1868 What is Faith, Charles Third Reply
Charles Martin's home page
WHAT IS FAITH?
As so long a time
has elapsed since S wrote on the subject of Faith, we were
rather startled on receiving the Pioneer for July to find the
question again opened, and that S. has a champion come to the
rescue in the person of our valiant C. So that now we have two
heads instead of one to contend with, and were we not confident
that the ground on which we stand is firm, and that our
out-works are good, with two such
redoubtable antagonists before us,, we, should certainly , sound
a retreat. - And, although we shall. endeavour to show that the
position which , our friends have taken is indefensible, we, at
the outset, can assure them that it is with no feeling of
unfriendlineea that we write, but
with a desire to bring out prominently what S, is so anxious to
arrive at TRUTH. This is our goal, and the queries from 'Kappa' show that we were not alone in our
dissatisfaction respecting S's. article, and we trust that
`Kappa' will ` present his other
difficulties that are troubling him.' I By all means, now the
question is started,
let us thoroughly sift it. But we fancy we can
hear some simple minded reader exclaim, 'What has all the writing been about ?' It appears
to be a controversy de lana caprina. Well, friend, S. undertook
to show that Faith is a compound, having two elements,
confidence and conviction, and that Hebrews ch. xi., v. 1., is a
definition of faith. We disputed both these propositions, and in
this discussion, we care not whether confidence and conviction
be taken with or without the adjuncts, we make bold to to state
that C. and S. together have not maintained their point, but
that on the contrary, they have conceded that we are right, and
yet proceed as though this had not been done. For S. gives us
permission to call this verse a description, but as all his
reasoning was founded on the assumption that it is an essential
definition, if it be not so, all his reasoning was irrelevant.
C. declares that faith and belief are identical, and that 'there
are not two different kinds ' of faith,' but yet speaks of `the
faith that, the Christians have.' But if all faith is one, then
`the faith that the Christians have' is the game that the devils
have. (We have no objection to call these evil spirits demons,
but we have to S.'s omission of the particle kai, also).
Concerning then `the faith that the Christians have,' and the
faith that the demons have, we say in object, not in kind, the
difference lies, and thus we can only distinguish one from the
other, by taking cognizance of the objects of their faith. The
demons have no confidence respecting things hoped for, because
no promise has been made to them, hence they look forward to the
judgment of the great day, not with hope, but with horror-they
shudder (phrissous):.{' S. exclaims, `be it remembered, we use
the words faith and belief as eynonymous,' but `but be it
remembered,' we rejoin, that although in his reply to 'Kappa' he
states go, that not a hint of this is found in his first
article, and we know not whether 'Kappa' is able to reconcile
this statement with the article, but certainly we are not; and
we should not have troubled the readers ;of the Pioneer, if we
could have imagined that S. when he wrote that article, regarded
faith and belief as synonymous, and the queries from ' Kappa '
show that he could not divine what was S's. idea. C. has undertaken to tell us what S. ought to have
written, and has amended two of his sentences for him ; we do
not see that his amendments throw any light on the topic before
us, neither do we know what is to be gained by changing the
proposition 'we have no confidence in that enemy of
mortals' (Satan). To the question, ' but have we the confidence
as to things hoped for from the enemy of mortals?' Again
C. and S. both declare that there may be faith without
confidence as to things hoped for, yet C. acknowledges that `if
two elements constitute a compound, that compound cannot exist
if one of the elements is gone,' or as we write, 'if two
elements form a compound, that compound is not in existence
until the combination of the two is effected.' Instead of
getting light on the topic, we are fairly puzzled.
As S. refers us to C. for a
reply, it will gave time and paper if we regard what they have
written an proceeding from the same pen, and the aid of a wizard
is not necessary to show that C. and S. have held a
consultation on the topic. We must again remind our readers
that S., with quite a flourish of trumpets, undertook to show us
the value of faith, and informed as that his hand had been
almost paralyzed, because on asking a very thoughtful man to
give a definition, or even his idea of faith, nothing clear,
definite, or consoling was given. Notice, he does not give the
slightest hint that he inquired respecting faith having a
special object-Jesus, or the truth revealed respecting Jesus-but
faith in the abstract. The heading of the paper is Faith-What Is
It? and therefore it is 'beside the mark' for C. to speak 'of
the faith that the Christians have.' This is not what S.
