Ship of Fools: faith and belief

Thread: faith and belief Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026082

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

Do Christians distinguish between ‘faith’ and ‘belief.’

I guess this thread echoes several debates that have taken place recently, but I have concluded that 'belief' in a lot of Christian dogma, does not have much relevance to my Christianity. Unless of course others decide I am not a Christian.

I distinguish between ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ much as St James distinguished between ‘faith’ and ‘works’. I guess there is some kind of translational problem.

I do not see how belief in , say, the virgin birth, can have any effect upon my behaviour as a Christian. The same applies to belief in the inerrancy of the bible.

It might be called ‘pick and choose’ Christianity’ but I think that the things that really make a difference to the way Christians live are beliefs in such things as Jesus’ statement the ‘he who has seen me has seen the father’ and Jesus’ bodily resurrection as the truth for us all. That and his teachings about our relationships to others.

Posted by Alicïa (# 7668) on :

hi shadeson

I dont think anyone can speak for all christians? I don't believe others can decide whether you are a christian or not either. If they try, you don't have to let them.

From what you have just said, I come from a similar view and I am sure there are lots of Christians with those views and plenty with different views too.

I don't think there is a generic answer to your question but hopefully greater minds than mine will be along to give a more theological answer.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

I've quoted Cantwell Smith before, because I think he puts it in a nutshell:

quote:
"Beliefs must be distinguished from faith.
Beliefs belong to the century one lives in.
Faith goes on from age to age because it is
not a set of beliefs but an attitude - the
attitude of trust".
Wilfred Cantwell Smith

There are things that I would have 'believed' in the first century but not now when I live with a different world view. My faith in God is something else.

GG

Posted by Herrick (# 15226) on :

Thank you GG, I needed to hear something like that.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

One difference is that in English, 'believe' exists as both a verb and a noun, but 'faith' only exists as a noun. To make it into a verb, you have to say something like 'have faith in'. Furthermore, 'believe' means something slightly but significantly different, depending on whether its object is direct or connected by 'in'. "I believe you" means, 'I think you are telling the truth'. "I believe in you" means, 'I have confidence that I can rely on you to do what you say you'll do'.

That though points to a difference between two sorts of belief. 'I believe that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate' is a statement of my opinion about history, that I think this happened. It doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to do anything about it.

The statement 'I believe in Jesus' is of a different order. It should mean, 'I place my trust in him', 'I follow him', 'I at least try to abide in him and to obey him'.

Although I strongly agree with the regular reciting of the Creeds, it has a downside. It can encourage the unthinking faithful not to realise the difference between the two sorts of faith.

The difficulty I would have is with the statement '‘pick and choose’ Christianity’. That sounds as though it's either part way between the two sorts of belief or dressing up the first sort so one can fool oneself that one actually has the second.

To go to the two examples cited, if one says one doesn't think whether one believes in the virgin birth or not could have any effect upon one's behaviour as a Christian, is one saying that one doesn't quite want to commit to whether Jesus is the Son of God, rather than just a good person? And if one says the same of 'belief in the inerrancy of the bible', is one simply expressing a reservation about some of the whackier versions of this? Or is one saying that one really doesn't wish to accept that scripture is authoritative? In effect, is that a different way of saying that one wants to pick and choose when one will obey Jesus Christ as Lord and when one would prefer not to?

We have to believe with our critical faculties, but there is a difference between an intelligent faith, and interposing our critical faculties as a tool for keeping God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit comfortably at arms' length.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Right faith, belief and the whole caboodle. At least since the 1990s there have been two distinct dimensions associated with faith. Grace Davie characterises them as believing and belonging, but they can be characterised differently.

I for instance tend to view belonging as a complex process by which a person comes to recognise themselves as belonging to a faith based group and the faith based group recognises them as belonging.

Formal belief, as in the belief in the formal tenet of a religion is different and can be entirely separate from that.

There is also behaviour the deals with this norms expected of a person who belongs to the group e.g. the Roman Catholic practice of expecting members to take mass every week, but also the no drinking among stricter Protestant groups. I tend to think of this as a piety.

There is also the emotional aspect where a person invests emotional energy with a faith based group. This is not simply does it feel good to belong to the group, but matters of desire, and feelings of security with the group.

None of these are orthogonal to each other, but none can be subsumed into another either.

Jengie

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Realised I should perhaps have made clear what relationship this has to the OP.

What I am trying to say is that, although we think we know what we mean by "faith" and "belief", they actually are two labels that can move quite a bit around a certain area of practices.

Different people will balance the different aspect of faith/belief differently.

Jengie

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

They're different but not necessarily distinct. They're distinct as when I say I believe David Cameron is Prime Minister; I don't have faith in that. But the reason I believe it is that I trust the media, specifically the Guardian and the BBC to be reliable on those kinds of matters, which is to have faith in them, if only a weak faith. As Enoch says, believing in someone and having faith in them are pretty much the same. Likewise, if you have faith in someone then if they tell you something that counts as a reason to believe it.

One can believe that a person exists without having faith in them. The same would go for a god such as Thor. But I don't think one can believe the God of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims exists without having faith in God; believing that the universe is fundamentally worthy of trust is just what belief in God is.

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

Alicïa

quote:
I don't believe others can decide whether you are a christian or not either.

In our Methodist church I think I would not be allowed to be a leader of any sort with beliefs like mine. This probably goes for a lot of churches.

