For OBW - What is the nature of Faith?

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Whoooohooooo! Somebody actually cares what UntoHim thinks!
For those of you who don't know, our friend Peter is a Juris Doctor...and people of this ilk never, never "ask a question that they don't know the answer to". Seriously though, I appreciate the chance to redeem myself as a wayward Admin of our little virtual clubhouse.

YES! YES a thousand times yes!. I would welcome "non Local Church" discussions here. The only thing I would say is that I wish that it could be within the rough confines of our "shared experience". Also so long as it does not wonder off into discussions including things that challenge and/or degrade the basic elements of the Christian faith - that the Bible is indeed the Word of God - that God has revealed himself to man through the Triune God - The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit - That the Lord Jesus Christ was the One and Unique God-Man, the unique Son of God, who was born of a virgin, lived a human life, was crucified and was raised from the dead and that those who believe on his name are saved.

Any questions?

Faith, MIke. Here's your thread.

I can lead a "well-lived" Christian life and never require faith, in a particular sense. I could just master cultural norms and vocabulary. If I'm dynamic, others might even praise me for it. So where does this "faith" you talk about play out? What does it look like? How does one find it? What's the dynamic between "faith" and "group"?

I have some thoughts on these questions , but would rather hear your take. Ramble as long as it takes!

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Faith, MIke. Here's your thread.

I can lead a "well-lived" Christian life and never require faith, in a particular sense. I could just master cultural norms and vocabulary. If I'm dynamic, others might even praise me for it. So where does this "faith" you talk about play out? What does it look like? How does one find it? What's the dynamic between "faith" and "group"?

I have some thoughts on these questions , but would rather hear your take. Ramble as long as it takes!

Hi All,

I've written a blog post about this earlier stemming from a discussion in a previous thread. My definition of faith is found in Hebrews 11:1 as it relates to the children of Israel in their wilderness experience.

God expected the Israelites to actually have biblical "faith" (conviction, trust, assurance) in Him in order to receive their promised inheritance after they left Egypt. Many Israelites had faith that only went as far as credence that Jehovah existed as their deity, but they didn't actually have real "faith" in God that he would deliver them from every situation, despite Yahweh's many assurances in the past from performing miracles for them such as the ten plagues and parting of the Red Sea.

This is important because Paul says in Ephesians 2 that we are saved by "faith" alone in Christ Jesus. The apostle James also distinguished between a type of faith that cannot save you and one that can.

http://nodustybunnies.blogspot.com/2...-save-you.html

[OBW]

Not sure that I really asked for any particular discussion, but I do like this one.

And my responses will probably be unexpected. But as this is a morning with a short fuse that follows a day out of town, my responses will, at best, be coming later in the day or possibly tomorrow.

But I will say that I am less concerned with defining faith than in the evidence of those who a true followers of Christ. And I believe there is a way to discern that without being as unclear as we sometimes think.

[OBW]

Other than a comment about separating out discussions that are not LRC-related, I don't recall having an itch for any particular topic, but I'll bite.

And it will be nuanced and uncertain. Do not take anything I say as a declaration of certainty. That "this is it." I could probably go find specific verses that say very specific things, but too often it is uncertain that they actually apply in the way we think (if at all) in different circumstances. For example, Jesus' statement to the thief on the cross is not a statement to me. It surely has value in the discussion, but does not clearly force a specific conclusion — other than with respect to the thief. Similarly, the prayer of Jabez was something about Jabez. It may or may not have such far-reaching applicability that there should be a book written about it and people start going around acting like the promise made there must come to them. That is a variant of the prosperity gospel. It may not be taught in a prosperity context, but the effect is the same. Enough of the right kind of faith will guarantee me some kind of return that I can point to in a fantastic way.

It ain't necessarily so. And it is a position that demeans the faith of people who do not dare to do fantastic things while relying on this particular prayer.

- - - -

So the topic is faith. First, I think that it is probably safe to say that faith is defined as whatever Webster or whatever other dictionary says it is. The real question is what does it mean to actually have faith. I think that having faith is, to some degree, a different way of asserting belief. While the two words are not synonyms, we probably use them to discuss many of the same attributes.

Faith is the certainty that something not already a done deal will happen. It is the certainty that what you hear about the past that cannot be simply verified in a history book is as it is described. It is the certainty that there is something that will "come to the rescue" if other things go wrong. Many ways to think about it in life.

Not rocket science. But do we actually have faith? At differing levels, people believe that God is. They believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, was crucified, died, was buried, was resurrected, then ascended. How strongly do they believe? Probably differs from one to another, even among strong Christians. Don't forget "I believe. Help me in my unbelief."

I like that story about the guy with the wire across Niagara Falls and a wheelbarrow because the only one who believed strongly in his ability to get another person across the falls alive was the one who got in. But after he did it, others believed more strongly. Enough to get in? Not sure. Where is enough faith? I believe the guy could do it. But I was not asked to get into the wheel barrow. My level of faith is not tested. Does that make it incomplete?

