A Better Faith.

[blackstrap]

You do know why Indiana took the first step don't you?

[elguanteloko]

You do know why Indiana took the first step don't you?

He suspected his faith was being tested.

[Ahab]

Right. Even the "most likely option" from amongst the possible options may be extremely risky. I meant risky, however, in the relation between one option to the others, not in the relation between an option and the final goal or what is trying to be explained since there may be an incredibly big gap between them in cases where every explanation seems unlikely though one of them must be the case.

One option to the others. Okay. Do you see that one option among the others is the correct option? That's the one I'm thinking I have with when I exercise faith in an option, and the closer I am to having knowledge, the better.

I've always been speaking of "less likely" and "more likely" options which implies a relationship amongst themselves (amongst the options). That's all I've been talking about.

Alright, again. I've been saying all along that the option I'm going with when I exercise faith is the option I believe is the correct option, NOT the one I think is the most unlikely.

Suppose, for example, there are 1000 options you can imagine for a choice you would like to make... like what concept of "God" for you to believe in, if you were inclined to believe in a God. You can see that as a question of faith, I hope.

Among those options is the concept of God being a turtle which holds up the Earth upon its back.. a God we can't see, but could still possibly believe in.

Another option is that God is the sun we can only partially see in our solar system. Many people in the past thought of that as their God.

Another option is that God is the most supreme being in all of existence, whatever kind of being that being is, and even though you might not be able to see what kind of being that is, in all of his (or her or its) glory, you could still choose to go with that option.

Another option is that God is... well, whatever, the point is there are many, many options to choose from, and since you are inclined to make a choice because you would like to believe in some kind of God, if there is such a being, you would like to make some kind of choice.

Now, what I've been trying to tell you is that when "I" exercise faith in something, I believe I am going with the "correct" option, rather than the one that is the most unlikely option, and even if there are 1000 options you or I might be able to imagine, only one option is the correct choice... which, again, is the option I believe I am choosing when I have "faith" in that option.

That an option could be wrong is irrelevant. If choice A has 99.99999% of being right while option B has 0.00001%, option A could STILL be the wrong option but that's not the point of probability. Faith would be if you opt for option B and say "This is the right one!" based on trust though you realize (and HAVE to realize) that it doesn't have much chances of being the right one.

For one thing, a choice is either right or it is wrong. There are no percentages one way or the other. The percentages most likely reflect how much "faith" a person has in an option they are choosing to believe in.

For another thing, I have yet to meet anyone who goes with what they consider to be the most unlikely option when they do have faith in something. Each person I know who has faith in something believes what he/she has faith in is not only the correct choice, but the most likely choice out of all of the choices they can imagine, which is why they have "faith" in that option. To them, it's the most likely choice.

Once you know what the right answer is, however, you can NOT have faith anymore since you already know. If you go with option A you also (and realize the probabilities I mentioned) can't have faith in option A since you know it is the most likely. Choosing A is just the best you can do, no trust needed.

I say a person choosing to go with option A, which they believe to be 99.999% correct, still has faith at that point because they are not 100% sure while knowing that when any doubt remains there still is a risk they could be wrong in that option.

This is where the "degrees of faith" problem come in. The least likely you see the option you trust on to be (in relation to the most likely option), the more faith you have if you indeed trust in that option you choose.

That may work with the option you are trying to introduce as your own definition of faith, but that's not how faith really works, as I have been trying to tell you.

The more faith a person has in something the more "sure" that person is that the option he/she has faith in is true, so even if there are a million choices a person can imagine, he/she is choosing the option he/she believes is the most likely to be true.

Faith is NOT a belief in something which a person with faith believes is the most unlikely. That option may be the one SOMEONE ELSE considers to be the most unlikely, or less likely, but the person with faith in that option sees it as the most likely.

The closer the likelihood of that option to the most likely option, the lesser the faith (if you choose the most likely then you can't have faith at that point). You can think of the most likely option as a line with a bunch of small stones at different distances apart from it on one side (each stone is a different explanation or choice and the distance is the likelihood in relation to the line). The further to the line the stone you pick is, the greater your faith since you need more trust to do so because they have progressively less chances of being correct.

Each person is picking the stone they believe is closest to the line, though. It doesn't matter to them that other people don't see it that way. To them, the stone they are picking is the correct one.

Enough for now. As always, it's up to you to choose who or what you will place your faith in with many people offering you their own assurances about what they believe to be true.

Personally, I recommend asking God to tell you what you should believe and then accepting the assurances he will give you, regardless of what anyone else tries to tell you about how they don't see that as the most likely option.

p.s. And btw, when I say a choice is either right or wrong, I'm taking into consideration the fact that there are often multiple correct answers to a question with each answer having only a part of the complete right answer in it.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Ahab

[CV75]

I don't quite see what you mean by "assessed". Faith is to be faith when those conditions are present, the conditions being "to realize the option you trust on (or are going to trust on) is not the most likely explanation". If you don't take the "leap of faith" then you obviously don't have faith. If you don't trust in a less-likely option then you also don't have faith.