Enoch

quote:
if one says one doesn't think whether one believes in the virgin birth or not could have any effect upon one's behaviour as a Christian, is one saying that one doesn't quite want to commit to whether Jesus is the Son of God

I don't understand how that necessarily follows.
My old Plymouth Brethren used to classify you as 'sound' or 'unsound' - and I can hear the echoes.

I appreciate the point about the vagaries of the English language.

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

Dafyd

quote:
They're different but not necessarily distinct.

I think that they are distinct; belief does not become faith until you have done something according to it. In the case of the prime minister, you are likely to talk to someone on that basis - which is an action.

Partly what initiated my OP is that many Christian beliefs seem like merely a mystical appendage. These contribute nothing to the life of faith and are a stumbling block to people wanting to understand Christianity. You can’t really base any rational actions on belief in the virgin birth - apart perhaps from celebrating it in art.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

I would say that belief is to do with intellectual subscription to various theoretical and operational propositions.

Faith, as others here have said, is to do with a basic trust, as well as a sense of wonder, ultimately in life and the creation.

Beliefs are a part of institutional, formal religion. Faith in its essence is independent of such formal religious propositions, though faith interacts and enlivens belief. Without faith, the belief content of religions is entirely dry and sterile, as well as in danger of becoming ideological certainty on the basis of which immense cruelties can and have been perpetrated. Faith, on the other hand, is an expression of the life instincts and therefore is fundamentally associated with love.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
shadeson: Do Christians distinguish between ‘faith’ and ‘belief.’

In my native Dutch language, they are the same word (geloof).

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
shadeson: Do Christians distinguish between ‘faith’ and ‘belief.’
In my native Dutch language, they are the same word (geloof).

Which perhaps points up how language influences thought. Is there a way in Dutch, however, of discriminating between intellectual belief and the more affective experience of faith?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras: Which perhaps points up how language influences thought. Is there a way in Dutch, however, of discriminating between intellectual belief and the more affective experience of faith?

The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis at work [Biased]

I guess if you wanted to distinguish between these concepts, you'd have to use adjectives. In this kind of discussions, a distinction could be made between intellectueel geloof en relationeel geloof, maybe that does the trick.

(Do I have to translate? 'Intellectual faith/belief' vs 'relational faith/belief'.)

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Faith and belief are becoming like religion and spirituality. The people who use the phrase spiritual but not religious simply like the word spiritual but not religious. The phrase sounds good but when questioned leads ultimately to vague cliches or worse. Now, some like the word faith but not belief. Biblically, they mean the same thing. Seems to me that when people have problems with the word belief its because they have faith in something other than Christ's Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Beeswax Altar: Seems to me that when people have problems with the word belief its because they have faith in something other than Christ's Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

I believe in God.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
shadeson: Do Christians distinguish between ‘faith’ and ‘belief.’
In my native Dutch language, they are the same word (geloof).

Same in Finnish (usko).

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Faith and belief are becoming like religion and spirituality. The people who use the phrase spiritual but not religious simply like the word spiritual but not religious. The phrase sounds good but when questioned leads ultimately to vague cliches or worse. Now, some like the word faith but not belief. Biblically, they mean the same thing. Seems to me that when people have problems with the word belief its because they have faith in something other than Christ's Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

I don't think it's as vapid as you imply. Look, if I'm walking outdoors on an incredibly beautiful day and suddenly have an intuitive type sense of my unity with the whole Creation, that is an example of the so-called "oceanic experience" and may fairly be termed "spiritual". It is essentially formless, and even though I may feel worshipful in the face of such a spiritual experience, there isn't any form to my worship. Religion, on the other hand, involves particular formal doctrines and praxis. Without spirituality, religion is dead. Without some religious form, spirituality remains inchoate and inarticulate if indeed not unarticulated.

In the case of "faith", my own understanding of the term is of something far broader and deeper, more implicit and basic than "belief". I think beliefs are subject to intellectual debate. We can talk about what is meant by the Trinity and whether or not this construct is a good and useful approximation to who and what God is and how God operates. However, in the case of faith in the fundamental goodness of Creation, the nature of God as being that of ultimate love, the ultimate triumph of life in the face of suffering and death, these "beliefs" are not strictly (or arguably even primarily) intellectual propositions, but stem from our intuitive, affective experience of life.

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

Could we say that faith is putting belief into practice?

I think its possible to exercise faith but not belief as that is more about who the person is rather than hoe they express that belief.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Lietuvos SV. Kazimieras:
Without spirituality, religion is dead. Without some religious form, spirituality remains inchoate and inarticulate if indeed not unarticulated.

Any attempt to articulate an experience of the spiritual (numious, sublime, metaphysical, whatever you want to call it) is religion. Creation implies a God. God implies religion. You walk outside you have an experience of unity with Creation. You can't really have that experience without the belief that there is a Creation and you can somehow be unified with it.

quote:
originally posted by Lietuvos SV. Kazimieras:
We can talk about what is meant by the Trinity and whether or not this construct is a good and useful approximation to who and what God is and how God operates. However, in the case of faith in the fundamental goodness of Creation, the nature of God as being that of ultimate love, the ultimate triumph of life in the face of suffering and death, these "beliefs" are not strictly (or arguably even primarily) intellectual propositions, but stem from our intuitive, affective experience of life.

