1868 What is Faith, Second Letter
 Charles Martin's home page

WHAT IS FAITH?
(Continued from page 69.)

     But our friend S. considers faith is a compound, and that Hebrews xii chap. I v. decides the question. He says that Paul has given us a definition, and one that 'is deemed exhaustive. But here we raise e demurrer, and cry, hold ! is this a defini­tion? Was it intended by Paul to be a definition? We are not sure on this point, and if it be not definition, it is manifest that the reasoning founded upon it must be unsound. We rather think, also, that our friend is not quite clear on this point himself, for if this verse is a definition of faith, and that 'substance,' and 'evidence,' or, as our friend prefers, ' confidence 'and ' conviction,' consitute - make up faith, then confidence alone, or conviction alone, is not faith, but both combined. Yet our friend speaks of a defective faith, and of a faith being deficient in one element. Well, we may be obtuse, but this is incomprehensible to us. In our simplicity, we imagine that if two elements form a compound, that compound is not in existence until the com­bination of the two is effected. And, there­fore, this defective faith mentioned by S appears to us to be no faith. We trust that this is sufficient to show that the verse before us is not an 'essential definition' of faith, and that Paul could not have inten­ded to be so understood; but all the reasoning of our friend rests on the assumption that it is an essential-definition' We re­gard the verse as a description, or, what is sometimes termed, an 'accidental definition,' i.e.., one which embraces circumstances belonging to the essence, its properties or accidents, but not its constituent parts; and we consider `confidence' as an `accident' of faith rather than an 'element' - an accident dependent upon the object of the faith. In looking at the passage under consideration, we notice that Paul uses the word Pistis in the last verse of the preceding cheater :-' We are    *    *    * of faith: It is the noun here used, not the verb, as the English reader supposes, and. thus, having introduced faith, he gives us this glowing description of it, and narrates some of the wonders that they of olden time, who were subjects of it, wrought. It is as if he had said :-'Now faith is a noble thing,' for looked at from one point of view, it is the hupostartis - the ground, confidence, standing under, understanding, of things hoped for.  The various render­ings that have been given of this word (and we could give a score or more, show that there is a difficulty here, and the one that our friend has selected is a figurative application of the word, not a literal translation, which is a thing to be guarded against in a definition. But if we look at the two Greek roots from which the word in question springs, we feel sure that our brother S. will acknowledge that the Latin 'sub­stance' and the Saxons 'understanding' are its nearest literal equivalents, and, possibly, we cannot get nearer the idea of Paul than by using one of these terms, and the mean­ing appears to be that they who are 'of faith' - 'pisteooz' - have such a vivid percep­tion of the reality, - the substance of things hoped for - that they stand under them - yes, understand them-so understand them that they constantly realize the truth that all here is vanity; but the things that they hope for are substance; that all things here are transitory; but those they hope for are eternal. But, says Paul, looked at from an­other point of view, that of 'things not seen,' faith is the elenchos - the evidence, the con­viction, or, as we prefer, the persuasion, - yes, the firm, the certain persuasion of their actuality -- and then tells us some of the marvels which have been achieved by its possessors. Such we take to be Paula meaning. We will illustrate, by reference to man, and will look at him from two points of view. First, we notice his keen desire for trade, buying, selling, and get­ting gain, and we describe man as a ' bar­gaining animal.' We then look at him with respect to his powers of locomotion, and say man is a 'biped.' These stag manta are both true. We might say - Now man is a bargaining animal, also a biped,' and this sentence would be similar in structure to the verse under consideration; but no one would regard this as a definition of man. To return, - our brother states that confidence is not always an ' element' of faith ; but if it be an `element,' and this verse a 'definition,' it must always be, there can be no exception. He moreover states that conviction is always an element of faith, and an essential element. We must willingly concede that this is an element, and, conceding this, we necessarily concede that this is essential, for if it were not essential, we do not know how it could be an element at all. But, now, does not this give us a key to the whole matter? Are not ' conviction,' ' firm persuasion,' and ' belief,' synonymous terms? and is not confidence a re­sult of faith, rather than an element of it? If brother S, will grant this, we are as one on the question, and we think the illustra­tion he has given conclusive against himself. He states that we have no confidence in Satan. Granted. But why? Because there are two kinds of faith? Surety not. We believe that there is an infinite God? we also believe that there is a devil. We have confidence in God; we have none in the devil, yet the belief -the faith- respecting the two beings is in essence the same, viz., a firm persuasion resting on testimony, yet the objects of our faith are so diverse, that we regard one as the God of Truth without iniquity, just and holy in all His ways ; and the other to be a liar and a murderer; and therefore it is impossible to place confidence in the one, and equally impossible not to place confidence in the other. Our friend discriminates between faith and knowledge -the one has res­pect to things and beings seen, the other to things and beings unseen. Let us transfer to knowledge the reasoning that he applies to faith. A man, whom we know, and have always found to be trustworthy, we place confidence in; but another, whom we know, whose character we have found toe the opposite of this, we have no confidence in, It is not the mode of knowing that makes the difference in our estimate of these two characters, but the objects of our knowledge. We conclude by echoing the attainment of our friend and brother, We write this for the sake of eliciting truth. One of us is in error, and light and truth are what we seek. There is a query put by S. to the following effect : -Are there not many who have faith and yet yield not to the Gospel? And in his reply he speaks of their having a defective faith. We are unable to have anything to do with such a faith as this. It appears to us to be all askew. We think that ail who have faith in the Gospel yield to the Gospel. Others may have faith respecting the most heterogeneous matters; but faith in the testimony which God has given respecting Jesus they certainly have not. There are none who really acknowledge themselves to be sinners who believe that there is a judgment to come, that Christ is a Saviour suited to all their. neceseities ; that ' He died for our sins, so­cording to the Scriptures'-1 Cor. ch. xv.. v. 3 ; that `He was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our jus­tification ; -Rom. ch. iv. v. 25 ; and that ; ` Neither is there salvation in any other : for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved'-Acts ch. iv. v. 12, who do not yield themselves to Him. They may say that they believe ; but if we could get, at the inner recesses of their hearts, we are confident that there would be found their unbelief in the character of God as revealed in the Bible. They are deluding them­selves by some vague notions about the mercy of God, or flattering themselves with the idea that they are not so bad as others fancy them, and that by some side-door they will be able to enter the rest reserved for the people of God. He who believes the testimony which God has given of his Son will bow down to Him, and will `judge that if one died for all, then were all dead ; and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them and rose again'-2 Cor. ch. v. 14, 15. Oh, let no reader of these lines be found amongst the unbelievers, or back­sliders, or those `who draw back unto per­dition,' but amongst 'them that believe," or those who are 'of faith to the saving of the soul'-Hebrews x. 39.
                                                        M
If you have additions or corrections to this page, please contact us      Bones in the Belfry home page      Page last updated - 5 May 2014