Again, you can TRUST 100% in your option and STILL realize that option is not the most likely thing to be the case by all best accounts. The whole point of trusting in someone or something is because there's a bridge between what we see and a goal of some sort. The bridge is trust. If there is no difference between what you see and the goal OR you go with the best option to reach there, then those things are not faith or trust.

What I'm saying is that a risk determines IF IT IS faith or not (and you have to realize that risk, btw, in some form or another). If you see no risk in crossing the bridge (following the Indiana Jones movie analogy here) then you can't have faith that you can cross the bridge. If you DO see a risk (in the sense that if you do something, the result is not the most likely thing to follow) in crossing the bridge and you realize that to try to cross it and survive is NOT the most likely thing to happen (EVEN IF YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THIS ONE), then you CAN have faith that you will cross the bridge and you will survive (since it isn't the most likely thing to happen, or so you think).

"by the drama around it" is a misleading way of saying it. It is about the possibilities YOU REALIZE when going to trust in something. "Objectively", though, you may be completely wrong about the possibilities you assign to several events and then saying "THIS is the most likely" when it really is not the most likely. If you are wrong, however, that does NOT matter since you are having trust in what you see as an unlikely option.

When I say that I don’t buy that faith is assessed by the many reasons not to take the step and not by actually taking the step, I mean I don’t buy that faith is primarily defined / measured / characterized / analyzed / evaluated / esteemed by the reasons not to act upon a principle, but by actually acting upon a principle. You’d have to go back to the first primal instance of acting upon a principle to identify what you thought of its likelihood of being correct, at such an instance appears so early and the principle so new that there is little likelihood perceived one way or the other (it was probably quite psychically visceral, less than a glimmer of a desire to believe), and I don’t think anyone can remember that. This is why Moroni’s Promise has us look back as far as we can (verse 3).

I don’t think people of faith approach God as being a likely or unlikely thing to exist. It is the moving ahead that requires faith and trust, regardless of how well they perceive Him. Obviously there is some struggle in keeping His commandments. For example a man may question how likely is it he will be blessed for paying a tithe and pays it anyway. His faith is defined by paying it, regardless of whether he has questions or not. My use of the term drama highlights the big deal some people make in the struggle, questioning and risk-assessing of keeping God’s commandments.

There is a difference between acting on faith and taking a chance, and your definition sounds more like taking a chance. When people are invited to pray for an answer, it comes from someone who has done it and knows the results and can invite with confidence. They are not asking the person to take a chance, but to pray in faith, even exhorting them to (Moroni). When people are invited to experiment upon the word (Alma 32), it is to try something that they have already proven to themselves and provide an assurance that the experiment will work.

If someone feels they are taking a chance with a Gospel principle, he is not acting in faith. The motives for taking a chance may be altruistic, wishful thinking, thrill-seeking, self-destructive or masochistic tendencies, or a sense that he’s got little or nothing to lose or has been lucky so far.

Edited June 30, 2011 by CV75

[WalkerW]

I haven't read the entire thread, only the OP. I find the definition as it relates to religious experience and devotion problematic because it presupposes a philosophical paradigm that was completely foreign to the ancients and their usage of 'faith' (Heb aman, Gk pistis, Latin fides).

As I've written elsewhere (http://unt.academia.edu/WalkerWright/Papers/432730/Grace_and_Faith_in_History_and_Within_the_Context_of_Mormon_Soteriology),

In the book How Wide the Divide?, written with New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg, BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson argues, “Latter-day Saints enthusiastically endorse the validity of salvation through grace by faith…but insist that 'faith' not be totally divorced from its Semitic origin meaning “faithful” (Hebrew aman) and become watered down to mean mere mental assent…To have “faith” in Christ must in some degree imply subsequent “faithfulness” to Christ as Lord...” [12]. A favorite among Mormons is the epistle of James, in which “pure religion” is defined as visiting “the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep [one's self] unspotted from the world” (James 1:27). “Faith,” James states, “if it hath not works, is dead, being alone” (James 2:17). According to James, “by works” faith is “made perfect” (vs. 22) and man is justified by works, “not by faith only” (vs. 24; oddly enough, this is the only place in the New Testament where “faith alone” is mentioned). The prophet Joseph Smith defined faith as a “principle of action,” a “principle of power,” and “the moving cause of all action…” [13]. LDS apostle Richard G. Scott recently summarized this description by noting that “faith and character are intimately related” [14]. Zeba A. Crook of Carleton University has found that the Latin fides and Greek pistis (from which we translate the English word “faith”) functioned “in many aspects of political life in the Roman Empire, such as friendship, love, obedience, power, fellowship, benevolence, patronage and tutelage” [15]. Drawing on a number of ancient sources, he concludes that the terms should be defined as “faithfulness, steadfastness, and trustworthiness, all in the sense of loyalty between parties” [16]. Even Raymond E. Brown, one of the most prestigious scholars on the Gospel of John, defines the Greek as “an active commitment to a person” that “involves much more than trust…The commitment is not emotional but involves a willingness to respond to God’s demands as they are presented in and by Jesus…for to have faith implies that one will abide in the word and commands of Jesus” [17]. Therefore, we can more fully understand why the author of Hebrews describes Christ as “the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Hebrews 5:9).