Beliefs are beliefs. We accept the Triune God by faith. We accept that God is love by faith. One isn't more apparent by our intuitive, affective experience of life than the other. We might get all verkplempt when thinking of the the later but not the former. However, in the end, they are the same type of propositions.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Faith and belief are becoming like religion and spirituality. The people who use the phrase spiritual but not religious simply like the word spiritual but not religious. The phrase sounds good but when questioned leads ultimately to vague cliches or worse. Now, some like the word faith but not belief. Biblically, they mean the same thing. Seems to me that when people have problems with the word belief its because they have faith in something other than Christ's Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

This is worthy of note. Thank-you. We are in desperate trouble because of this. The cheapening of language such that words have become meaningless is enough to make me believe in personified evil. Words seem to mean what the individual thinks they mean versus what they truly mean. Love is another word that has become almost meaningless, when we may express our love for spaghetti or shoes and God in identically constructed sentences. Though spaghetti and shoes so far don't love us back.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Faith and belief are becoming like religion and spirituality. The people who use the phrase spiritual but not religious simply like the word spiritual but not religious. The phrase sounds good but when questioned leads ultimately to vague cliches or worse. Now, some like the word faith but not belief. Biblically, they mean the same thing. Seems to me that when people have problems with the word belief its because they have faith in something other than Christ's Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

I agree with the posters who have said that different people are using terms in different ways. When people use the same term with different meanings, it is a big problem.

That said, in my understanding, faith is trust rather than credal doctrinal belief. And it is most certainly NOT a vague cliche. I say this as someone who -- happily and without reservation -- openly professes the beliefs expressed in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds.

But if my reason or what might be God speaking inwardly to me were to lead me to question any of the doctrines promulgated in the creeds, that would not cause me to stop having faith, i.e., trust, in the Almighty.

Faith is not the absence of doubt. Indeed a fearful clinging to doctrinal beliefs come what may can cause one to lose faith/trust in God, if their own brittle doctrinal edifice shatters.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
no prophet: The cheapening of language such that words have become meaningless is enough to make me believe in personified evil.

It is an inherent characteristic of language that words can have different meanings in different contexts. It is one of the things that makes language such a rich tool for communication. Most of us can deal with that quite well.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by Lietuvos SV. Kazimieras:
Without spirituality, religion is dead. Without some religious form, spirituality remains inchoate and inarticulate if indeed not unarticulated.

Any attempt to articulate an experience of the spiritual (numious, sublime, metaphysical, whatever you want to call it) is religion. Creation implies a God. God implies religion. You walk outside you have an experience of unity with Creation. You can't really have that experience without the belief that there is a Creation and you can somehow be unified with it.

quote:
originally posted by Lietuvos SV. Kazimieras:
We can talk about what is meant by the Trinity and whether or not this construct is a good and useful approximation to who and what God is and how God operates. However, in the case of faith in the fundamental goodness of Creation, the nature of God as being that of ultimate love, the ultimate triumph of life in the face of suffering and death, these "beliefs" are not strictly (or arguably even primarily) intellectual propositions, but stem from our intuitive, affective experience of life.
Beliefs are beliefs. We accept the Triune God by faith. We accept that God is love by faith. One isn't more apparent by our intuitive, affective experience of life than the other. We might get all verkplempt when thinking of the the later but not the former. However, in the end, they are the same type of propositions.

OK, Beeswax Altar, I accept that there is an interaction or nexus between faith and belief, but I can't accept your utter conflation of the two. Let me propose another example. There are various theories about what happens in respect to the bread, wine, and Christ in the Eucharist; and within these disparate theories, there is a subset of notions about Real Presence and what that entails (though to me these are actually ways, largely, of imaging Real Presence, and are less mutually exclusive than their proponents like to admit). In any event, I may subscribe to a set of intellectual notions about the Real Presence (beliefs), but when I am actually receiving the Holy Communion, I am not dealing with my intellectual beliefs but with the raw faith that Christ is present, conveyed and received under the outward forms of the bread and wine of the Eucharist. I would call this faith rather than mere belief, as it has more to do with the extension of trust and perhaps with the will and disposition to suspend normal incredulity, than does the mental play involved in the entertainment of a set of beliefs. Yes, absolutely, there is a relation between belief and faith, but as terms of art, so to speak, I can't fully conflate the two categories, even if there is overlap or interplay.

I find it specious to reactively assert that one is taking words to mean whatever one wishes them to mean. If we didn't struggle to adopt existing vocabulary to certain technical meanings, or "terms of art" as I should prefer to say in realms like theology and religious experience, how could we further develop theology, especially along its frontiers with psychology and philosophy? The same process of linguistic adaptation is found throughout the technical terminology of the sciences and artistic disciplines.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Faith and belief are becoming like religion and spirituality. The people who use the phrase spiritual but not religious simply like the word spiritual but not religious. The phrase sounds good but when questioned leads ultimately to vague cliches or worse. Now, some like the word faith but not belief. Biblically, they mean the same thing. Seems to me that when people have problems with the word belief its because they have faith in something other than Christ's Church guided by the Holy Spirit.
I agree with the posters who have said that different people are using terms in different ways. When people use the same term with different meanings, it is a big problem.

That said, in my understanding, faith is trust rather than credal doctrinal belief. And it is most certainly NOT a vague cliche. I say this as someone who -- happily and without reservation -- openly professes the beliefs expressed in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds.

But if my reason or what might be God speaking inwardly to me were to lead me to question any of the doctrines promulgated in the creeds, that would not cause me to stop having faith, i.e., trust, in the Almighty.

Faith is not the absence of doubt. Indeed a fearful clinging to doctrinal beliefs come what may can cause one to lose faith/trust in God, if their own brittle doctrinal edifice shatters.

