What is Faith? A Clarification of Defintion

[Tarsier]

I used the word “merely” because that’s what Prodigal_Son implied.

Maybe I’m wrong but that’s what it looked like to me…

Thanks for the clarification. I see how his wording was confusing.

 

[Tarsier]

I say that “blind” faith is superior even to purportedly “reasonable” faith where the person thinks that he has come to faith by the power of his intellect.

I never made the claim that someone came to the faith “by the power of his intellect”. Please read my first post. I am saying that we cannot come to belief in God by “faith” without reason. I never claimed it is by our own power. The virtue of faith allows to accept the conclusions of our reason and the evidence of God’s revelation.

Basically. Of course, there must be some intellect applied. I find it hard to express any faith if one is incapable of any reason whatsoever.

Yes.

Because they are historically, based on trust. We don’t pass on the faith by reproducing miracles. Well, not primarily. Primarily, the faith is passed on by word of mouth. Father to son. Generation to generation.

Yes.

The Eunuch can be contrasted to the Thessalonicans who ran St. Paul out of town. He also appealed to their reason.

Yes. Again, I never claimed (check my post) that reason without the assistance of God gets us there. My very first post pointed out that we need God’s assistance to accept reason. Let’s not argue over what I never claimed, please.

But many of the people of Fatima, were believers even before the children were born.

Yes, but that wasn’t the point we were addressing. I agree with this and it doesn’t pertain to the discussion because we can’t examine what their motivation for prior belief was.

The point I’m making is that they all, the Apostles, gave their witness on the same terms. Yet some believed and some didn’t.

Right. I don’t disagree. I’m not making the claim that everyone will concede to logic and reason. We need God’s assistance to do so.

I don’t know how I’d react, because I trust my children’s spiritual instincts more than mine. I would certainly look into what my child was saying.

Without intending it, I think that partially answers the question on, “what is faith”. I have enough faith in my children to take them seriously on matters of faith.

However, I contrast myself with many of the people that I grew up with. They remained in the Church, I didn’t. The faith had to be proved to me. Not to them. Yet, here we are in the same place.

What do you mean that you would “look into” what your child was saying?

I have no idea what it means that you have “faith” in your children to take them seriously on matters of “faith”. Are your children above the type of false assurance the Bible warns of? Are they not also called to test all things, as Paul suggested? If they have done so, then that means they’ve applied reason and proof, the very thing you say isn’t necessary for faith, right?

What if your children expressed interest in the Flying Spaghetti Monster out of faith? Or the god Zeus?

 

[De_Maria]

Right. I don’t disagree. I’m not making the claim that everyone will concede to logic and reason. We need God’s assistance to do so.

I’m pretty sure we basically agree upon all the preceding. I’m not sure why you think I’m not understanding your point.

What do you mean that you would “look into” what your child was saying?

I have no idea what it means that you have “faith” in your children to take them seriously on matters of “faith”. Are your children above the type of false assurance the Bible warns of? Are they not also called to test all things, as Paul suggested? If they have done so, then that means they’ve applied reason and proof, the very thing you say isn’t necessary for faith, right?

What if your children expressed interest in the Flying Spaghetti Monster out of faith? Or the god Zeus?

You’re sort of going haywire. I didn’t say I would immediately believe everything they say. I would take it seriously and investigate. Think of the events of Fatima. Some people didn’t believe those children.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is patently false. What you have described is what Martin Luther thought Faith was all about. Faith is not a matter of mere trust, as trust resides in the will. Faith is concerned with both the intellect and the will. If Faith were a matter of trust, then it would be possible to obtain it without God giving it to us.

As Tarsier said, you misunderstood my point. I said explicitly that we should only trust when we have some sort of reason to believe that a being is trustworthy. That’s the intellectual part. But just as it would be utterly inadequate to describe my relationship to my wife by saying that “I believe in my wife”, it is inadequate to say that “I believe in God”. Faith is not belief. It is placing oneself at the mercy of the other. It is trust in God.

And by the way, it is – according to Catholic teaching – impossible for us to obtain faith without God giving it to us. That’s not just Luther; it’s the Magesterium.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It’s just that our intellect is one of the MEANS by which God grants us the gift of faith.

 

[Tarsier]

investigate

Ah, there’s the key. Test everything. Would you do the same if you were hearing about Jesus for the first time? What means of investigation would you take?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

investigate

Ah, there’s the key. Test everything. Would you do the same if you were hearing about Jesus for the first time? What means of investigation would you take?

That’s where I believe that grace is the greater agent.

I was born into a Catholic family and went through all the Sacraments. I also went through CCE. Yet, I had no faith.

Only later, when my wife conceived our first child, did I receive the gift of faith.