12. Stephen E. Robinson, Craig L. Blomberg, How Wide the Divide?: A Mormon & Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 145. See Ch. 4 “Salvation” for the full discussion.

13. “Lecture First,” Lectures on Faith, prepared by Joseph Smith, Jr. (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book: 1985 [originally delivered to the School of the Prophets in Kirtland, Ohio: 1834-1835]), 1, 3.

14. Richard G. Scott, “The Transforming Power of Faith and Character,” Ensign (Nov. 2010).

15. Zeba A. Crook, “BTB Readers’ Guide: Loyalty,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 34:4 (Nov. 2004): 167. John Gee came to similar conclusions. See his “The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity,” Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2005). Others have noted that it takes the form of a pledge, covenant, or oath. See David M. Hay, “Pistis as “Ground of Faith” in Hellenized Judaism and Paul,” Journal of Biblical Literature 108:3 (1989).

16. Ibid.: 168.

17. Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible – The Gospel According to John (I-XII) (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 513.

New Testament scholar David DeSilva further explains,

Faith (Lat. fides; Gk pistis) is a term also very much at home in patron-client and friendship relations...In one sense, faith meant “dependability.” The patron needed to prove reliable in providing the assistance he or she promised to grant. The client needed to “keep faith” as well, in the sense of showing loyalty or commitment to the patron and to his or her obligations of gratitude. A second meaning in the more familiar sense is “trust”: the client had to trust the goodwill and ability of the patron...while the benefactor would also have to trust the recipients to act nobly and make a grateful response. (DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture, IVP, 2000, 115)

In his commentary on the epistle to the Hebrews, DeSilva touches on Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen":

In philosophical language [the Greek hupostasis] can signify the “substance” or “underlying essence” of something...The same term, however, carries the everyday legal or business connotation of “title deed” or “guarantee,” attested by numerous papyri as well as classical texts...Given this immediate context, ['substance'] should be heard in the sense of title deed in 11:1, linking the discussion of faith more closely with 10:32-36 and the Christians’ loss of property...In this reading, ['faith'] in Hebrews is being understood very much within the context of patronage or friendship. After a client receives the patron’s promise that a certain benefaction will be given to him or her..."trust" is all the client has. If the patron is honorable and reliable, however, having “trust” is a good as having the promised item itself. Conversely, showing “distrust” toward the patron means letting go of the grasp on the promised item not only psychologically (because distrust produces anxiety) but in reality (as “distrust” manifested itself in “disobedience,” which caused the wilderness generation to lose their possession of the promised land; 3:7-19). (DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’, Eerdmans, 2000, 383-384)

Karen Armstrong writes,

The word translated as "faith" in the New Testament is the Greek pistis (verbal form: pisteuo), which means "trust; loyalty; engagement; commitment." ...[Jesus] was asking for commitment. He wanted disciples who would engage with his mission, give all they had to the poor, feed the hungry, refuse to be hampered by family ties, abandon their pride, lay aside their self-importance and sense of entitlement, live like the birds of the air and the lilies of the field, and trust in the God who was their father...When the New Testament was translated from Greek into Latin by Saint Jerome (c. 342-420), pistis became fides ("loyalty"). Fides has no verbal form, so for pisteuo Jerome used the Latin verb credo, a word that derived from cor do, "I give my heart." He did not think of using opinor ("I hold an opinion"). When the Bible was translated into English, credo and pisteuo became "I believe" in the King James version (1611). But the word "belief" has since changed its meaning. In Middle English, bileven meant "to prize; to value; to hold dear." It was related to the German belieben ("to love"), liebe ("beloved"), and the Latin libido. So "belief" originally meant "loyalty to a person to whom one is bound in promise or duty." When Chaucer's knight begged his patron to "accepte my bileve," he meant "accept my fealty, my loyalty." In Shakespeare's All's Well That Ends Well, which was probably written around 1603, shortly before the publication of the King James Bible, the young nobleman Bertram is urged to "believe not thy disdain": he must not entertain his contempt for lowborn Helena and allow it to take deep root in his heart. During the late seventeenth century, however, as our concept of knowledge became more theoretical, the word "belief" started to be used to describe an intellectual assent to a hypothetical-and often dubious-proposition. Scientists and philosophers were the first to use it in this sense, but in religious contexts the Latin credere and the English "belief" both retained their original connotations well into the nineteenth century. (Karen Armstrong, The Case for God, Alfred A. Knopf, 2009, 87-88)

In other words,

We began [in the 16th-17th centuries] to understand concepts such as faith, revelation, myth, mystery, and dogma in a way that would have been very surprising to our ancestors. In particular, the meaning of the word "belief" changed, so that a credulous acceptance of creedal doctrines became the prerequisite of faith, so much so that today we often speak of religious people as "believers," as though accepting orthodox dogma "on faith" were their most important activity. (Armstrong, 2009, xv)

The secular assumptions in the OP do little to advance the understanding of 'faith'.

[elguanteloko]

One option to the others. Okay. Do you see that one option among the others is the correct option? That's the one I'm thinking I have with when I exercise faith in an option, and the closer I am to having knowledge, the better.

