Definitions of Faith

by Shawn10538 31 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  t33ap80c

  How Paul Applied Hebrews 11:1 at Romans 1:20
  "The evident demonstration of realities though not beheld" - (NWT) "The evidence of things not seen" - (KJV)

  Here is how Paul reasoned in his letter to the Christians living in Rome:
  
  "For God's invisible qualities areclearly seenfrom the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his internal power and Godship."

  Paul seems be reasoning from the basic principle that when we see things that is made (i.e. the evidence) we can have the assured expectation (i.e. faith) that someone made them.

  But how much evidence it takes for people to put faith in God varies. Some may only require the slightest, unscientific amount of evidence. But others may require a lot of highly technical evidence in order to have faith ("the assured expectation") that God exists.

  One final thought: I realize that there is more to it than just the evidence no matter how unequivocal and undeniable it may be. There must be a willingness to believe. If someone does not want to believe then no amount of evidence will cause them to believe.

  But Paul felt that there is so much reliable evidence that proves that God exists that if someone is aware of it and concludes that God does not exist then "they are inexcusable." In other words, as far as he was concerned there is no excuse for someone to see the things that are made and conclude that nobody made them.

  Don Cameron
• 

  Narkissos

  Don:

  Care to address my point, i.e. that hupostasis in Hebrews doesn't mean anything like "assured expectation"?

  Side note: even the most conservative scholars nowadays do not identify the anonymous author of Hebrews with Paul. I didn't want to raise this issue at first, but since you are now trying to explain the notion of faith in Hebrews by Pauline references it may become more important.
• 

  t33ap80c

  Narkissos ,

  You said…"hupostasis in Hebrews 11:1 doesn't meananything like "assured expectation." I did a brief Google Search of hupostasis. Here is one of responses that came back:

  "Hebrews 11:1 provides a definition: 'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.' 'Hupostasis,' the word translated 'substance,' means 'that which underlies the apparent; that which is the basis of something, hence, assurance, guarantee and confidence' (Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, p. 1425."

  To me those words "assurance," "guarantee" and "confidence" don’t seem to far removed from "assured expectation." How about the following:

  "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for." "Faith is the guarantee of things hoped for." "Faith is the confidence of things hoped for." "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for."

  They all seem to have a similar sense. And that is that the "faith" of Hebrews 11:1 (whoever wrote it) is a very confident, assured belief rather than a wishy-washy ‘maybe yes maybe no’ kind of belief.

  Do you feel that "the assured expectation of things hoped for" misrepresents the meaning that the author intended?

  Don
• 

  Narkissos

  Hi Don,

  This imho is only a rationalisation of the classic Protestant translation. Nothing in the ancient usage of hupostasis justifies the jump from the objective "reality" (or, etymologically, "basis") to the subjective notion of "confidence". Plus, it would imply that the author suddenly uses a known philosophical term (cf. 1:3) in a wildly different, and non-philosophical meaning.

  All the TDNT article I mentioned above is worth reading, but I will just quote p. 586f:

  In translation of hupostasis here [11:1] and in Hb. 3:14 Melanchthon advised Luther to use the rendering "sure confidence." Whereas all patristic and medieval exegesis presupposed that hupostasis was to be translated substantia and understood in the sense of ousia, Luther's translationintroduced a wholly new element into the understanding of Hb. 11:1. Faith is now viewed as personal, subjective conviction. This interpretation has governed Protestant exposition of the passage almost completely, and it has strongly influenced Roman Catholic exegesis. It has also had a broader effect. Yet there can be no question but that this classical Protestant understanding is untenable. The starting-point of exposition must be that hupostasis in Hb. 11:1 has to have not only a meaning like that in Greek usage elsewhere but also a sense similar to that it bears in the other Hb. references. It should also be noted that hupostasis here is parallel to elegkhos and that it occurs in a sentence full of central theological concepts. Now as regards elegkhos it is evident that this does not mean subjective non-doubting nor does it have anything at all to do with conviction: it bears the objective sense of "demonstration" (...). In the first instance, then, the elegkhos of pragmata ou blepomena is the proof of things one cannot see, i.e., the heavenly world which alone has reality, whereas in Hb. everything visible has only the character of the shadowy and frontal. If one follows the meaning of hupostasis in Hb. 1:3, then hupostasis elpizomenôn bears a similar sense: it is the reality of the goods hoped for, which have by nature a transcendent quality. Primarily, then, elegkhos and hupostasis do not describe faith but define the character of the transcendant future things, and do so in the same sense as Philo (...) and other representatives of Middle Platonism speak of the reality and actuality of God and the world of ideas. In a formulation of incomparable boldness Hb. 11:1 identifies pistis with this transcendent reality: Faith is the reality of what is hoped for in exactly the sense in which Jesus is called the kharaktèr of the reality of the transcendent God in 1:3. The one formulation is as paradoxical as the other to the degree that the presence of the divine reality is found in the one case in the obedience of a suffering and dying man (cf. Hb. 5:7) and in the other in the faith of the community. But this is the point of Hb. Only the work of this Jesus and only participation in this work (= faith) are not subject to the corruptibility of the merely shadowy and prototypical.

