaving us with no clue as to why all the buildings are in ruins.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Similarly, the explanation that there are two main traditions in Protestantism doesn’t take into account that there are differences within those traditions that keep splintering and re-splintering Protestant churches.

As to us being just one opinion among many, the operative word there is “one.” We remain whole and united. We do not continually splinter and divide.

I think we can agree that the mission of Christ’s Church is to teach the truth. And I think we can agree that there is only one truth.

To find the Church with that truth, look for one that remains constant and whole over 2,000 years.

I tend to think that consistancy, while important, is not necessarily a test for truth. Otherwise, many religions have that claim. As well, I don’t see this consistancy in the Catholic Church. It is consistantly upgrading, reinterpreting, and revising. I think that this is a good thing since I subscribe to the principle of semper reformanda (“always reforming”). You even admit to this, you just say that this falls under the category of doctrinal development. But I do not find the Roman Church in the NT, the earliest Church, and I do not find it in the Church prior to the 11th century. I just think that the Roman Church quit reforming after the Reformation. I believe that the reformers rejection of infallible authority of the Pope is very well founded and I don’t find this in the early Church. And before you start quoting Fathers that say that the bishops had “authority,” I need to remind you that “authority” in and of itself is not the problem. It is the infallible authority where the pope or the magisterium speaks for God. This, to me, is without foundation in the early Church, but more importantly, it is found nowhere in Scripture.

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

I tend to think that consistancy, while important, is not necessarily a test for truth. Otherwise, many religions have that claim. As well, I don’t see this consistancy in the Catholic Church. It is consistantly upgrading, reinterpreting, and revising. I think that this is a good thing since I subscribe to the principle of semper reformanda (“always reforming”). You even admit to this, you just say that this falls under the category of doctrinal development. But I do not find the Roman Church in the NT, the earliest Church, and I do not find it in the Church prior to the 11th century. I just think that the Roman Church quit reforming after the Reformation. I believe that the reformers rejection of infallible authority of the Pope is very well founded and I don’t find this in the early Church. And before you start quoting Fathers that say that the bishops had “authority,” I need to remind you that “authority” in and of itself is not the problem. It is the infallible authority where the pope or the magisterium speaks for God. This, to me, is without foundation in the early Church, but more importantly, it is found nowhere in Scripture.

Michael

I am still praying God Bless

 

[mlchance]

vern humphrey:

You entered an on-going debate, and now you want us to change posts made before you entered to conform to what you want them to say?

No, I merely object to what I took to be the implication that I demanded a miracle from God.
vern humphrey:

The argument I am opposing is (Michael is free to insert corrections) is “the Apostolic Succession is wrong because Bishops nowadays do not perform miracles.”

And, if that is indeed his argument, it is silly at best. But, again, that was not my point of contention.
vern humphrey:

The Greek makes it clear that Faith is evidence or “proof” (one interpretation of the word “Elenchos”) and not the other way 'round.

And the teaching of the Church, which I have outlined and you’ve basically ignored, is that faith is not believing without evidence, as per your original claim. Once more, to quote the First Vatican Council: The “one true God and Lord can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made” (emphasis added).

IOW, evidence, discoverable by human reason alone, is sufficent to demonstrate the existence of God. Reason precedes, but is not superior to nor ever contradicts, faith.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

mlchance:

And the teaching of the Church, which I have outlined and you’ve basically ignored, is that faith is not believing without evidence, as per your original claim. Once more, to quote the First Vatican Council: The “one true God and Lord can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made” (emphasis added).

IOW, evidence, discoverable by human reason alone, is sufficent to demonstrate the existence of God. Reason precedes, but is not superior to nor ever contradicts, faith.

– Mark L. Chance.

It is not the teaching of the Church that one can attain salvation merely by reading the bible. In fact, a committed athiest can read it a thousand times and not come to believe. Only with the gift of faith can he profit and be saved.

When one reads with faith, THEN the testimony of the Bible and the teachings of the Church are evidence. Saint Paul is right – faith is evidence, not the other way 'round.

 

[mlchance]

vern humphrey:

It is not the teaching of the Church that one can attain salvation merely by reading the bible.