If you see that one option is the correct option then you don't see other options. That's it, end of the game since the one you are seeing is IN FACT the correct option. The door with the prize has been opened. If you, however, don't SEE the correct option but you have very strong support and evidence for that option (hint: this applies to the VAST majority of times), then you don't SEE with certainty but have some very good justification to believe that option.

Now, when we have faith we TRUST in an option to be the correct one but you are mistaking that event to saying that you actually KNOW that is the correct option. Two very different things and if you SEE the correct option then you know, not have faith, that that is the correct one, no trust needed.

Alright, again. I've been saying all along that the option I'm going with when I exercise faith is the option I believe is the correct option, NOT the one I think is the most unlikely.

Indeed you believe that option is the correct option but for it to be called faith it must have other criterion being met. If "belief" is the only requirement for faith then knowledge (knowledge is a type of belief) is also faith and things which are seen are faith, too, which is silly and even contradict the scriptures. That other criteria is the one I talk about in the OP (you must know your option is not the most likely, etc).

Suppose, for example, there are 1000 options you can imagine for a choice you would like to make... like what concept of "God" for you to believe in, if you were inclined to believe in a God. You can see that as a question of faith, I hope.

Among those options is the concept of God being a turtle which holds up the Earth upon its back.. a God we can't see, but could still possibly believe in.

Another option is that God is the sun we can only partially see in our solar system. Many people in the past thought of that as their God.

Another option is that God is the most supreme being in all of existence, whatever kind of being that being is, and even though you might not be able to see what kind of being that is, in all of his (or her or its) glory, you could still choose to go with that option.

Another option is that God is... well, whatever, the point is there are many, many options to choose from, and since you are inclined to make a choice because you would like to believe in some kind of God, if there is such a being, you would like to make some kind of choice.

Now, what I've been trying to tell you is that when "I" exercise faith in something, I believe I am going with the "correct" option, rather than the one that is the most unlikely option, and even if there are 1000 options you or I might be able to imagine, only one option is the correct choice... which, again, is the option I believe I am choosing when I have "faith" in that option.

When I KNOW where the car is (behind what door as in a "The Prize is Right" game), I also believe that the car is in door B (for example). That isn't faith. To be clear, also, I'm not saying one only can have faith "in the most unlikely option". Not the most unlikely but not the most likely.

I have also already argued several times why the object of your belief can't be an object of faith if you think that is the most likely object (object here can mean explanation or thing). That is because you need no trust in going with that option. That is what looks like the right option so no trust is needed, that's just the best you can do. Go back to the Indiana Jones analogy, also.

I think this is enough to answer everything else you said in your post so I won't bother. If something is still unclear please let me know.

[Nofear]

In other words,

We began [in the 16th-17th centuries] to understand concepts such as faith, revelation, myth, mystery, and dogma in a way that would have been very surprising to our ancestors. In particular, the meaning of the word "belief" changed, so that a credulous acceptance of creedal doctrines became the prerequisite of faith, so much so that today we often speak of religious people as "believers," as though accepting orthodox dogma "on faith" were their most important activity. (Armstrong, 2009, xv)

The secular assumptions in the OP do little to advance the understanding of 'faith'.

Amen. Unfortunately, many "believers" also understand "faith" in the terms presented by the OP (though not his conclusions).

[WalkerW]

Amen. Unfortunately, many "believers" also understand "faith" in the terms presented by the OP (though not his conclusions).

You are absolutely right. The philosophical paradigm shifts that occurred with the Protestant Reformation (individualism, literalistic readings of scripture, etc.) actually helped secularize the West.

Most discussions about faith or religion have proponents and opponents both taking for granted a secular, science-based (science as meant in the modern sense) foundation.

[elguanteloko]

WalkerW said:

The secular assumptions in the OP do little to advance the understanding of 'faith'.

I have NO IDEA what those "secular assumptions" are supposed to be. Please point them out.

Also, you quoted the Lectures on Faith but there JS says in the first lecture that:

9. From this we learn that faith is the assurance which men have of the existence of things which they have not seen, and the principle of action in all intelligent beings

..and unless you want to assert that either he was wrong and had a "different paradigm" from that of the ancients AND that paradigm is wrong or unacceptable, then you have to accept that every person is "loyal" to everything they do, which I find, quite honestly, rather strange. What am I loyal to when I go to the toilet or when I brush my teeth? This is just bizarre. I hope I'm not understanding you correctly so please correct me if that's the case.

And trust isn't a merely intellectual activity as mathematics is, it is an emotional one or resembles more to feelings than mere intellect. I mention this because the other quotes you cited speak of faith as trust and that is where I don't have a problem. I agree faith is trust but to say that is extremely general and that's what the OP seems to clear out (that is, under what circumstances trust is faith and in what others it isn't).

You also quoted at the end where it says that now faith is "credulous acceptance" and if you would have read the OP carefully you would realize my use of faith is exactly the opposite of that and is attacking that notion.

I could go over your quotes very carefully but I will not bother when it isn't clear at all what your position is.

Edited June 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

You are absolutely right. The philosophical paradigm shifts that occurred with the Protestant Reformation (individualism, literalistic readings of scripture, etc.) actually helped secularize the West.