Thank you for expressing this - congruent with my own thoughts - so well and so incisively.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by malik3000:
That said, in my understanding, faith is trust rather than credal doctrinal belief. And it is most certainly NOT a vague cliche.

At some point, somebody started this idea that faith in scripture means trust and not belief. In Greek, faith and belief mean basically the same thing. There is no difference. Trusting in something you don't believe doesn't make a lick of sense. What does it mean to trust but not believe in God?

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

That wouldn't make any sense, Beeswax, although surely there are plenty of people who on the other hand profess belief in God but who do not trust God.

We speak modern English; not ancient Greek, BTW.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by malik3000:
That said, in my understanding, faith is trust rather than credal doctrinal belief. And it is most certainly NOT a vague cliche.
At some point, somebody started this idea that faith in scripture means trust and not belief. In Greek, faith and belief mean basically the same thing. There is no difference. Trusting in something you don't believe doesn't make a lick of sense. What does it mean to trust but not believe in God?

"I believe in love, Alfie"?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Ah, so it was Burt Bacharach. Sounded like a bunch of hippie dippie nonsense from the 60's. Now, I know why.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

It may well have been... the point is, that there is, I think, a use of belief, at least in contemporary English, which does not involve intellectual assent to propositions.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Ah, so it was Burt Bacharach. Sounded like a bunch of hippie dippie nonsense from the 60's. Now, I know why.

Well, in his first epistle John did say "God IS love". How nonsensical of him. And Paul did did say that, of faith, hope and love, the greatest is love. What nonsensical old hippies they were.

[ 21. September 2013, 19:06: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
That wouldn't make any sense, Beeswax, although surely there are plenty of people who on the other hand profess belief in God but who do not trust God.

We speak modern English; not ancient Greek, BTW.

I'll grant you can not have faith in something you believe exists. I'm just trying to figure out how you can trust in something you don't believe. We speak modern English but the language of Christianity comes from or is inspired by an NT written in Greek. In modern English, the words can often be used interchangeably including when referring to trust in something.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Ah, so it was Burt Bacharach. Sounded like a bunch of hippie dippie nonsense from the 60's. Now, I know why.
Well, in his first epistle John did say "God IS love". How nonsensical of him. And Paul did did say that, of faith, hope and love, the greatest is love. What nonsensical old hippies they were.

No the hippie version of that is, "Love is God."
[Biased]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
It may well have been... the point is, that there is, I think, a use of belief, at least in contemporary English, which does not involve intellectual assent to propositions.

No, not really. Belief and faith can be used interchangeably to mean trust in something. However, the definition doesn't say anything about not giving intellectual assent to the thing trusted. Why would it? I ask again why would you trust in something to which you didn't give intellectual assent?

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

As someone with an entirely apophatic appreciation of God, and a long experience of the dark light of faith, I think belief is overrated. I believe in God, and have experienced Him as a presence many times, but I could never convince any rational mind, not even my own, that it isn't all a figment. I believe in the Bible, but I've never seen it as a history book, so literal truth is much less important to me than spiritual meaning. It's ok to believe in Jesus, but He needs to be followed and obeyed and be the central figure in our lives if we are to begin the process of theosis which He intiated for us.

The English word belief doesn't accuately convey the meaning of the Greek pistis , and many terms such as being born again, eternal life(which is interchangeable with the kingdom of heaven) are mystical concepts, probably spoken in Aramaic, translated into Greek and further translated into may other languages, where the meaning becomes quite obscure over time. Faithfulness, which is closer to the meaning of pistis is about obedience and "sticking with it" even in one's darkest moments. It's important to remember that even the demons believe, and not everyone who cries out to the Lord can enter the kingdom, but those who do the will of the Father.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Belief doesn't mean, "those propositions you accept because they can be empirically verified." Again, I've had 2 1/2 years of NT Greek. I can read a lexicon. In scripture, the two words mean essentially the same thing. Heck, those who take this line of argument point out that when Jesus said believe in me he meant be faithful or trust in him.

I strive to be faithful to Jesus because of who He is and what He did. I believe what I do about Jesus because scripture and the Church say it is true. Do I know or care if it is a historical fact? Not really. Thus, I don't care much about quests for the historical Jesus.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
That wouldn't make any sense, Beeswax, although surely there are plenty of people who on the other hand profess belief in God but who do not trust God.

We speak modern English; not ancient Greek, BTW.
I'll grant you can not have faith in something you believe exists. I'm just trying to figure out how you can trust in something you don't believe. We speak modern English but the language of Christianity comes from or is inspired by an NT written in Greek. In modern English, the words can often be used interchangeably including when referring to trust in something.

First of all, I don't find the slangy examples of conflating believe/faith/trust in modern English usage given on this thread to be very compelling. There are plenty of examples of the construction, "I believe in you" in romantic song lyrics, as well as the slightly more philosophical, "I believe in love, Alfie". The latter certainly could be rendered as,"I have faith in love, Alfie," or "In love I trust, Alfie," with the same meaning, I would think. However, I'd see that as an example of all sorts of linguistic imprecisions we use in common parlance.

I understand that there is a single Greek word translated into English as either faith or belief, but I don't think this does justice to modern English understanding at a more sophisticated or nuanced level (more sophisticated than the vocabulary of a pop song).