Yet another strawman. Please quote me saying that merely reading the Bible is sufficient for salvation. Feel free to search every forum available.
vern humphrey:

When one reads with faith, THEN the testimony of the Bible and the teachings of the Church are evidence. Saint Paul is right – faith is evidence, not the other way 'round.

Again, you’re in direct contradiction of Church teaching, which plainly says that evidence can and does precede faith, and that this evidence, knowable by unaided human reason, can lead to faith. Nothing you’ve said contradicts this truth, your observations above notwithstanding.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mlchance]

vern humphrey:

It is not the teaching of the Church that one can attain salvation merely by reading the bible.

Yet another strawman. Please quote me saying that merely reading the Bible is sufficient for salvation. Feel free to search every forum available.
vern humphrey:

When one reads with faith, THEN the testimony of the Bible and the teachings of the Church are evidence. Saint Paul is right – faith is evidence, not the other way 'round.

One more time: It is contrary to Church teaching to say that faith is believing without evidence. Period. Nothing you’ve said contradicts this truth, your observations above notwithstanding.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

mlchance:

Yet another strawman. Please quote me saying that merely reading the Bible is sufficient for salvation. Feel free to search every forum available.

One more time: It is contrary to Church teaching to say that faith is believing without evidence. Period. Nothing you’ve said contradicts this truth, your observations above notwithstanding.

– Mark L. Chance.

From the Catechism:

[156](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/156.htm’) What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”.28 So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability “are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all”; they are “motives of credibility” (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind”.30

Faith, a gift from God, is the pre-requisite.

 

[JOE_OBERR]

Apostlolic succession is becoming misleading. If you define apostolic succession as the carrying on the teaching of the Apostles, that is fine. We are all successors of the Apostles.

Michael, the Church teaches that Apostolic Succession is defined as those men who were ordained by the Apostles, and all those that followed in that line, down to today.

It is infallibility that is what I don’t find.

Again, where does God say that the concept and/or practice of the charism of infallibility must be
found in Scripture in order for it to be valid?

Where did God say that infallible apostolic succession must be found in Scripture? He says
that the signs of a true apostle will be evident (2 Cor. 12:12). So, I guess that you could say
that He laid down the criteria for anyone who made such claims.

The full quote is: The signs of a true apostle were performed among you in all patience, with signs
and wonders and mighty works. 2 Cor 12:12
All this says is that St. Paul observed the qualities and signs that accompanied at least one true
apostle who was working with the Corinthians at a particular time. St. Paul did not say that every
apostle had to have these qualities/signs, nor their successors.

There couldn’t be new apostles after St. John died as that signaled the end of the Apostolic era.
But their successors, the bishops of the Catholic Church, would certainly continue the authority of
the Apostles as that is the will of Christ. That authority was used, among other things, to
accomplish the defining the canon of Scripture in the 390’s. No Apostolic Succession, no Church,
no Church, no bible as no one could agree as to what comprised the whole canon.

Only one man speaking for Christ had the authority to say what books were inspired and which ones
were not. And every faithful Christian agreed with his decision because every faithful Christian
recognized the authority of the Pope. No one disputed his authority, except heretics.

Joe

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

OK. Now apply that to Scripture being the ultimate authority and fatih alone. There are times when Augustine (and other church fathers) will use language that is in concert with Scripture being the ultimate authority and language of faith alone. So, these doctrines were in development as well. Usually doctrines are only better studied and understood in the midst of controversy. I don’t know why God waits until He does to bring the Church to a fuller understanding of certian things, but history shows that He does.

He waited until the 4th century to clearly define the Trinity and the hypostatic union. Until that time people in the Church held various false opinioins.

He also waited until this time to clearly define issues of humanity and sin.

He waited until the 11th century to before great development in the atonement.

And in my opinion, He waited until the 16th century for a more clear definition of soteriology and revelation.

And as a side, I think that history will see the last two centuries have been focused on the development of our understanding of the last times (but this is a whole other issue).