Many people, as is evidenced in Scripture, heard the same message of Christ for the first time. Some converted, some didn’t. What was the difference? Intellect? Some of the greatest minds didn’t convert. The greatest of Israel’s theologians, did not convert (i.e. Gamaliel).

 

[Tarsier]

Only later, when my wife conceived our first child, did I receive the gift of faith.

Many people, as is evidenced in Scripture, heard the same message of Christ for the first time. Some converted, some didn’t. What was the difference? Intellect? Some of the greatest minds didn’t convert. The greatest of Israel’s theologians, did not convert (i.e. Gamaliel).

Again, you seem to think I am arguing it is a matter of the intellect alone. My first post makes clear that we need the supernatural gift of faith to help us accept what our reason tells us. “What was the difference?” you ask. Those who didn’t believe probably didn’t have the supernatural gift of faith to help them accept their reason. Or their reason was flawed. As I point out in the Monty Hall thread, superior minds still have lapses in reason. But even if not, we need God’s grace for any part of ourselves to operate properly, including our reason. Faith is the supernatural gift that allows us to accept what reason tells us.

So again, I’m not arguing that reason alone gets us there. When you point out examples (including yourself) of people failing to get to faith through reason alone, I have no argument with you. That isn’t the case I’m making. Never have.

I’m responding very specifically to the fact that I wrote:

The idea that it is somehow supernaturally virtuous to believe in God without any basis in human reason or logical/historical proof is pretty widespread.

And you disagreed with me.

So I’m arguing that faith and reason must work together. You are arguing that faith can be absent of reason or proof.

So again, my questions:

How would you investigate your children’s claims to believe in Vishnu or the Book of Mormon?

Would you investigate the claims of Jesus as God if you heard about him (say from a neighbor) for the first time?

How would you investigate it?

Would you be acting virtuously for believing in Jesus after hearing about it for the first time, even if you had no reason or proof to compel you (other than that the neighbor is generally a good guy and trustworthy)?

If so, why wouldn’t you put the same immediate trust in what your children told you? Why would you feel the need to investigate?

 

[De_Maria]

Again, you seem to think I am arguing it is a matter of the intellect alone.

You keep adding “alone”. Did I say “alone”? You have already given the assumptions that we are discussing. Must they be repeated with every sentence?

 

[De_Maria]

I’m responding very specifically to the fact that I wrote:

De_Maria:

The idea that it is somehow supernaturally virtuous to believe in God without any basis in human reason or logical/historical proof is pretty widespread.

And you disagreed with me.

Here’s what I remember saying. Is that what you call disagreement?

Basically. Of course, there must be some intellect applied. I find it hard to express any faith if one is incapable of any reason whatsoever.

In other words, I’m saying that there must be some capability to reason.

 

[Tarsier]

Here’s what I remember saying. Is that what you call disagreement?

You don’t have to remember since we can just look back and see if this was your actual response. It wasn’t. Here’s what you wrote:

Because that is pretty much what Jesus said.

So, when I said that believing without basis in human reason or logic was widespread, you claimed that it should be because that’s what Jesus said.

Do you still believe that we should believe without basis in human reason or logic because “Jesus said it”?

If so, what are your thoughts on my questions?

What are your thoughts on my earlier response to your claim that Jesus said it?

 

[Tarsier]

You keep adding “alone”. Did I say “alone”? You have already given the assumptions that we are discussing. Must they be repeated with every sentence?

Yes, because you keep providing examples of intellectual people who failed to come to belief, as if that somehow refutes my point. If I’ve already given the assumptions we are discussing, and I never claimed that logic alone gets us to faith, why are you providing examples of logical people who don’t come to faith as evidence against my claims?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

You keep adding “alone”. Did I say “alone”? You have already given the assumptions that we are discussing. Must they be repeated with every sentence?

Yes, because you keep providing examples of intellectual people who failed to come to belief, as if that somehow refutes my point.

Did the Jews of Thessalonica, lack faith?
Did the greatest of Jewish Theologian, lack faith?

If I’ve already given the assumptions we are discussing, and I never claimed that logic alone gets us to faith, why are you providing examples of logical people who don’t come to faith as evidence against my claims?

[/QUOTE]
Evidently, you’re not thinking about what I’m writing.

 

[Tarsier]

Did the Jews of Thessalonica, lack faith?

Did the greatest of Jewish Theologian, lack faith?

I can only speak to what Scripture tells me as I can’t speak to whether God has given an individual the virtue of faith.

Evidently, you’re not thinking about what I’m writing.

Insult doesn’t get us anywhere De_Maria. I’m certainly thinking about what you wrote.