Most discussions about faith or religion have proponents and opponents both taking for granted a secular, science-based (science as meant in the modern sense) foundation.

apparently JS wasn't immune from it, too, or the consequences of what he was saying were extremely bizarre.

[Nofear]

And trust isn't a merely intellectual activity as mathematics is, it is an emotional one or resembles more to feelings than mere intellect. I mention this because the other quotes you cited speak of faith as trust and that is where I don't have a problem. I agree faith is trust but to say that is extremely general and that's what the OP seems to clear out (that is, under what circumstances trust is faith and in what others it isn't).

Review my post #11. The trust is not a general trust but one born of sensory experience. Though, I might also add that the unseen sensory experience is one validated by historical and personal event based experience (which is the emphasis of WalkerW's post about the historical understanding of faith).

That said, I would be false to assert that the commonplace, contemporary framework for discussing faith, misplaced though it is, is not one that sometimes manifests itself in the discourses of the brethren from the early days of the Restoration to today.

[elguanteloko]

Review my post #11. The trust is not a general trust but one born of sensory experience.

which practically is to say nothing. When we speak even to ourselves those things are "born of sensory experience" since without those experiences you couldn't speak (you learned language by hearing it). You must clarify that relationship between faith and sense experience in some other way. "Born out of it" doesn't hep at all since the vast majority of things and concepts can be traced back to sensory experience.

[Nofear]

which practically is to say nothing. When we speak even to ourselves those things are "born of sensory experience" since without those experiences you couldn't speak (you learned language by hearing it). You must clarify that relationship between faith and sense experience in some other way. "Born out of it" doesn't hep at all since the vast majority of things and concepts can be traced back to sensory experience.

I don't think I can help you out anymore than I can describe to you in words what the "sense experience" of salty is. Words or no words, I know what salty is (and so do you).

[elguanteloko]

I don't think I can help you out anymore than I can describe to you in words what the "sense experience" of salty is. Words or no words, I know what salty is (and so do you).

LOL

We have nothing to talk about here, then.

[Nofear]

We have nothing to talk about here, then.

This is perhaps the only really true and relevant thing you have said in this entire thread.

[elguanteloko]

This is perhaps the only really true and relevant thing you have said in this entire thread.

I was speaking only about you and me. If you think clarifying what faith in some better way than just to say it is "born out of sense experience" is something you can't do, then you are welcome to get out of the thread and not comment in it.

Edited June 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[WalkerW]

I have NO IDEA what those "secular assumptions" are supposed to be. Please point them out.

Your entire approach to 'faith' as focusing largely on the intellectual aspect is a relatively modern approach that began to emerge with the continual secularization of the West.

Also, you quoted the Lectures on Faith but there JS says in the first lecture that:

The Lectures on Faith were also influenced by Sidney Rigdon. If you notice, my sources mention that the concept of 'faith' and 'belief' nearly completed their evolution in the 19th century. Nonetheless, I think the Lectures do get the "principle of action" correct. It is not merely an intellectual assent.

..and unless you want to assert that either he was wrong

See above.

and had a "different paradigm" from that of the ancients

He did, though he tapped into the ancient paradigm more and more with each revelation.

AND that paradigm is wrong or unacceptable

I didn't say that. I said your definition has rests on a modern paradigm that was not shared by those found in the scriptures. I'm saying that the ancient concept needs to be taken into account. From your OP, you don't even seem aware of it, which is why your definition is unhelpful.

then you have to accept that every person is "loyal" to everything they do, which I find, quite honestly, rather strange. What am I loyal to when I go to the toilet or when I brush my teeth? This is just bizarre.

I agree, which is why I don't hold that position.

I hope I'm not understanding you correctly so please correct me if that's the case.

I think the only misunderstanding comes from giving as much weight to the Lectures of Faith as you do in analyzing my response.

And trust isn't a merely intellectual activity as mathematics is, it is an emotional one or resembles more to feelings than mere intellect. I mention this because the other quotes you cited speak of faith as trust and that is where I don't have a problem. I agree faith is trust but to say that is extremely general and that's what the OP seems to clear out (that is, under what circumstances trust is faith and in what others it isn't).

The context that the scholars are providing is that of patronage and the like. From my paper:

David DeSilva, Professor of New Testament and Greek at Ashland University, provides this overview:

If the patron granted the petition, the petitioner would become the client of the patron and a potentially long-term relationship would begin. This relationship would be marked by the mutual exchange of desired goods and services, the patron being available for assistance in the future, the client doing everything in his or her power to enhance the fame and honor of the patron…, remaining loyal to the patron and providing services whenever the opportunity arose [5].

While God is never directly called the patron of the Christian church, the language of New Testament writers (like Paul) carries “a strong patronal tone” [6]. It is worth noting that the patron and the client did not hold an equal status due to the former’s ability to provide necessary resources that the latter was incapable of acquiring on his own. “It was this state of dependence…that formed one’s identity as a client. In exchange for receiving these needed goods from the patron, the client was expected to give back to the patron.” Since he was unable to provide his own necessities, “a client could hardly give something from himself, and therefore could only give of himself to the patron” [7].