My point being, I don’t believe in the development of revelation since the apostles, but in our development in our understanding of revelation since then. Scripture is rich and has taken much time for us to work through it. I believe that we have a better understanding today than they did in the first century. And (I am REALLY going to get into trouble for this one–I might even be called the “L” word), I believe that we have a better understanding of doctrine, systematically defined, than the Apostles. I just throw that out there just to show you all how “out to lunch” I REALLY am.

I think that the Apostles struggled with issues early in their Apostleship. This does not mean that what they said wasn’t true, but that it was in development. I believe that Paul in his early letters was more timid about the deity of Christ than he was in his later ones. I believe that he was stuggling through some of these issues and its implications with monotheism. In other words, I don’t believe that the Apostles were suddenly zapped with full understanding of the Gospel when they were “commissioned.” Nor do I think that they understood all of its implications. Therefore, I think that John’s revelation about the 1000 year millennium was the first time that anyone, including Paul (but he was dead at this time) heard of 1000 years. This is why you would not find it previously.

All of this to say, I believe that understanding of doctrine is progressive, and not immeidate for anyone.I believe that when Scripture and history is viewed in such a way, it make A LOT more sense. It may be uncomfortable, but I follow by the dictum that “the palatability of a doctrine does not determine its veracity.”

Now I am in big trouble, aren’t I?

Michael

What would it profit a Catholic if he/she were to adopt your position?

Given what you have said regarding moral certainty, it is obvious that Catholics can have this and still be justified in thier beliefs regarding Church Authority and Scripture.

But we have more than just moral certainty, we have history, Councils, and the Magistarium-- a whole cloud of witnesses!

Just a thought.

God Bless us, every one!

BTW

“And in my opinion, He waited until the 16th century for a more clear definition of soteriology and revelation.”

Isn’t this an awefully long time to wait to define a doctrine that is SO fundemental? Wouldn’t it be one of the first? I don’t know, seems odd to me, but I’m just a Catholic.

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

I tend to think that consistancy, while important, is not necessarily a test for truth.

Let me try redutio ad absurdum here – if that’s your approach, then it would be possible to say what was true yesterday is not true today. And that tomorrow we may have to reject everything we believe today.

Which leads to another point – if truth isn’t constant, how can we ever know enough of truth? Is there another Coming of Christ in every generation to give us a new version of truth?

michaelp:

Otherwise, many religions have that claim. As well, I don’t see this consistancy in the Catholic Church. It is consistantly upgrading, reinterpreting, and revising. I think that this is a good thing since I subscribe to the principle of semper reformanda (“always reforming”)…

Reforming is one thing, adopting new truths is another. In the case of Protestant churches, the differences in doctrine are so varied and severe that clearly they have no coherent message.

michaelp:

You even admit to this, you just say that this falls under the category of doctrinal development. But I do not find the Roman Church in the NT, the earliest Church, and I do not find it in the Church prior to the 11th century.

Then you obviously haven’t looked – or read this thread very closely. Many early Church Fathers have been cited who clearly set forth the primacy of Rome. Iraenaus is one example. Clement I clearly acted as Pope in dealing with the Corinthians’ problems.

michaelp:

I just think that the Roman Church quit reforming after the Reformation. I believe that the reformers rejection of infallible authority of the Pope is very well founded and I don’t find this in the early Church. And before you start quoting Fathers that say that the bishops had “authority,” I need to remind you that “authority” in and of itself is not the problem. It is the infallible authority where the pope or the magisterium speaks for God. This, to me, is without foundation in the early Church, but more importantly, it is found nowhere in Scripture.

Michael

Talk about pole-vaulting over mouse droppings. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Tell me, how do you separate authority from infallibility? Let me quote Justice Robert Jackson: “The Court’s rulings are not final because the Court is infallible. The Court is infallible because its rulings are final.”

In other words, Jackson correctly interprets the powers of the Supreme Court of the United States – when the Court says, “This is the law,” then it is the law.

Similarly, when the Magisterium exercises its authority, there is no higher authority on earth to gainsay it. And since the authority comes from God, it is inerrant.