  So, yes, I do think that "assured expectation" or "sure confidence" misrepresent the author's point, which is even more remote from "a wishy-washy maybe yes maybe no concept of belief".
• 

  proplog2

  Shawn:
  
  I agree with you - faith is an archaic word.
  If you read Hebrews the 11th chapter it lists people that had faith.
  They all experienced visitation of angels or had other extraordinary experiences.
  They didn't just have a book of hearsay evidence.
  
  The more appropriate and modern word would be "inductive reasoning"
  which is making general conclusions based on specific observations.
• 

  t33ap80c

  Hi again Narkissos,

  The quote you gave included the statement: "Faith is the reality of what is hoped for."

  What do you think about the following rendition of Hebrews 11:1 which includes the above first part and the NWT’s second part:

  "Faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of reality though not beheld."

  Would that be acceptable?

  Also: Would you give some examples of the faith Hebrews 11:1 is referring to...

  Don
• 

  R.Crusoe

  Allowing oneself to class as a body of knowledge that which cannot be proven!
• 

  Narkissos

  Don,

  What do you think about the following rendition of Hebrews 11:1 which includes the above first part and the NWT’s second part:

  "Faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of reality though not beheld."

  Would that be acceptable?

  Semantically acceptable imo, although "evident demonstration" (as often in the NWT)overtranslates elegkhos -- and, if you translate hupostasis as "reality," you'd better find another word for pragmatôn.

  "... the evidence of things not beheld" would be enough I guess.

  Also: Would you give some examples of the faith Hebrews 11:1 is referring to...

  Not sure what you mean here: the whole chapter is a typical catalogue of OT examples (in the style of Sirach 44--50). Hebrews 11 is not remarkable for stressing a particular kind of faith, but for construing faith in its various expressions as a testimony of the unseen (= divine, heavenly, permanent, "ideal"). Try reading it again with those (middle-platonic) lens and it makes a LOT of sense.

  (I'll be away for a few days, I'll catch up later if the discussion goes on.)
• 

  t33ap80c

  Narkissos ,

  My understanding has been that in order to confidently believe in something we can not see with our eyes or understand with our mind will require "faith." For example, believing that an invisible God exists requires faith. But in order to be able to believe that God exists requires evidence.

  This seems to be the line of reasoning that Paul used with the Romans when he explained how 'God's invisible qualities can be clearly seen by the world's creation onward.'

  What about that example I mentioned previously that believing that the sun came up this morning does not require faith because we saw it come up this morning. But believing that it will come up tomorrow morning will require faith because we have not seen tomorrow morning yet. And that the reason we can have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow morning is because of the scientific evidence we have to base that faith on?

  How about this:

  What if we have the assured expectation that sun will come up tomorrow morning because as far as we know it has always come up every other morning in the past? If that is not "faith" what would you call it?

  Don
• 

  Narkissos

  (Leaving Hebrews aside) I guess it's a valid illustration of "faith" in general -- although its (1) future and (2) verifiable a posteriori aspects make it rather difficult to differentiate from "hope".

  To take a slightly different example: every time you enter a building you do implicitly believe/hope that it will not collapse while you're in. You believe/hope it strongly enough to commit your own life on it. And, 99.99999999 % of the times you're right. However, all the people who ever perished under a collapsed building probably shared the same belief -- and they were wrong.