5. David A. DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 97. Also see Jerome H. Neyrey, “God, Benefactor and Patron: The Major Cultural Model for Interpreting the Deity in Greco-Roman Antiquity,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27:4 (2005) for an informative layout of the patronage system.

6. Mark A. Jennings, “Patronage and Rebuke in Paul’s Persuasion in 2 Corinthians 8-9,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 6 (2009): 113.

7. Ibid.: 114.

The main problem I have is how focused your definition is on "belief." 'Faith' meant 'loyalty', 'commitment', 'engagement'. It was a word used in both secular and religious contexts as loyalty or commitment to oaths or covenants. The Indiana Jones example works well in this sense because of his commitment to the quest, not his mental exercises prior to. Even "knowledge" anciently was not just about intellectual learning (though it encompassed this). For example, the late biblical scholar John L. McKenzie translates hesed as “covenant-love,” viewing it as a parallel to the “knowledge of God” in the book of Hosea: “[K]nowledge, to the Hebrew, was not a mere intellectual apprehension, but a vital union of possession. Knowledge of Hebrew morality did not mean ethical science, but a vital union with the traditional morality which qualified the whole human life; one knows this morality by having it, by living it.” (McKenzie, “Knowledge of God in Hosea,” Journal of Biblical Literature 74:1, March 1955: 27)

I think this orthopraxic approach to faith has been traded in for an orthodox approach.

[WalkerW]

Though I fully admit to liking your Indiana Jones example, though for slightly different reasons.

[elguanteloko]

Your entire approach to 'faith' as focusing largely on the intellectual aspect is a relatively modern approach that began to emerge with the continual secularization of the West.

First of all, my use of faith does NOT assume faith as being only an intellectual aspect at all. I don't know where you get this from and I don't know why you can't see that. Trust has more in common with feelings than with "intellect" and that is something you and I seem to be able to agree on. I have NO IDEA how you see an "intellectualized" use of faith in what I wrote and am still writing here.

btw, that something is a modern approach does NOT translate into it being a secular one.

The Lectures on Faith were also influenced by Sidney Rigdon.

amm... thanks but, so what? I bet JS was influenced by the Bible, too, and by his father and mother and Masonry. So?

If you notice, my sources mention that the concept of 'faith' and 'belief' nearly completed their evolution in the 19th century. Nonetheless, I think the Lectures do get the "principle of action" correct. It is not merely an intellectual assent.

and I told you why this makes no sense.

See above.

...

He did, though he tapped into the ancient paradigm more and more with each revelation.

again, I told you why that made no sense.

I didn't say that. I said your definition has rests on a modern paradigm that was not shared by those found in the scriptures. I'm saying that the ancient concept needs to be taken into account. From your OP, you don't even seem aware of it, which is why your definition is unhelpful.

I know you didn't say that. I said that you HAVE to reject JS's paradigm IF you want to avoid my criticism. I follow the Mormon use of faith, btw, (I'm in a Mormon forum, after all) which you can find in the Church's website. In there you find statements like, "Faith is much more than passive belief. We express our faith through action—by the way we live." which means faith IS a belief, not an action (since we express it through our actions it means it is a non-action and from there there aren't many options as to what it is). It also says that when we act on faith, "We show our hope for something that we cannot yet see" (the standard definition of faith) which means that faith is NOT an action but a belief.

You don't seem to have understood the criticism I made so I'll explain it.

If you accept that:

1. The principle of action is faith.

2. Faith is loyalty.

3. (from 2 and 1) The principle of action is loyalty.

...then you have to say that the principle of the action of me going to the toilet is loyalty.... how does that make any sense, WalkerW? Am I "loyal" to everything I do? This makes no sense, man.

I agree, which is why I don't hold that position.

Then, if you reject JS's view of faith, why do you quote from the definition given by him which inevitably takes you to such bizarre consequences? Either you accept JS's view or you don't. Which one is it? You say here you don't hold that position but I'm not sure what position you are talking about. Did you mean to say that you reject JS's view of faith?

I think the only misunderstanding comes from giving as much weight to the Lectures of Faith as you do in analyzing my response.

...then, do you reject the concept of faith given there which is also the same one given in the official website of the Church? I ask because you quoted the definition of faith given there, so...

The context that the scholars are providing is that of patronage and the like. From my paper:

David DeSilva, Professor of New Testament and Greek at Ashland University, provides this overview:

If the patron granted the petition, the petitioner would become the client of the patron and a potentially long-term relationship would begin. This relationship would be marked by the mutual exchange of desired goods and services, the patron being available for assistance in the future, the client doing everything in his or her power to enhance the fame and honor of the patron…, remaining loyal to the patron and providing services whenever the opportunity arose [5].

While God is never directly called the patron of the Christian church, the language of New Testament writers (like Paul) carries “a strong patronal tone” [6]. It is worth noting that the patron and the client did not hold an equal status due to the former’s ability to provide necessary resources that the latter was incapable of acquiring on his own. “It was this state of dependence…that formed one’s identity as a client. In exchange for receiving these needed goods from the patron, the client was expected to give back to the patron.” Since he was unable to provide his own necessities, “a client could hardly give something from himself, and therefore could only give of himself to the patron” [7].