Let me take another example. We talk of "faith healers". Most of us tend, I would think, to dismiss these spiritualists or charismatic preachers as charlatans (persuasive and talented ones, in the best cases), who may or may not think they have some sort of divine gift of healing. In any event, let's say someone experiences the rare inexplicable recovery from a disease as a result of one of these faith healers. Assuming that this wasn't simply a spontaneous recovery or a regression to the mean/baseline state of some chronic but variable condition, then likely most of us would infer that the improvement in the sufferer's condition took place as a result of their own faith or belief in the power of the faith healer to bring about healing (whether through their own agency or the transmission of healing power from outside themselves). Now, I've just invoked both words: faith, and belief. We can use either interchangeably, but I'm arguing that as specialised terminology it isn't very helpful to do so. Though the sufferer in our example may have held the intellectual belief that the faith healer could make them well, there was something more profound and primitive at work in the healing. We could see this as a type of placebo effect. The person deeply trusts that the agent of treatment - a putative pharmaceutical that is actually a sugar pill, or a modern-day shaman - is going to make them better, and in fact it does do so.This is not ordinary belief, I would argue, but a type of extraordinary trust that we can better denominate as faith.

My concern here is more centrally to do with a theology of grace. I accept the intellectual proposition that we are "saved" by grace through faith received. But what does this mean? First of all, I would say that it is through an essential trust that grace is apprehended. The grace is there and it does the work, so to speak; but I won't be able to appropriate this grace to my life if I can't recognise its presence and, further, trust in its availability. And why is grace important? Well, here is our existential situation: we did not bring ourselves into this world and our consciousness isn't the product of our own self-creation; likewise, the inescapable reality is the inevitability of the death of our biological organism and the disappearance of our consciousness from the realm of life-as-we-know-it. In the face of these realities, our alternatives include a deluded belief in our own invincibility, the ultimate despair or nihilism of our finite and doomed existence, or the extension of a gratitude for participating in consciousness and life that are utterly and completely a gift, and the grateful trust that the Creation and the Power that brings into existence and vivifies the Creation are benevolent, "in charge of things" - redeeming and sanctifying them. I would call this kind of trust "faith". The propositions about it may be classified as "belief", but the attitude toward existence is an ongoing "act" of faith. We have no power of ourselves to help (save) ourselves in the face of the essential limitations and problems of existence. Everything must be up to God (the agent of grace), whose grace we apprehend and appropriate by faith or radical trust. This is likewise true of our specifically Christian faith response to the Cross and Resurrection. I would have liked to have addressed that at this point, but now I must dress for dinner and leave the house and computer.

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

Beeswax Altar

quote:
At some point, somebody started this idea that faith in scripture means trust and not belief. In Greek, faith and belief mean basically the same thing.

Doesn't this just demonstrate the poverty of the Greek language at the time?

Just what did St James mean when he distinguished between faith and works?

In modern English, I have seen faith in God's ultimate love as revealed by Jesus, but I have yet to see belief in the virgin birth. (Forgive the harping on this, but it serves as an example)

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by shadeson:
Doesn't this just demonstrate the poverty of the Greek language at the time?

No, it doesn't. In English, faith and belief can be used interchangeably as well. Belief can mean trust. Faith can mean intellectual assent.

quote:
originally posted by shadeson:
Just what did St James mean when he distinguished between faith and works?

Good works follow authentic living faith. You could also say good works follow authentic living belief. My guess is you question what St. James means because he uses faith the way it is actually used in scripture as opposed to the way you've decided to use it.

quote:
originally posted by shadeson:
In modern English, I have seen faith in God's ultimate love as revealed by Jesus, but I have yet to see belief in the virgin birth. (Forgive the harping on this, but it serves as an example)

You've seen no such thing. You might have seen good works done because of belief that Jesus revealed God's ultimate love but you didn't see faith. Describe a visual manifestation of faith that is distinct from works.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Dafyd

quote:
They're different but not necessarily distinct.
I think that they are distinct; belief does not become faith until you have done something according to it. In the case of the prime minister, you are likely to talk to someone on that basis - which is an action.

I'm not sure that works - it's not clear in what sense I could be said to believe something if my actions aren't consistent with that belief. As I say, I have no faith in David Cameron. Yet if I met him I'd certainly act as if he were Prime Minister, whatever that consists in. A problem is that sometimes beliefs have only a very indirect connection with action so that most actions could be consistent with any given belief under the right circumstances. But I do think even belief is more than merely assenting to intellectual propositions.

quote:
Partly what initiated my OP is that many Christian beliefs seem like merely a mystical appendage. These contribute nothing to the life of faith and are a stumbling block to people wanting to understand Christianity. You can’t really base any rational actions on belief in the virgin birth - apart perhaps from celebrating it in art.

I have some sympathy with that view. Still, I don't think all beliefs need to have a direct bearing on action. The Virgin Birth is probably the most dispensable item in the creed. Yet I do think it has symbolic importance. God's action in Jesus is both in continuity with preexisting humanity, from his mother, and yet also a radically new humanity - having no human father.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Belief doesn't mean, "those propositions you accept because they can be empirically verified." Again, I've had 2 1/2 years of NT Greek. I can read a lexicon. In scripture, the two words mean essentially the same thing. Heck, those who take this line of argument point out that when Jesus said believe in me he meant be faithful or trust in him.

I strive to be faithful to Jesus because of who He is and what He did. I believe what I do about Jesus because scripture and the Church say it is true. Do I know or care if it is a historical fact? Not really. Thus, I don't care much about quests for the historical Jesus.

^ This.