Even though I may say that I have enough, if I arrived at the falls and was asked to get in, I might not have enough. If that was the difference between Heaven and Hell, then it is important. But if just admitting that I don't have enough faith and asking for more is it, then what about that?

And keeping the focus on that rather anxiety-producing example of riding a wheelbarrow across Niagara Falls makes the cost more than most of us (if any) would be asked to bear.

I think that faith is something that is only theoretical until it is demonstrated. Therefore, the wheelbarrow example is not entirely useless.

But for most people, faith must play out in simpler ways. And James puts it into better perspective when he says that faith, belief, spirituality is not measured by claims, but by actions. And the actions that the Bible points to are works. They are acts of righteousness, love, kindness, charity, integrity, etc. And yet so many scoff at those because there are many people who can (and do) do at least a lot of those things without any belief in Christ.

That is a distractor. it is irrelevant that there are some who can. The question is — do you? Do I? And the righteousness, love, etc., that we are requested to give is not necessarily different in act than could be accomplished by a pagan. The real issue is why do you do it?

And since most of us, even the really good ones, are clear that we are nowhere near sinless perfection, then it is clear that we have areas in which we will fail at this charge. To me, the evidence that there is faith is not that we keep trying. But that in the process of keeping trying, we continue to seek guidance, strength, etc., from the only one who has enough to do it all. And that is Christ.

If you say that you believe in Christ, undertake to live the life that is required, and seek His help in accomplishing that, then I see faith.

If you believe in Christ, but your only seeking of Him is to get more warm fuzzies, then there is a serious question mark on your faith.

If you say you believe in Christ and undertake to live the Christian life, but at every set-back you withdraw into yourself and to giving up, then I question your faith. (Can't rule you out. I can't see everything.)

If you don't believe in Christ, the rest is pointless and the answer is that there is no faith.

Some will point out that I said nothing about how much time is spent in the Word. I will not provide any kind of bright-line claim for requirement. I will not even attempt to declare how it must happen. The person who hears the word spoken periodically (say, in the weekly meeting) and thinks on that through the week is "in the word." And while not at the same level as a seminary scholar, he/she is in the word. In history, there have been times when for a majority of the people who professed faith in any way, that is all they could do. Having a printed (or hand copied) Bible was irrelevant.

I would suggest that those who do not consider the Word in any way do not set put to undertake the life required in the Bible. So the need, though extremely varied in appearance, would seem to be satisfied.

As for things of the "inner life," I wonder if maybe those are more often misunderstood as to their meaning. Maybe it is more that they are realities of those who live the life rather than the place to go to get the life. Not dismissing it entirely, but suggesting that it is of uncertain importance to dwell on it as an activity or study.

Last, there is a propensity by some to start replying to posts point-by-point. While I do not claim that everything I have said is entirely the way it really is, it is not a collection of alleged facts. It is not dismantled by trying to disprove specific premises. It really is a picture of a whole. And I believe that it aligns pretty well with the picture that I see drawn in the scripture.

So, rather than attacking notion by notion, tell me first where the whole fails. I am surely not expecting my idea to be found a perfect example of gold, silver,, and precious stones. I'm expect that there may be some chaff. Maybe quite a bit. But does that actually destroy the picture painted? Does it simply recolor portions? Or do we need to clutter the thread with proof texts for specific, nuanced points that may not actually speak to the whole of the question, but rather to something somewhat singular and specific?

So I guess what I am saying is that I would seek a kindred soul — not in conclusion, but in method. Let's start with the overall premise. Is it really a package deal? Is it a combination of what you believe (or think you believe), what you do with that, and whether you are seeking the help of the one you claim to believe?

For that kind of theology, I don't think you need to figure out some definition for faith. You need to believe and act like it in all ways (even when you fail).

[OBW]

Let me add that my last comments were not meant to dismiss specifics of scripture. But I believe that there is a tendency to chop large discussions, narratives, etc., into bits that may cause them to say, or at least infer, things that are not really germane to the actual discussion. I am fully on board with the scripture. But I'm not sure that finding a "thus saith the Lord" always means what some think it does. And not "every promise in the book is mine" as the song we sang in my childhood would declare. Some of the promises are explicitly to the person(s) to whom it is made, and that is it.

And I believe that each portion of narrative has meaning. And things not relevant to that narrative that might be ripped from a fortune-cookie apporach to the words in it are not likely relevant to the real meaning of scripture (for example, 1 Cor 15:45, out of context).

Those are points of view that not everyone shares. If that is a problem for anyone, then we will be at odds in reading some parts of scripture.

I don't think that it is an offense at the level of heresy (either way). So I can live with not coming to agreement with those who could not take that way. I can still fellowship with them. And I can take communion with them. We are one in the Spirit, not in the doctrine.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by bearbear

God expected the Israelites to actually have biblical "faith"

The Israelite's didn't have a Bible.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

The Israelite's didn't have a Bible.