5. David A. DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 97. Also see Jerome H. Neyrey, “God, Benefactor and Patron: The Major Cultural Model for Interpreting the Deity in Greco-Roman Antiquity,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27:4 (2005) for an informative layout of the patronage system.

6. Mark A. Jennings, “Patronage and Rebuke in Paul’s Persuasion in 2 Corinthians 8-9,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 6 (2009): 113.

7. Ibid.: 114.

WalkerW, you are presenting me with two different views of faith and you quote from the both and you say you agree with both (you say JS got the "principle of action" correct which is the problem here). Either you go with what the Church teaches in the website and what JS wrote in the Lectures on Fath, OR you go with what the scholars said. Which one is it?

The main problem I have is how focused your definition is on "belief." 'Faith' meant 'loyalty', 'commitment', 'engagement'. It was a word used in both secular and religious contexts as loyalty or commitment to oaths or covenants. The Indiana Jones example works well in this sense because of his commitment to the quest, not his mental exercises prior to. Even "knowledge" anciently was not just about intellectual learning (though it encompassed this). For example, the late biblical scholar John L. McKenzie translates hesed as “covenant-love,” viewing it as a parallel to the “knowledge of God” in the book of Hosea: “[K]nowledge, to the Hebrew, was not a mere intellectual apprehension, but a vital union of possession. Knowledge of Hebrew morality did not mean ethical science, but a vital union with the traditional morality which qualified the whole human life; one knows this morality by having it, by living it.” (McKenzie, “Knowledge of God in Hosea,” Journal of Biblical Literature 74:1, March 1955: 27)

I think this orthopraxic approach to faith has been traded in for an orthodox approach.

Since I don't know which of the definitions of faith you accept, I can't answer this part.

ETA: ...I want to just make sure you understand that the Bible uses "faith" in the sense of a belief or trust in some places and that of loyalty and (what today we call) faithfulness in others. I'm using "faith" only in the sense of a belief or trust, NOT in loyalty or faithfulness. Just to clear that out.

Edited June 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Ahab]

If you see that one option is the correct option then you don't see other options.

In what sense are you using the word "see"? I see (as in understand) many options which I believe are not the right options, but that doesn't mean that I can't also see an option that I believe is the correct option. That's the one I have my faith in. Why would I want to have faith in an option that I would I see as less likely to be true?

If you, however, don't SEE the correct option but you have very strong support and evidence for that option (hint: this applies to the VAST majority of times), then you don't SEE with certainty but have some very good justification to believe that option.

Again, in what "sense" are you using the word "see". If you're talking about seeing with my natural eyes, then I can see how you might have a point there.

For example, I have faith in God and believe God actually communicates with me, personally, even though I have never "seen" God with my natural eyes. Instead, I see with eyes of faith, or what could also be called seeing with a sixth sense. I know he's out there, and actually communicates with me, even though I've never "seen" him in the sense you might think I should need to see him to be able to claim that I "know", but I really don't need to see him in that sense, with my natural eyes, because I can see him with another one of my senses.

Now, when we have faith we TRUST in an option to be the correct one but you are mistaking that event to saying that you actually KNOW that is the correct option. Two very different things and if you SEE the correct option then you know, not have faith, that that is the correct one, no trust needed.

Many things we claim to "know" are things that can't actually be seen, at least not with our natural eyes.

Do you know someone loves you? How do you know that? You can actually see love with your natural eyes, so if you believe someone does, you believe that because of some kind of faith. You "feel sure" someone loves you, and because you feel so certain of that, you (or at least some people) would say that you "know" you are loved.

In actual reality, what you consider to be "love" could actually be something quite different than what true love actually is.

Indeed you believe that option is the correct option but for it to be called faith it must have other criterion being met. If "belief" is the only requirement for faith then knowledge (knowledge is a type of belief) is also faith and things which are seen are faith, too, which is silly and even contradict the scriptures. That other criteria is the one I talk about in the OP (you must know your option is not the most likely, etc).

You really need to work on understanding the correct definition of words. Faith is the state of being sure about something, and a person can believe something without being sure about what they believe in. They could just choose to believe something, arbitrarily, without any foundation for their belief. A person can even believe they have faith from God" when what they actually have is faith from somebody else.

Understand that faith, that state of being sure about something, has to come from someone or somewhere, and it can come either from within a person's own person, or from somebody else... like God, or your Momma, or your Daddy, or your Grandparents, or somebody else you think is really, really smart and who you "feel sure" is right about what they tell you.

Knowledge is basically what you call what you "know", and what you "know" can be wrong, as well as what is actually right.

When I KNOW where the car is (behind what door as in a "The Prize is Right" game), I also believe that the car is in door B (for example). That isn't faith.

It is if you "feel sure" the car is in door B. Faith is simply the state of "feeling sure" about something. That's all it is, and it comes from someone or something, even if only from your own self.

To be clear, also, I'm not saying one only can have faith "in the most unlikely option". Not the most unlikely but not the most likely.

A person can have faith or feel sure about anything. Anything at all. That's not the kind of faith most prophets talk about when they talk about faith, though, because when they use the word faith they are referring to faith from God, but if you'll look in a dictionary you should be able to see that faith isn't necessarily from God.