I've addressed this on the Moses thread. People seem to be trying reach or maintain a kind of faith which doesn't require one to believe that God ever did anything. No amount of semantic wriggling or misprision is going to make a faith confident only where it isn't contradicted into the same thing as the faith of those who had no notion of unauthored empirical data. Assuming we don't want to gradually let it go, our best bet in situations like these is probably to pray for faith.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I actually find the virgin birth quite important. It should speak to men of the dignity of women at the very least and that should effect ones behaviour. No man after all has had such an intimate relationship with God.

Jengie

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
First of all, I don't find the slangy examples of conflating believe/faith/trust in modern English usage given on this thread to be very compelling. There are plenty of examples of the construction, "I believe in you" in romantic song lyrics, as well as the slightly more philosophical, "I believe in love, Alfie". The latter certainly could be rendered as,"I have faith in love, Alfie," or "In love I trust, Alfie," with the same meaning, I would think. However, I'd see that as an example of all sorts of linguistic imprecisions we use in common parlance.

The use of belief to mean trust is if anything older than the use of belief to mean acceptance as true. Most of these constructions are middle English. The development is from trust in someone telling you something, to trust in the story or report itself, to an opinion of how things are with no reference to any story or report.

'Believe in x' to mean 'trust or faith in x' is medieval, as is 'believe in y' where y is a statement or doctrine, meaning 'believe that y is true'. The earliest example of 'believe in x' meaning 'believe that x exists' is 17th century.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Plique-à-jour: I've addressed this on the Moses thread. People seem to be trying reach or maintain a kind of faith which doesn't require one to believe that God ever did anything.

Who said God never did anything? He does lots of things, every day.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

To get back to the theology of grace, I reject a conflation of faith as trust with belief as intellectual assent or subscription. In my view the idea of faith as involving primarily the holding of right-thinking ideas about God, Christ, the Atonement, Resurrection or any other doctrines overturns the nature of faith, making it into a work - an intentional work of the intellect, but still very much a work that we supposedly bring to God. But we can apprehend grace only through radical trust that is not an intellectual work. If we were to rely on belief it begs the question of exactly what and how much we need to believe. And even reductionism to such a level as "Jesus died for our sins and rose again" is meaningless without an understanding of the Incarnation and a theory of Atonement. Thus, the reception of grace that results in "justification" through faith cannot be predicated on something as capricious as intellectual belief in doctrine.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Lietuvos SV. Kazmieras:
The person deeply trusts that the agent of treatment - a putative pharmaceutical that is actually a sugar pill, or a modern-day shaman - is going to make them better, and in fact it does do so.This is not ordinary belief, I would argue, but a type of extraordinary trust that we can better denominate as faith.

You could just as easily say the patient didn't have an ordinary faith but believed in the agent of the treatment to such an extraordinary degree that he was healed. Faith and belief are interchangeable in this instance as well. Believe is a stronger way of saying you have faith in something.

quote:
originally posted by Lietuvos SV. Kazmieras:
The grace is there and it does the work, so to speak; but I won't be able to appropriate this grace to my life if I can't recognise its presence and, further, trust in its availability. And why is grace important? Well, here is our existential situation: we did not bring ourselves into this world and our consciousness isn't the product of our own self-creation; likewise, the inescapable reality is the inevitability of the death of our biological organism and the disappearance of our consciousness from the realm of life-as-we-know-it. In the face of these realities, our alternatives include a deluded belief in our own invincibility, the ultimate despair or nihilism of our finite and doomed existence, or the extension of a gratitude for participating in consciousness and life that are utterly and completely a gift, and the grateful trust that the Creation and the Power that brings into existence and vivifies the Creation are benevolent, "in charge of things" - redeeming and sanctifying them. I would call this kind of trust "faith". The propositions about it may be classified as "belief", but the attitude toward existence is an ongoing "act" of faith.

Yep...all very Existentialist. No wonder you like Paul Tillich. However, you've merely stated a list of intellectual propositions that you hold. Some you believe in stronger than others and use the word trust but there really isn't any different in the propositions that warrant using different words. Perhaps, we could call the beliefs you feel are the most important the essentials of the Lietuvon Faith.

quote:
originally posted by Lietuvos SV. Kazmieras:
To get back to the theology of grace, I reject a conflation of faith as trust with belief as intellectual assent or subscription. In my view the idea of faith as involving primarily the holding of right-thinking ideas about God, Christ, the Atonement, Resurrection or any other doctrines overturns the nature of faith, making it into a work - an intentional work of the intellect, but still very much a work that we supposedly bring to God.

But, it isn't the view presented by scripture or Christian tradition. Intellectual assent is not a work. If intellectual assent was a work, then according to James, faith would always be living faith because faith itself is a work.

quote:
originally posted by Lietuvos SV. Kazmieras:
But we can apprehend grace only through radical trust that is not an intellectual work.

Radical trust that isn't an intellectual work? Radical trust might not be an intellectual work entirely but it is at least partly an intellectual work. Once you name what it is you radically trust in (as you have) then you've intellectually assented to it.

quote:
originally posted by Lietuvos SV. Kazmieras:
If we were to rely on belief it begs the question of exactly what and how much we need to believe.

And to that question, scripture and tradition provide a clear answer. Repent and be baptized. Obey the Christ as Lord. Confess and receive absolution when you fail to do. I went through an Existentialism phase about 15 years ago so I understand what you are saying. Still, you are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

[ 22. September 2013, 00:36: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Beeswax Altar: Radical trust that isn't an intellectual work? Radical trust might not be an intellectual work entirely but it is at least partly an intellectual work. Once you name what it is you radically trust in (as you have) then you've intellectually assented to it.