Perhaps that's why they failed, because they didn't have Hebrews 11:1 yet

But putting myself in their shoes, it's sometimes hard to relate to their situation. After witnessing the ten plagues and red sea parting, I think I would have been "Yea Right On Jehovah!!!" all the way until the end.

They must have had one hell of a time in Egypt despite being slaves. Or perhaps they never left their mindset of slavery. They needed to take the extra step of believing they were children of God and no longer slaves.

It's like if you are bill gate's son and your car breaks down and you start crying, forgetting that a billionaire is your father. That's what God must feel like sometimes towards children who forget their identity.

Phil 4:19
And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

Romans 6:6
We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by OBW

Last, there is a propensity by some to start replying to posts point-by-point. While I do not claim that everything I have said is entirely the way it really is, it is not a collection of alleged facts. It is not dismantled by trying to disprove specific premises. It really is a picture of a whole. And I believe that it aligns pretty well with the picture that I see drawn in the scripture.

So, rather than attacking notion by notion, tell me first where the whole fails. I am surely not expecting my idea to be found a perfect example of gold, silver,, and precious stones. I'm expect that there may be some chaff. Maybe quite a bit. But does that actually destroy the picture painted? Does it simply recolor portions? Or do we need to clutter the thread with proof texts for specific, nuanced points that may not actually speak to the whole of the question, but rather to something somewhat singular and specific?

So I guess what I am saying is that I would seek a kindred soul — not in conclusion, but in method. Let's start with the overall premise. Is it really a package deal? Is it a combination of what you believe (or think you believe), what you do with that, and whether you are seeking the help of the one you claim to believe?

For that kind of theology, I don't think you need to figure out some definition for faith. You need to believe and act like it in all ways (even when you fail).

Mike:
First, this thread was specifically started because you asked UNTO if we could discuss non-LC-related topics, and that you’d been thinking about the nature of faith. UNTO, discussed that, I asked him we could do it, and he consented – so I started this thread…. 

I agree with your impulse to ask that people respond to the “whole” rather than the “point-by-point,” especially in a matter like this one.

I very much like your Niagra distinction between “belief” and “applied faith.”

In fact, I think it actually brings up another (related) topic – not of “faith” but of the sphere to which you subject your faith. It is very often that we create “wombs” for our faith. Mutually-reinforcing congregations that mostly commend your life, rather than challenge it.
It is not a formed thought, but sometimes I wonder whether faith is best formed, and developed, in a tenuous world, rather than in a known arena like a formal congregation. (there’s a lot of assumptions here, I know – we can discuss further).

In particular, I often wonder about how we “teach faith” to our children. Honestly, within Christian communities, I see far more faithless-indoctrination, and much less faith-based teaching. If, for example, we believe in Christ as the son of God and our Savior and that this is TRUTH – what do we teach our children? Do we indoctrinate them on this matter, or do we, instead – teach them 1) to know the law (since it is a child conductor) and 2) to be seekers after truth, based on our FAITH that if someone who knows their conscience, if they pursue TRUTH, they will encounter Christ and their own fallibility.

I think the definition of faith is MOST tested in terms of what and how we teach our children. Do you agree? Disagree?

Thoughts?

Peter

[awareness]

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith ...

[bearbear]

I've found that promises in the bible provide an excellent opportunity for us to live our faith, in the same way the Israelites relied on God's promises to conquer Canaan.

Here's my favorite verse in this regard:

Matthew 6:33
But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

I'm sure many of us have such stories where we put God's will over our own needs yet God still delivered on our need in the end. That's the kingdom part of this verse.

Another application of this verse is in regards to righteousness. Many times we get tempted to take the wrong way because it's easier. However because we love and fear God we choose to do things righteously. The end result sometimes is even better when we trust God and do the right thing despite when everyone else is taking shortcuts.

Small example: on my way to LA this morning The Lord told me to slow down and stop speeding. I just obeyed not sure if it was my own thoughts or not. A few seconds later I passed by a traffic cop hiding behind an overpass. Whew

In regards to our children, we can show them how Jesus is real by teaching them how to rely on God's promises, rather than fill them up with head knowledge. This way they can witness the power of God in their own lives and encounter God for themselves. They will be growing their own faith rather than being forced to live under the faith of their parents.

The more we build our faith, the more we are able to "witness" to others as Christians. We are living witnesses to the power of God in our lives via the miracles we've experienced from trusting in God. This is often a more effective means than a doctrinal message alone. People can challenge your beliefs but they cannot challenge your experiences, in the same way that Rahab came to believe in and fear Yahweh based on the stories she heard of his works among the Israelites. The gospel is the *power* of God unto salvation!

[Cal]

Faith makes more sense to me when I think of it as trust. Faith is kind of abstract; trust is more personal. Do you trust the Person, is the question. If not, why not? What is your reasoning for not doing so? That will be the answer unbelievers will have to answer. It won't be pretty.

This is why I think faith is bare minimum for salvation, because not trusting in God is the ultimate insult to him. He can, relatively speaking, tolerate a lot of things. Not that.