Try getting your definitions of words straight before you go on trying to change the meaning of words. What you claim to know isn't necessarily true.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Ahab

[elguanteloko]

In what sense are you using the word "see"? I see (as in understand) many options which I believe are not the right options, but that doesn't mean that I can't also see an option that I believe is the correct option. That's the one I have my faith in.

"See" as in realize. If you realize the car is behind door B then you can't have faith the car is in door B since now you know.

Why would I want to have faith in an option that I would I see as less likely to be true?

Why did Indiana give the leap of faith knowing that a bridge being there wasn't the most likely thing to be? He needed to? He wanted to? None of this relevant.

Again, in what "sense" are you using the word "see". If you're talking about seeing with my natural eyes, then I can see how you might have a point there.

realize, notice, become aware of, etc.

Knowledge is basically what you call what you "know", and what you "know" can be wrong, as well as what is actually right.

I use knowledge to be a correct belief and differentiate between "thinking you know" and "knowing". This is irrelevant, however, since if you think you know (but your "knowledge" is false) you can't have faith anyways.

Edited June 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Ahab]

"See" as in realize. If you realize the car is behind door B then you can't have faith the car is in door B since now you know.

Are you talking about before or after the door is open, so you would see the car with your natural eyes? I'm guessing you're thinking after, but I'd like to be a little more sure.

Suppose for example you were on "Let's Make a Deal" (a different game show I know) and there were 3 doors for you to choose from with the MC telling you (or inferring) there was a car behind one of the doors. Suppose also they opened 2 of the doors and it wasn't behind those. Would you then "realize" the car was behind the other door? What if somebody slacked off and forgot to put it there, with everybody "in charge" just "assuming" it would be there like they thought it would be?

I use knowledge to be a correct belief and differentiate between "thinking you know" and "knowing". This is irrelevant, however, since if you think you know (but your "knowledge" is false) you can't have faith anyways.

Ah, but you CAN have faith (be sure about something) when you think you know what the truth is, and you could either be right or wrong.

Tell me one thing you think you know for absolute certain... something you feel really, really sure about... but which you can't see to be true with your natural eyes.

It shouldn't be hard for you to give an example, and the example you give will be an example of something that you have faith in... whether you are right or wrong in thinking you "know" it.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Ahab

[elguanteloko]

Are you talking about before or after the door is open, so you would see the car with your natural eyes? I'm guessing you're thinking after, but I'd like to be a little more sure.

In the case of something that needs to be seen with the eyes then it is AFTER you see it with your eyes. Not all you can know is through the sense, though, and that's why I gave other words for it: realize, notice, become aware of, etc. That is, if you "see", "realize", or "become aware" that your option is the real one, then you can't have faith on that option since now you know.

Ah, but you CAN have faith (be sure about something) when you think you know what the truth is, and you could either be right or wrong.

If you think you know what is true then you think you see the bridge there (following the Indiana Jones analogy) and, therefore, can't have faith that there's a bridge there... since you are seeing it (though you may be wrong). What is there to have faith in if you already know it? Even the scriptures make that distinction, bro.

Tell me one thing you think you know for absolute certain... something you feel really, really sure about... but which you can't see to be true with your natural eyes.

A=A and A=/= not-A. 2+2=4. In a flat surface, a triangle will always have the sum of its angles equal to 180 degrees. Modus ponens is a valid inference. Modus tollens is a valid inference. I'm perceiving what I call a computer being in front of me right now. etc.

[Ahab]

In the case of something that needs to be seen with the eyes...

What, in your opinion, is something that "needs" to be seen with the eyes before you can choose to believe in it?

I don't think there is anything, because any of us could choose to believe whatever we want to believe, with or without any evidence.

That is, if you "see", "realize", or "become aware" that your option is the real one, then you can't have faith on that option since now you know.

How do you know your "option" is the "real" one? How do you know you know? What if what you think you see is not really there?

It's all by faith, bro... even when your faith is "dormant". You still "feel sure" even when you "know" something.

What is there to have faith in if you already know it?

Faith is to "feel sure" about something, and you can stil "feel sure" even when you "know" something is true.

Even the scriptures make that distinction, bro.

The word used is "dormant", not "absent". "Knowing" is simply a 100% certainty in something you were once not 100% certain about.

A=A and A=/= not-A. 2+2=4. In a flat surface, a triangle will always have the sum of its angles equal to 180 degrees. Modus ponens is a valid inference. Modus tollens is a valid inference. I'm perceiving what I call a computer being in front of me right now. etc.

You can see all of those things with your natural eyes, in examples. I asked you for an example of something that you can't see with your natural eyes.

For example, how do you know somebody loves you? Or more to the point, what makes you feel "sure" someone does?

If it is by some actions you see there are some other explanations for why they could be acting that way.

[WalkerW]

I want to just make sure you understand that the Bible uses "faith" in the sense of a belief or trust in some places and that of loyalty and (what today we call) faithfulness in others. I'm using "faith" only in the sense of a belief or trust, NOT in loyalty or faithfulness. Just to clear that out.

I had a huge response, but if you recognize a difference in the way the terms have been used over the centuries, by all means, continue.