 

[mlchance]

You just made my point for me. Kudos.
vern humphrey:

From the Catechism:

156 What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”.28 So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability “are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all”; they are “motives of credibility” (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind”.30

For further reading, please refer to Fides et Ratio.

“On her part, the Church cannot but set great value upon reason’s drive to attain goals which render people’s lives ever more worthy. She sees in philosophy the way to come to know fundamental truths about human life. At the same time, the Church considers philosophy an indispensable help for a deeper understanding of faith and for communicating the truth of the Gospel to those who do not yet know it.” – Pope John Paul II, Fides et Ratio.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

mlchance:

You just made my point for me. Kudos.

For further reading, please refer to Fides et Ratio.

“On her part, the Church cannot but set great value upon reason’s drive to attain goals which render people’s lives ever more worthy. She sees in philosophy the way to come to know fundamental truths about human life. At the same time, the Church considers philosophy an indispensable help for a deeper understanding of faith and for communicating the truth of the Gospel to those who do not yet know it.” – Pope John Paul II, Fides et Ratio.

– Mark L. Chance.

And what part says, “You MUST have solid, tangible evidence before you can have faith?”

What part says, “You cannot have faith until you have acquired the years, education, and experience to evaluate the evidence?”

Come to think of it, just what IS your argument?

 

[mlchance]

In addition to finding any place where I ever said that merely reading the Bible is sufficient for salvation, please find any place where I’ve said either of the following:
vern humphrey:

And what part says, “You MUST have solid, tangible evidence before you can have faith?”

What part says, “You cannot have faith until you have acquired the years, education, and experience to evaluate the evidence?”

If it helps you any, I’ll save you some time searching and admit right now that you can’t find any place where I’ve affirmed any of the three statements above that are in question.
vern humphrey:

Come to think of it, just what IS your argument?

This perhaps explains your ability to stay on topic with me (as opposed to all of the strange diversions about things I’ve never claimed). Mea culpa for not being clearer.

Here it is, one more time:

You said: Faith is believing without evidence.

I said: No, it isn’t.

And I then provided ample demonstration from the Church herself to that effect. So, in short, the statement “Faith is believing without evidence” is false.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

mlchance:

This perhaps explains your ability to stay on topic with me (as opposed to all of the strange diversions about things I’ve never claimed). Mea culpa for not being clearer…

You jump into a thread without understanding it, change the subject, and accuse me of not staying on topic?

mlchance:

You said: Faith is believing without evidence.

I said: No, it isn’t.

And I then provided ample demonstration from the Church herself to that effect. So, in short, the statement “Faith is believing without evidence” is false.

– Mark L. Chance.

No, you didn’t – your cites talk about reason. They do not claim that one cannot have faith without tangible evidence.

As Saint Paul says, Faith IS evidence, not the other way 'round.

 

[mlchance]

vern humphrey:

You jump into a thread without understanding it, change the subject, and accuse me of not staying on topic?

I understand the topic quite well, but thanks for the false attribution of ignorance.
vern humphrey:

No, you didn’t – your cites talk about reason. They do not claim that one cannot have faith without tangible evidence.

Emphasis added.

Why the qualifier? This is just like you objecting to evidence for the Resurrection by complaining that there is no* physical* evidence, as if that were the only type of evidence there is. Have I ever said that evidence has to be tangible? Have I ever said that all that faith contains relies on evidence? No, I haven’t.

Instead, my claim has been much more modest: That there is evidence for faith. For example, contrary to your earlier claim, there is genuine evidence (albeit not physical) for the resurrection of Christ Jesus. Likewise, just as the Church and Scripture both admit, there is genuine evidence, available to natural reason, for the existence of a Creator. This sort of evidence, which can precede faith, can lead to faith.
vern humphrey:

As Saint Paul says, Faith IS evidence, not the other way 'round.

A quick grammar lesson. “Faith is evidence.” The verb is in this sentence is a linking verb. It links the subject, faith, to a predicate noun, evidence, that renames the subject. As a result, the converse must also be true: Evidence is faith.

But that’s beside the point. Let’s take a different approach.

Since you persist in the error of thinking that faith is believing without evidence, it follows very nicely that you believe everything the Church teaches without have any reason to do so other than “The Church says.”