[james73]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Faith makes more sense to me when I think of it as trust. Faith is kind of abstract; trust is more personal. Do you trust the Person, is the question. If not, why not? What is your reasoning for not doing so? That will be the answer unbelievers will have to answer. It won't be pretty.

This is why I think faith is bare minimum for salvation, because not trusting in God is the ultimate insult to him. He can, relatively speaking, tolerate a lot of things. Not that.

But trust in what? Does that mean I also have to trust in what other humans say God says and does? And I have to pick the right group of humans to follow? That doesn't add up.

When do you say "That will be a question unbelievers will have to answer, it won't be pretty" I want to ask, what makes it not pretty? Surely God won't care how or why we believed in him?

Would God say "James73, evil being, you loved me and trusted me but you didn't believe the Christians! You didn't believe the stories about Jesus! How dare you!" and cast me down?

In other words, is the Christian faith the only faith which would not incur God's wrath? Three Godly men, of the same God, who trust and have faith in that God, a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim, come to heaven and God only accepts the Christian? I am genuinely interested. A Baptist, an LC-elder (a Godly one), a Mormon, same story? Only the Christian in only one tradition of Christianity gets through? All the same God... why?

And please, I would prefer answers which don't rely on Christian doctrine (ie, the bible and Jesus "no-one comes to the Father but by me"). Just spiritually speaking, how does such a God inspire genuine trust? Or could it be, humans have taken the stories and experiences of some just way too far?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by james73

But trust in what? Does that mean I also have to trust in what other humans say God says and does? And I have to pick the right group of humans to follow? That doesn't add up.

When do you say "That will be a question unbelievers will have to answer, it won't be pretty" I want to ask, what makes it not pretty? Surely God won't care how or why we believed in him?

Would God say "James73, evil being, you loved me and trusted me but you didn't believe the Christians! You didn't believe the stories about Jesus! How dare you!" and cast me down?

In other words, is the Christian faith the only faith which would not incur God's wrath? Three Godly men, of the same God, who trust and have faith in that God, a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim, come to heaven and God only accepts the Christian? I am genuinely interested. A Baptist, an LC-elder (a Godly one), a Mormon, same story? Only the Christian in only one tradition of Christianity gets through? All the same God... why?

And please, I would prefer answers which don't rely on Christian doctrine (ie, the bible and Jesus "no-one comes to the Father but by me"). Just spiritually speaking, how does such a God inspire genuine trust? Or could it be, humans have taken the stories and experiences of some just way too far?

What happened, james? Did you come home in a cranky mood and want to pick a fight?

And what's with all the playing-stupid questions? You know what answers I'm going to give. Wipe your nose and give God glory. Sheesh. What a baby.

[james73]

Originally Posted by Igzy

What happened, james? Did you come home in a cranky mood and want to pick a fight?

And what's with all the playing-stupid questions? You know what answers I'm going to give. Wipe your nose and give God glory. Sheesh. What a baby.

Ha, no, it's a bright Sunday morning and I woke up feeling fine, thanks!

Dunno why you would call me a baby for asking these questions... sorry if you're offended.

[Cal]

xxxxxxxxxx

[Cal]

Originally Posted by james73

Ha, no, it's a bright Sunday morning and I woke up feeling fine, thanks!

Dunno why you would call me a baby for asking these questions... sorry if you're offended.

It's just that the answers are apparent in what I said before. You asked Trust what. Trust the Person of God. Why complicate it with a bunch of unbelieving questions? God made us. Creation declares that. Trust the one who made everything. Simple. Oh, wait. He's holy, we're not. Oh, that's why Christ came. Problem solved. Believe and enjoy the rest of your life. What's not to like? Good grief, some people just liiive to complicate things.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by james73

But trust in what? Does that mean I also have to trust in what other humans say God says and does? And I have to pick the right group of humans to follow? That doesn't add up.

When do you say "That will be a question unbelievers will have to answer, it won't be pretty" I want to ask, what makes it not pretty? Surely God won't care how or why we believed in him?

Would God say "James73, evil being, you loved me and trusted me but you didn't believe the Christians! You didn't believe the stories about Jesus! How dare you!" and cast me down?

In other words, is the Christian faith the only faith which would not incur God's wrath? Three Godly men, of the same God, who trust and have faith in that God, a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim, come to heaven and God only accepts the Christian? I am genuinely interested. A Baptist, an LC-elder (a Godly one), a Mormon, same story? Only the Christian in only one tradition of Christianity gets through? All the same God... why?

And please, I would prefer answers which don't rely on Christian doctrine (ie, the bible and Jesus "no-one comes to the Father but by me"). Just spiritually speaking, how does such a God inspire genuine trust? Or could it be, humans have taken the stories and experiences of some just way too far?