I'm sorry, but no. Naming something isn't the same as radically trusting it. It takes an extra step that goes far beyond the intellectual.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I would say that belief is to do with intellectual subscription to various theoretical and operational propositions.

Faith, as others here have said, is to do with a basic trust, as well as a sense of wonder, ultimately in life and the creation.

My understanding is that your definition of belief is a modern development, and that it earlier/originally meant a total commitment to something.

GG

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Beeswax Altar: Radical trust that isn't an intellectual work? Radical trust might not be an intellectual work entirely but it is at least partly an intellectual work. Once you name what it is you radically trust in (as you have) then you've intellectually assented to it.
I'm sorry, but no. Naming something isn't the same as radically trusting it. It takes an extra step that goes far beyond the intellectual.

Yeah, that's why I said radical trust was only partly an intellectual work. You can't radically trust in something without naming it. Naming it is intellectual assent.

Seriously, this isn't complicated.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Beeswax Altar: Naming it is intellectual assent.

By giving something a name, for example by calling it 'God', I know nothing more about it than I did before.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

I could take a particular cosmological theory and not only name it in my conception of how the astrophysical universe and space-time operate, but further propound the particular concept as the most plausible and meaningful one. Yet, this wouldn't involve a radical trust or faith. The theory is not subject to ultimate proof or even much in the way of accumulating evidence. It shares that quality with metaphysical concepts regarding theistic agency in the Creation. Neither category of ideas is ultimately testable or provable, but only the idea of a divine agency in Creation that is also the source of redeeming and sanctifying grace militates for a special category of extra-rational, existential trust that we identify under the category of faith. Faith is nothing to do with preponderance of evidence nor with simple assent to provable propositions such as the heliocentric solar system. It shouldn't be trivialised into the mere assent to formal dogma. It is instead the trusting and courageous affirmation of life,being, and ultimate goodness, I.e., grace freely available, in the face of the nihilistic threat of futility and non-existence. As Christians, we see this grace revealed in the person and gospel of Jesus the Christ. And to be clear, the affirmation of which I speak is not a routine exercise of the intellect but a putting forth of the self into that to which our trust - our faith - is extended. Maybe it is the belief that is beyond belief, something we can only circumlocute but not fully express, since it involves aspects that are both pre-verbal and extra-verbal.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
To get back to the theology of grace, I reject a conflation of faith as trust with belief as intellectual assent or subscription. In my view the idea of faith as involving primarily the holding of right-thinking ideas about God, Christ, the Atonement, Resurrection or any other doctrines overturns the nature of faith, making it into a work - an intentional work of the intellect, but still very much a work that we supposedly bring to God.

Radical trust seems to me a lot more like a work than intellectual assent does.

Also, I query the idea that belief is merely holding ideas at arm's length as it were. A proto-modern idea of belief might have been that beliefs were something that were just presented to us and to which we assent - but modern thinking has it that believing is a more engaged process. In short, if belief and faith are distinct, they're not so distinct that they don't shade off into each other.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

[/QUOTE]I believe in God. [/QB][/QUOTE]

James 2:19
Revised Standard Version (RSV)

19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Gramps49: 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.

Nice one

My statement "I believe in God" was a reaction on Beeswax Altar who asked "Don't you have faith in the Church?"

I have to admit that my faith in the Church (or the church) is faltering. I know that it's in the Nicene Creed, but whenever I recite that part, it is kind of a hope against the odds: "I believe that the Holy Church some day will get its act together."

I do believe in God though. And maybe one day I'll find out whether I'm a demon or not [Smile]

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

Beeswax Altar

quote:
At some point, somebody started this idea that faith in scripture means trust and not belief. In Greek, faith and belief mean basically the same thing.

I don’t think it was me that started it. To my mind St. James was trying to say that they are not.

In our world we do define a belief as something which you teach, but not necessarily hold yourself.

Faith as understood by most people in everyday life is action based on belief - showing a belief is held as true.

St. James was opposing those who taught beliefs that they demonstrably did not hold.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

No, it wasn't you.
Huh?
We do?
We do?
He was?

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Isn't the Hebrew word behind faith more like faithfulness?

In this sense faith is to do with sticking to a decision to trust despite doubt. So in so far as we doubt, belief gets weaker, but I don't think faith does.

The secular equivalent would be sticking to a strategy which necessarily takes some time to show itself as true, and which at times seems very dubious.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
anteater: Isn't the Hebrew word behind faith more like faithfulness?

Well, the English word for faith looks a lot like faithfulness.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Isn't the Hebrew word behind faith more like faithfulness?

Yes:

quote:
Faith which is a kind of knowledge majoring on the intellectual content of belief is what is essentially conveyed by the Greek word for faith: pistis. T..... the Hebrew word emunah is less about intellectual assent and more about active trust ….. the trajectory of Western. Christianity ... has been dominated by the Hellenistic concept over the Hebraic…… The premium placed on dogmatism and doctrinal orthodoxy has seduced us into a false sense of intellectual security about what qualifies as faith and how we might come to possess it. This leads to a consequential insistence on knowing for sure where Truth in matters of faith is to be found, and who are the gatekeepers guarding the treasure of Truth against error. That in its turn leads to demands for the exclusion or even eradication of those unable or unwilling to signal their assent because they see God differently and want others to share their vision. A New York taxi-driver, possessed of an opinion on philosophy as on everything else, said of Descartes: "too much cogito, not enough sum". Well, Christendom may be said to be skewed by too much pistis and not enough emunah. It stands for factory-farm religion rather than free-range faith. It is this imbalance which makes religion vulnerable to those who need to vest their political and socio-economic ideologies with a semblance of theological authority. If they can insinuate their own credo into the doctrinal formulations of mainstream religion, or at least hitch a ride on them, then they have recruited God to serve their agendas, and the fault-lines in religion as pistis-focused are clearly exposed.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Please provide the source of the quotation, leo.