If that works for you, wonderful, although, I must admit, it seems to me like an awfully weak form of faith. It is certainly not the sort of faith that the Church wishes her children to persist in. When presented with any challenge, it seems like the most you could offer in response would be “Nuh-uh” or, at best, “I believe it because the Church tells me to” (which you’ve already said, more or less, at least once).

But let’s not ignore the fact that there are literally thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of people who have come to accept faith because of the evidence available to unaided human reason. I am one of these people.

Or are you going to now claim that we who came accept faith based on evidence don’t actually have faith?

Finally, let’s yank you in from another thread:
vern humphrey:

Apologetics, then, deals with the defense, reason, and proofs of Christianity.

Hmm. Now which is it? Is it that there is no evidence upon which faith can be based, or is it there is indeed such evidence that can be put into the forms of defenses, reasons, and proofs? And, if it is the latter, what is the point in offering such evidence to people who do not have faith if, after all, faith is believing without evidence?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

mlchance:

I understand the topic quite well, but thanks for the false attribution of ignorance…

Obviously not, or you wouldn’t have taken this tangent.

mlchance:

Why the qualifier? This is just like you objecting to evidence for the Resurrection by complaining that there is no* physical* evidence, as if that were the only type of evidence there is. Have I ever said that evidence has to be tangible? Have I ever said that all that faith contains relies on evidence? No, I haven’t…

Then what IS your point?

The issue was, is the lack of signs proof that Catholic bishops are not the successors of the Apostles?

I say signs are immaterial to the Apostolic Succession, and that we have no right to demand signs of God – He will give us such signs as He sees fit.

mlchance:

Instead, my claim has been much more modest: That there is evidence for faith.

Who said there wasn’t?

One can, however, believe even if one cannot prove what one believes.

mlchance:

For example, contrary to your earlier claim, there is genuine evidence (albeit not physical) for the resurrection of Christ Jesus. .

Nope, never said that. What I said is that without faith, one cannot be persuaded. A committed athiest can read all the accounts of the resurrection and never believe.

Saint Paul is correct, faith is evidence, and not the other way 'round.

mlchance:

Likewise, just as the Church and Scripture both admit, there is genuine evidence, available to natural reason, for the existence of a Creator. This sort of evidence, which can precede faith, can lead to faith…

Without the God-given gift of faith?

mlchance:

A quick grammar lesson. “Faith is evidence.” The verb is in this sentence is a linking verb. It links the subject, faith, to a predicate noun, evidence, that renames the subject. As a result, the converse must also be true: Evidence is faith…

If you wrote that on your final Logic 101 exam, you’d fail the course. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

mlchance:

Since you persist in the error of thinking that faith is believing without evidence, it follows very nicely that you believe everything the Church teaches without have any reason to do so other than “The Church says.”…

If you wrote** that** on your final Logic 101 exam, you’d fail the course. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

mlchance:

If that works for you, wonderful,

You like to set up straw men, don’t you?

mlchance:

But let’s not ignore the fact that there are literally thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of people who have come to accept faith because of the evidence available to unaided human reason. I am one of these people.,

Where does God fit into this A-theistic approach?

mlchance:

Or are you going to now claim that we who came accept faith based on evidence don’t actually have faith?

– Mark L. Chance.

No, but when you cut God out of the equation, as you have, then you are not following Catholic doctrine.

 

[mlchance]

Originally Posted by mlchance
Or are you going to now claim that we who came accept faith based on evidence don’t actually have faith?
vern humphrey:

No, but when you cut God out of the equation, as you have, then you are not following Catholic doctrine.

But I haven’t cut God out of the equation. I’ve said all along that faith is a gift from God, but is not an automatic gift. It must be accepted. God doesn’t force faith on anyone.

So, to recap: People who do not have faith come to accept faith based on the evidence available to natural reason that faith claims, such as the resurrection of Christ Jesus or the existence of a Creator, are reasonable.

Therefore, faith is not believing without evidence, even if there isn’t evidence for all that faith contains (i.e., the Mystery of the Trinity).

– Mark L. Chance.