Hi James,

I understand your viewpoint. It certainly does seem unfair for people to end up in hell just because they were born into the wrong religion. However God promises that if you seek Him with all your heart you will find him (Jeremiah 29:13). In the New Testament Jesus says "seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be open to you" (Matthew 7:7). Many people misunderstand this promise because it's actually a Hebrew idiom to have an obsession for something, and not just something as complacent as knocking on a door. God promises that if you have an obsession to find him, you will find him. And there are many stories in history where folks in other religions sought God with all their heart and Jesus actually appeared to them visibly. Here's one of the many stories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadhu_Sundar_Singh

And a more recent phenomenon is where thousands of Muslims have reported seeing visions of Jesus and thereby believing in him as the son of God, despite being ostracized by their families and having their lives put to risk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNcPVNboooQ

There have also been native american tribes that had a revelation of God being one but triune and other characteristics similar to Jehovah.

There's also significant evidence that the ancient Chinese worshiped Jehovah:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-ZWrBosDXA

Regarding why Christianity has the boldness to claim exclusivity as the one true religion, when it comes to apologetics, Ravi Zacharias is one of my favorite people for answering questions like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWY-6xBA0Pk

Islam cannot be a true religion because the Koran unequivocally insists that Jesus never died, but he ascended straight to heaven. Yet there are many eye witnesses and historians who have recorded his death on the cross, including non-Christian and Jewish sources.

http://answering-islam.org/Silas/crucified.htm

Regarding Judaism, there are 351 prophecies that Jesus fulfilled in the Old Testament. The chances of him doing so are astronomical. Some of these prophecies are so specific that it would have to have involved a one thousand plus year generational conspiracy to make it happen if it were not of God.

http://www.accordingtothescriptures....rophecies.html

Just reading passages like Isaiah 53 in the Old Testament is like reading a New Testament passage which describes Jesus.

Perhaps the most precise prophecy is Jesus' fulfillment of Daniel's 69th of 70 weeks to the exact day:

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/

In Daniel's 70 weeks which are 70 sets of 7 years, or 490 years which the angel Gabriel gave to Daniel, which is to start after the construction of the second temple, the Messiah is "cut off" during the 69th week and looks like he does nothing; after this event occurs the second temple is destroyed (Daniel 9:26).

Titus and the Roman army already destroyed the second temple in 70AD. According to this prophecy it's too late for "another" messiah to come. Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews, they are just blind to it because they rely on the Talmud to interpret their scriptures.

Even their own top Orthodox Rabbis have admitted Jesus is the Messiah after he appeared to them, a extremely taboo thing to do in Judaism because Yeshua is so hated.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsIte...7/Default.aspx

Unlike other religious texts, the whole bible itself is filled with prophecies. Actually 1/3 of the bible is prophetic. Around 1500 of these 2000 some prophecies have been fulfilled. The rest are in the process of being fulfilled.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/arti...y-of-the-bible

Many of these miraculous prophecies relate to Israel. You can read some here:

http://www.therefinersfire.org/jews_..._to_israel.htm

God put these prophecies in the bible so his people could believe in him. Some unbelieving bible scholars in the past have insisted that the prophecies were inserted into the Tanakh after the prophecies were fulfilled because they were so precise. However the discovery of the dead sea scrolls have quenched this speculation.

Our faith in the God of the bible is not blind, but it is built on a foundation of assurance. This is why Paul adds "assurance of the things hoped for" to the definition of faith which provides us the reason for trusting in things we can't see in Hebrews 11:1. This is also why Paul instructs Timothy to defend the reason for his faith. Each of us should have such a testimony of assurance. If not, we can always develop one by stepping out in faith by doing something we normally wouldn't do which rests on God's promise. A pastor I love once said FAITH is spelled R-I-S-K.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Mike:
First, this thread was specifically started because you asked UNTO if we could discuss non-LC-related topics, and that you’d been thinking about the nature of faith. UNTO, discussed that, I asked him we could do it, and he consented – so I started this thread…. 

I agree with your impulse to ask that people respond to the “whole” rather than the “point-by-point,” especially in a matter like this one.

I very much like your Niagra distinction between “belief” and “applied faith.”

In fact, I think it actually brings up another (related) topic – not of “faith” but of the sphere to which you subject your faith. It is very often that we create “wombs” for our faith. Mutually-reinforcing congregations that mostly commend your life, rather than challenge it.
It is not a formed thought, but sometimes I wonder whether faith is best formed, and developed, in a tenuous world, rather than in a known arena like a formal congregation. (there’s a lot of assumptions here, I know – we can discuss further).

In particular, I often wonder about how we “teach faith” to our children. Honestly, within Christian communities, I see far more faithless-indoctrination, and much less faith-based teaching. If, for example, we believe in Christ as the son of God and our Savior and that this is TRUTH – what do we teach our children? Do we indoctrinate them on this matter, or do we, instead – teach them 1) to know the law (since it is a child conductor) and 2) to be seekers after truth, based on our FAITH that if someone who knows their conscience, if they pursue TRUTH, they will encounter Christ and their own fallibility.

I think the definition of faith is MOST tested in terms of what and how we teach our children. Do you agree? Disagree?

Thoughts?

Peter

Troublesome places these churches are. They provide a place to discover that you are off kilter, to learn more, to increase your faith, etc., and at the same time they can stifle your growth because they are geared for only ABCDGK & M. Forget about EFHIJLN . . .