RuthW, Temp Purg host

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

What B.A. said.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Isn't the Hebrew word behind faith more like faithfulness?
Yes:
quote:
Faith which is a kind of knowledge majoring on the intellectual content of belief is what is essentially conveyed by the Greek word for faith: pistis. T..... the Hebrew word emunah is less about intellectual assent and more about active trust ….. the trajectory of Western. Christianity ... has been dominated by the Hellenistic concept over the Hebraic…… The premium placed on dogmatism and doctrinal orthodoxy has seduced us into a false sense of intellectual security about what qualifies as faith and how we might come to possess it. This leads to a consequential insistence on knowing for sure where Truth in matters of faith is to be found, and who are the gatekeepers guarding the treasure of Truth against error. That in its turn leads to demands for the exclusion or even eradication of those unable or unwilling to signal their assent because they see God differently and want others to share their vision. A New York taxi-driver, possessed of an opinion on philosophy as on everything else, said of Descartes: "too much cogito, not enough sum". Well, Christendom may be said to be skewed by too much pistis and not enough emunah. It stands for factory-farm religion rather than free-range faith. It is this imbalance which makes religion vulnerable to those who need to vest their political and socio-economic ideologies with a semblance of theological authority. If they can insinuate their own credo into the doctrinal formulations of mainstream religion, or at least hitch a ride on them, then they have recruited God to serve their agendas, and the fault-lines in religion as pistis-focused are clearly exposed.

You removed enough stuff for this to be a misrepresentation of his point. Is that why you didn't attribute it? I refer you to the next paragraph:

quote:
Originally noted by John Saxbee:
It is important to be clear that it is not a matter of emunah but not pistis.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

I am confused because I thought Karen Armstrong (and others) maintain "pistis" itself was not so much about intellectual assent.
But more about trust, allegiance:
I will follow you, I believe in you---not, I believe in certain tenets about you.

In other words, closer to the Hebrew meaning (discussed in the paragraph quoted) than to our modern "faith." Not in opposition to the Hebrew word, as depicted there.

And that it was the Enlightenment and subsequent search for definitions, taxonomy, things cut-and-dried etc that changed the way we see "pistis."

The ancient meanings, whether Greek or Hebrew, were both more about allegiance and not acceptance of certain doctrines.

But I'm no scholar of ancient languages....

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

Prior to having the boot put in, I was hoping for the discussion that subsequently has taken place. It seems a bit rarefied though.
What exactly is the “intellectual content of belief”?

Are there (modern English) words which distinguish between beliefs that can only be taught and beliefs that can be acted on? An example might be creationism and evolution.

It seems that St. James was not quite thinking along these lines - it make you wonder what he would have said though.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Please provide the source of the quotation, leo.

RuthW, Temp Purg host

Sorry - intended do but probably got distracted by phone or whatever.

No Faith in Religion: Some variations on a Theme – John Saxbee pp. 8-9

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
You removed enough stuff for this to be a misrepresentation of his point. Is that why you didn't attribute it? I refer you to the next paragraph:

quote:
Originally noted by John Saxbee:
It is important to be clear that it is not a matter of emunah but not pistis.

I removed enough stuff to avoid falling foul of copyright, which is currently being debated in The Styx.

But on the quotation you give, which is a poage later than that which i quoted, so was not deliberately 'removed' - I see your point. BUT he defends liberals against those who accuse them of having no pistis by explaining that liberals take it seriously. That is why they write modern creeds rather than just ignoring the original. (p. 10) But he goes on to say that pistis without enumah tends to 'fossilise faith' and 'lacks the active trust needed to transform our lives (quoting C F Evans).

I think I represent him correctly because a group of us were discussing this with him last Saturday at a Modern Church conference, which is why it is so fresh in my mind.

I'd like to hear more about your take on this, not least because it takes us to the very heart of how/if religion can help or hinder our relationship with Jesus/God.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I removed enough stuff to avoid falling foul of copyright, which is currently being debated in The Styx.

Oh, it was a word count thing. Righto.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But on the quotation you give, which is a poage later than that which i quoted, so was not deliberately 'removed' - I see your point.

Indeed, I didn't think that bit was removed.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
BUT he defends liberals against those who accuse them of having no pistis by explaining that liberals take it seriously. That is why they write modern creeds rather than just ignoring the original. (p. 10) But he goes on to say that pistis without enumah tends to 'fossilise faith' and 'lacks the active trust needed to transform our lives (quoting C F Evans).

I'd say that's a simplification of his point. He's also saying that enumah without pistis loses something.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

I think I represent him correctly because a group of us were discussing this with him last Saturday at a Modern Church conference, which is why it is so fresh in my mind.

I'd like to hear more about your take on this, not least because it takes us to the very heart of how/if religion can help or hinder our relationship with Jesus/God.

I have nothing to add to my post on the first page.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0