You haven’t answered my questions, though, which makes me suspect we aren’t on the same page. So rather than talking past each other, I’ll ask it this way:

Do you believe that faith in God’s existence without logic or proof is a virtuous thing?
If so, where is that stated in official Catholic teaching?
Would it be equally virtuous to believe in Vishnu’s existence without logic or proof?

 

[omgriley]

“And by the way, it is – according to Catholic teaching – impossible for us to obtain faith without God giving it to us. That’s not just Luther; it’s the Magesterium.”

That’s my point. But the way you expressed it, as being a thing of trust, is wrong. Luther thought it was only trusting in God. If it were just a matter of trust then I could trust God’s teachings without Him showing me the truth of those teachings. God has to give me the grace to recognize these things as true first, and then I can accept them in my will. That’s Faith, and that’s what the Church teaches.

-Owen Riley

 

[De_Maria]

Insult doesn’t get us anywhere De_Maria.

I’m not insulting you. Did you not consider that I was showing you examples of faithful people who did not believe the witness of the Apostles?

Or do you consider the Jews, somehow, faithless?

Do you believe that faith in God’s existence without logic or proof is a virtuous thing?

Without logic? I think that is impossible. There is a superior logic, in faith.
Without proof? Certainly. Who of us has proof?

If so, where is that stated in official Catholic teaching?

166 Faith is a personal act - the free response of the human person to the initiative of God who reveals himself. But faith is not an isolated act. No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone. You have not given yourself faith as you have not given yourself life. The believer has received faith from others and should hand it on to others. Our love for Jesus and for our neighbor impels us to speak to others about our faith. Each believer is thus a link in the great chain of believers. I cannot believe without being carried by the faith of others, and by my faith I help support others in the faith.

Note how this coincides with that which I said earlier.

Because they are historically, based on trust. We don’t pass on the faith by reproducing miracles. Well, not primarily. Primarily, the faith is passed on by word of mouth. Father to son. Generation to generation.

Would it be equally virtuous to believe in Vishnu’s existence without logic or proof?

[/QUOTE]
Yes. This is why the Church does not consider it blameworthy if a person who has not heard of the Catholic Church, retains the faith of his childhood.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

But this is not an interrogation. What do you think? Let’s compare your thoughts.

 

[De_Maria]

I can only speak to what Scripture tells me as I can’t speak to whether God has given an individual the virtue of faith.

I wasn’t asking you to search their souls. But, they are members of the Faith upon which ours is built. Therefore, the presumption is that they believe in God. Therefore, that they have faith.

 

[Tarsier]

I’m not insulting you. Did you not consider that I was showing you examples of faithful people who did not believe the witness of the Apostles?

Or do you consider the Jews, somehow, faithless?

I only know if someone has faith if it is divinely revealed to me. However, you are giving me an example of someone who was presented logic and refused to believe. I have no beef there. I’m talking about the total opposite - those who insist we should believe without faith. I won’t argue against something I’m not claiming.

Without logic? I think that is impossible. There is a superior logic, in faith.

Without proof? Certainly. Who of us has proof?

Anyone who has access to the testimony of the prophets and documentation of Christ’s fulfillment. Anyone presented with testimony from reliable witnesses. Anyone who reads Thomas’s “proofs”. Anyone who experiences a miracle or learns of a convincing one. Anyone who reads a “Case for …” book. “Proof”, by definition, either establishes certainty or helps to that end.

If You like the word evidence better, I’m fine with that.

who reveals himself.

Yes. So we use logic and proof to experience his revealing of himself.

This is why the Church does not consider it blameworthy if a person who has not heard of the Catholic Church, retains the faith of his childhood.

So “not blameworthy” is the same as “virtuous”?

I wasn’t asking you to search their souls. But, they are members of the Faith upon which ours is built. Therefore, the presumption is that they believe in God. Therefore, that they have faith.

So every single person who calls himself a Chrisitan, a member of our faith, should be presumed to “have faith”? Every single Jew?

 

[po18guy]

Hebrews 11:1 provides the most clear and succinct definition of faith that has ever been written.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That’s my point. But the way you expressed it, as being a thing of trust, is wrong. Luther thought it was only trusting in God. If it were just a matter of trust then I could trust God’s teachings without Him showing me the truth of those teachings. God has to give me the grace to recognize these things as true first, and then I can accept them in my will. That’s Faith, and that’s what the Church teaches.

You talk as if trust were not a rational capacity. It clearly does involve both will and intellect. This is why trust is not a reasonable thing to ask of a person you have continually betrayed, and it is not a reasonable thing to give to a person who has betrayed you. I do not deny that trust is predicated on certain beliefs, in other words. I’m just saying that the trust – the faith – is something that you DO with the beliefs. It is not merely having the belief that God exists, or is trustworthy. The devil has that!