I think that at some level no place is perfect. If we have open eyes we will always see something lacking. But more often than not, it is probably lacking in us as much or more than in the others. We just notice it. That does not mean that we need to move on, because the next place may have "X" but they have abandoned "G."

For me, the only real problem is when they are indoctrinating with something that is questionable or wrong. Or they are more worried about indoctrination against other Christians than against the world.

I recently read something about a guy who used to lead worship where we attended. He had long ago moved to Colorado. The thing said "[name], too liturgical for the progressives and too progressive for the liturgical. Someone that everyone can hate." To be honest, I loved the way he had created this strange tapestry of old and new in the worship back in the mid 2000s. Nothing was there just to be cool or just to please the hymns crowd or the praise song crowd. It was a mix of uplifting and contemplative. New and old (even very old). Everyone I know of enjoyed it and it has lived on several years afterward.

[OBW]

My post yesterday was broken in time by several hours and I realize that part of what I set out to say was missed.

My goal in mentioning the worship style at IBC was not to give it some special inference as if it was some kind of end-all great thing. Rather to note that despite becoming quite loved in that setting, I know of almost no others that do anything like it. Where we are now has two services — one traditional with hymns and a choir, and the other with modern song, choruses, some modernized hymns, and a band. With a few exceptions, people only attend one or the other and just don't like the other one.

While the transition at IBC to four services that was generally more modern, but threaded a needle on so much, was not easy, it seems to have worked. Of course, that is not the only thing that attracts or distracts. It was somewhat famous a few years back when it decided to allow women to preach.

I had no problem, but some ran like it was horrible heresy.

Our reasons for changing later on had to do with family. I miss the worship, although I participate in the band at our new place from time to time. (I'm probably the weak link in it.)

At some level, knowing all the things that are available to know is not the issue. Just like the differences in worship, there are differences in what different groups think is most important to emphasize in teaching.

And most of it is actually good. But does the lack of an emphasis on "X" make it a deficient place? I would say that it depends. Just like it depends on whether the kinds of errors that are almost always found in any group are emphasized. None of us get it entirely right. No one has a corner on truth.

But some are so seriously askew that there is reason to at least point out the errors and suggest to those who frequent those places that they are getting a very skewed and nutrient-deprived meal.

Kind of like eating nothing but donuts for every meal. It makes your mouth water. But too much of anything to the exclusion of all else makes one weak. It won't matter how much you enjoy your donuts and stand and sing their praises. You will become an unhealthy misfit.

And faith can be buried in that kind of diet. Yes, they have faith. But that faith is watered down (or probably more accurately, burdened with excessive nonsense) and is probably not recognizable in a normal context.

So while I honestly think that there is genuine faith in many of the "traditions" of Christianity (or more accurately in virtually all), there are a few that have so altered the periphery of the faith to such an extent that what they think is the most important part is not even accurately part of true faith. And for this I challenge them to open their eyes. To refuse the claims of riches, for they are naked and blind.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by james73

But trust in what? Does that mean I also have to trust in what other humans say God says and does? And I have to pick the right group of humans to follow? That doesn't add up.

There is overwhelming, indisputable, incontrovertible, undeniable, incontestable evidence that God sent His Only Begotten Son, aka Jesus Christ, into the land of Israel to die on the cross for the sins of mankind.

That's the absolute daily requirement that we must trust God and believe in Him.

John 3.16 has been properly plastered all over this world.

[awareness]

I'm losing faith in this nature of faith thread.

But I can't fault y'all. I've wondered about the nature of faith, and what it is, off and on for a long time. And still, despite Biblical proclamations, faith is a mystery to me.

Surprisingly, and disappointing, I do know something about "misplaced faith." Thanks to my local church experience, I know intimately more about that than I do the big question of faith.

So I had high hopes for this thread ... that I might learn something about the mystery of faith. So far, no answer I've heard has hooked me.

But I do cotton to this one :

"Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof."
-Khalil Gibran

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm losing faith in this nature of faith thread.

But I can't fault y'all. I've wondered about the nature of faith, and what it is, off and on for a long time. And still, despite Biblical proclamations, faith is a mystery to me.

Surprisingly, and disappointing, I do know something about "misplaced faith." Thanks to my local church experience, I know intimately more about that than I do the big question of faith.

So I had high hopes for this thread ... that I might learn something about the mystery of faith. So far, no answer I've heard has hooked me.

But I do cotton to this one :

"Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof."
-Khalil Gibran

Misplaced faith speaks of the human condition. We always want to place our trust and assurance on something we can touch, feel and see with our own eyes. However our God who is immortal, invisible and unchanging cannot be grokked by our physical faculties but only by our spirit and our heart which also exist in the unseen realm. Yet even with this knowledge, the temptation to believe in the seen is much more compelling than trusting our heart to something that we cannot see if we do not develop intimacy with our unseen Creator as David did when he was only a small shepherd boy.

Our eyes constantly tempt us to believe only in the things we can see. However the things we see change over time and are destined to be burned unless they have Christ abiding in them. However the things that are unseen of God are unchanging and eternal. In other words our physical eyes are constantly trolling us to believe in something that should never be trusted. Satan loves to turn everything upside down. The world mocks Christians for having faith in an unseen God. According to human wisdom we can only trust what we see. Boy how wrong they have it!

Witness Lee may have had the anointing in his early days of ministry. This may be what attracted many to him. However Jesus commanded us to make disciples of Christ and not any man. If we do not give God the glory and point people to Christ no matter how anointed we are, people will be bound to place their faith in the seen messengers of God. This is a method of temptation Satan is well versed in and it's nothing new.

In Acts 14 Paul and Barnabas heal a lame man in Lystra and the crowd suddenly starts worshipping them. They rent their clothes and try to point everyone to the invisible most High God who was behind the miracle. Satan got frustrated at the advances of the early church and tried to stumble these servants of God by offering them the worship of men. Fortunately Paul and Barnabas would have none of it and overcame the tempter, however other servants of God throughout history unfortunately did not share in this same Godly wisdom.

Jesus said my sheep know my voice and they follow me. It's possible Witness Lee may have shared in the voice of our good Shepherd many times, but then people started learning to trust and become intimate with the voice of this mortal man and his words and not the source of the Giver of all good gifts. So when his voice started to take on the tone of the adversary many could not tell. Fortunately many of us who left could recognize the change and perhaps that's because we know the good Shepherd's voice. So we left having been repulsed by the voice of a false shepherd. A wise choice even if it meant leaving the LCs, and even if it meant uprooting our past lives, because now we are free to follow the voice of the One True Shepherd who always lays down his life for his sheep.

Witness Lee may have changed but our God never changes. He is the same yesterday today and forever. He is a good God and has wonderful plans for each of us. We just have to desire him with all our heart and come to him asking for his grace to change our heart. It's worth placing our trust in the unseen God of the bible. Faith is not faith unless it's directed at something we cannot see.

Many of us here have trouble trusting again because we gave our hearts to something that should have never been trusted. It's like giving your heart to a girlfriend who will betray your trust and be unfaithful to you. Yet this is what we do to God and he still wants to be with us. Satan turns everything upside down by portraying God as the breaker of hearts when he's the liar behind it all!

[awareness]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply bearbear, Sam, Samuel ...

Based on your reply methinks another name is in order. But I can't come up with a single term. Maybe a Native American style name will do : He-Who-Makes-Bible-All-Bible.

Originally Posted by bearbear

However our God who is immortal, invisible and unchanging cannot be grokked by our physical faculties but only by our spirit and our heart which also exist in the unseen realm.

If you grok God there should be zero worries about your salvation.

Witness Lee may have had the anointing in his early days of ministry. This may be what attracted many to him.

Lee satisfied our need for something in the flesh to look up to.

Many of us here have trouble trusting again because we gave our hearts to something that should have never been trusted.

Once bit twice shy.

[Cal]

Faith is the ability to believe in something that can't be proved. That's it.

Faith is everywhere. I believe in a lot things. I believe that the sun will come up tomorrow and that my wife won't cheat on me. Why? Because I have faith. I have reasons for having faith, but proof isn't one of them. If I had proof I wouldn't need faith, except for faith in proofs, I suppose.

But we rely on faith for a lot more than we think. For example, we have faith that our minds are more or less able to reason. People who lose faith in their minds go mad.

Now into this equation you put God. There is ample evidence for God, so it makes sense to have faith in him. Ultimately, faith in God is so reasonable that the lack thereof is inexcusable.

Don't introduce a lot of religious complications. bearbear said he believed like John Piper. I hope he doesn't hold to Piper's view that you can't be saved without hearing the name of Jesus. That's nutty. You can't be saved without Jesus, because he is the one way back to God. But Jesus can be applied to anyone who humbles himself before God. Jesus isn't the answer to a cosmic trick question. He's the ransom for every sinner, even those who never heard of him.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Don't introduce a lot of religious complications. bearbear said he believed like John Piper. I hope he doesn't hold to Piper's view that you can't be saved without hearing the name of Jesus. That's nutty. You can't be saved without Jesus, because he is the one way back to God. But Jesus can be applied to anyone who humbles himself before God. Jesus isn't the answer to a cosmic trick question. He's the ransom for every sinner, even those who never heard of him.

Whoa, not to get into another doctrinal debate but it's not fair to pin this belief of Piper's to him alone, since it is shared by almost all Evangelicals who realize the importance of the getting the Gospel out as Jesus did. It has nothing to do with the Calvinism versus Free Grace debate. We may disagree on this point, but it doesn't mean we have to throw the baby out with the bath water to prove our sides.

Many Orthodox Jews believe they can obtain salvation through humbling themselves to God and turning to righteousness because of passages in the Tanakh like Ezekiel 18. However Jesus told them "unless you believe that I am he, you will *die* in your sins". The bible also says not one is righteous, no one seeks after God. We need God's grace in this manner and grace must be received by faith alone which only comes by hearing (Romans 10:7).

I'm all for Free Grace's proposition that we have to trust that Jesus is Lord and Savior. I just insist on the extra step that we have to do this in our heart also, asking for God's grace through the Holy Spirit to make Jesus our Lord-- by which we'll love and obey him when God gives us a new heart and new spirit via being born again, all by God's grace alone which includes the repentance we made in our heart once convicted by the Holy Spirit of our hopeless situation in sin without Christ.

I believe if you seek God with all your heart you will find him (Jeremiah 29:13). There are folks all over the world from other religions where Jesus appeared to them in a vision and they believed when they sought the true and living God with all their heart.

Included among these is the Secret Sannyasi Mission, a group of former Hindus who sought the true and living God and actually had Jesus appear to them:

http://www.missionfrontiers.org/issu...-the-way-to-go

Another recent example is Jesus appearing to thousands of Muslims who have sought the true and living God with all their heart:

http://www.charismamag.com/spirit/ev...iims-see-jesus

Acts 4:12
And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Whoa, not to get into another doctrinal debate but it's not fair to pin this belief of Piper's to him alone, since it is shared by almost all Evangelicals who realize the importance of the getting the Gospel out as Jesus did. It has nothing to do with the Calvinism versus Free Grace debate. We may disagree on this point, but it doesn't mean we have to throw the baby out with the bath water to prove our sides.

Who said it had anything to do with Calvinism versus Free Grace? Certainly not me. I just pointed out another way Piper was all wet.

But it's not necessary to believe that people must hear about Jesus to be saved to feel compelled to get the gospel out. Because hearing about Jesus makes it much easier to see one's need and the solution.

But I believe that the redeeming work of Jesus can be applied to anyone who humbles himself and admits his need of mercy. It's silly to think that someone who never had a chance to hear the gospel could plead for mercy and not get it. Imagine this prayer:

"Great Creator, I know you are great and holy. I know I have offended you many times. But I cannot achieve righteousness on my own. If there is any way for me to receive mercy and avoid your judgment, please apply that to me."

Do you not believe that such a person will be saved? I do.

Like I said, Jesus isn't a cosmic gotcha. He's the way back to God.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Who said it had anything to do with Calvinism versus Free Grace? Certainly not me. I just pointed out another way Piper was all wet.

Ah I just assumed so because you brought up Piper's name which is one of the household names in the Reformed tradition. Most people think "Reformed" or "Calvinism" when his name is mentioned.

But it's not necessary to believe that people must hear about Jesus to be saved to feel compelled to get the gospel out. Because hearing about Jesus makes it much easier to see one's need and the solution.

But I believe that the redeeming work of Jesus can be applied to anyone who humbles himself and admits his need of mercy. It's silly to think that someone who never had a chance to hear the gospel could plead for mercy and not get it. Imagine this prayer:

"Great Creator, I know you are great and holy. I know I have offended you many times. But I cannot achieve righteousness on my own. If there is any way for me to receive mercy and avoid your judgment, please apply that to me."

Do you not believe that such a person will be saved? I do.

Like I said, Jesus isn't a cosmic gotcha. He's the way back to God.

I share in your conviction that God is a righteous judge.

Yet I have faith that if someone prays this prayer from the bottom of their heart it must be by the work of the Holy Spirit so Jesus will appear to them Either that or God will send a missionary to them like he did in Bruce Olson's story of evangelism to the Motilone Indians in "Bruchko"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruchko

[Cal]

Originally Posted by bearbear

I have faith that if someone prays this prayer from the bottom of their heart it must be by the work of the Holy Spirit so Jesus will appear to them Either that or God will send a missionary to them like he did in Bruce Olson's story of evangelism to the Motilone Indians in "Bruchko"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruchko

The point I think we agree upon is that no one is going to be lost based on a technicality. "Oop, you never heard of Jesus so you can't be saved. Sorry. Next."

That's what Piper believes. He's a lovely brother, but he exhibits what Ralph Waldo Emerson meant when he said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The point I think we agree upon is that no one is going to be lost based on a technicality. "Oop, you never heard of Jesus so you can't be saved. Sorry. Next."

That's what Piper believes. He's a lovely brother, but he exhibits what Ralph Waldo Emerson meant when he said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

I like Piper too, but I don't follow him exclusively. If anything my LC days taught me it's to never follow one man exclusively, but only Jesus alone. And Jesus has many servants we can be edified from. I'm paranoid of being deceived again so I follow many different ministries, and yes including free grace teachers In fact I think I spend more time in other ministries than the ones my church advocates. I think this part of myself needs healing heh, I also need to learn to trust again. But I have benefited greatly from listening to so many different ministries so it's all good. And I thank God I think I have something of a foundation now where I don't need to rely on ministries but only the bible and the One Teacher.

That said, I get a lot of inspiration and revelation by listening to someone else preach including you guys and I appreciate them because they are gifts to the body of Christ from God (Ephesians 4:11-12).