undertook to illustrate, but declared that the faith of the
sinner is defective-deficient in one element; while C. writes
that the faith of the disobedient is not defective, for the
conviction as to things seen is all that he can have till he
obeys. We must let our correspondents settle this point between
themselves. One says the faith of the sinner is defective, the
other the faith of the disobedient is not defective. C. is
decidedly at one with us here. To proceed. If confidence, with
or without the adjunct, is an element of faith, there can be no
faith without it, and we refer our readers to the above
quotation from C.: `but,' says he, `as soon as he obeys he has
the confidence as to things hoped for, and not before.' Just so,
but his faith was as perfect before as afterwards-it was not
defective, though he had no confidence in things hoped for, for
this plain reason, that he had nothing on which to place his
hopes until he obeyed, nothing having been promised without
obedience, so that obedience resulted from faith, and confidence
from obedience. Both our friends refer us to James ii. 22:
`Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was
"faith made perfect?"' How, by having an element added to it
that was not there before ? No, No, No ! But Abraham and Rahab
were commanded to do certain things; they believed that
blessings would follow obedience, they therefore obeyed: in
this way their faith wrought with (co-operated with, sunergeo)
their works, and thus their faith was completed (teleioo brought
to its goal, finished). Abraham received the special blessing,
and Rahab preservation while those around her were destroyed.
In this stormy world, it is
at times well for a man to have a good opinion of his own work,
and C. concludes his article by stating that `beyond a doubt'
Heb. xi. 6 is not a definition of faith. Notwithstanding this
triumphant assertion, we reply that if 'confidence as to things
hoped for' is not an element of faith then ' beyond a doubt'.
Heb. xi. 6 is not a definition of faith. 'We could regard it as
a definition of the individual faith in Jesus, but then this
concludes the object, or a description of faith, because in
either case we may include accidents with elements-but to call
this a definition of faith abstractedly, is to made a grand
mistake, as one would who should write a glowing description of
our noble metropolis, and then declare that it was a definition
of 'the term 'city.' We grant that the 39th verse of the preceding chapter shows that Paul, in
the verse in question, refers to 'the faith which the Christians
have,' and that the Christian has `the substance of things hoped
for, the evidence of things not seen,' and in our criticism of
S. we pointed out that the close of the preceding chapter shows
us why Paul commenced this by an allusion to faith, but we
maintain that the second and third verses show that Paul's
thoughts were not confined to this faith which has the promise
of God, respecting salvation, for its object, for he at once
branches off into faith having a diversity of objects-but the
essence of all is one and the same, viz., the belief of
testimony.
While C. agrees with
S. in regarding 'this famous verse as a definition of faith, he
complains that S. does not stick to this
definition of: `there,' says he, `all the fault lies.' The
sequel will show whether C. will stick to all he has written.
According to him, S. mars the definition by leaving out,
qualifying adjuncts, `as to things hoped and for` as to things
not seen,' so that the truth of the definition centres in these
qualifying adjuncts. Remove them, and its force is gone. C.
mentions that we proved faith and belief to be the same thing,
but writes we might as well have said a horse is a horse. He is
getting funny, but if anyone had been so foolish as to dispute
this truism, it might have been necessary for us to convince
him of his error; however the smallest donations are thankfully
received, but this is a great one, we should have been satisfied
if he had declared his conviction that faith and belief are
synonymous, but our friend regards them as duplicates, even as a
horse ie a horse. But if so, will our friend venture to
substitute one word for the other, and read, `now belief is the
substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen;' if they are duplicates he ought to have no
objection.'
Our friend S. wrote 'the
deeper the conviction, the more abiding the confidence; the
deeper the conviction, the stronger the confidence; or as is the
strength of conviction, so is the confidence;' and as C. informs
us what we might as well have said, we reply, S. might as well
have said, `the deeper the conviction, the more abiding the
terror; the deeper the conviction, the stronger the terror ; or
as is the strength of conviction, so is the terror.' For what
must have been the condition, of the chief of the bakers of
Pharaoh, king of Egypt, during the three days in which he was
looking forward to the rope which was to lift big head from off
him. Would not his terror be in the ratio of his belief in
Joseph's ability to prognosticate future events, and the
rapture of the other in a similar ratio? He would be treading
on enchanted ground, while the poor baker would be sitting on
thorns. Is not this sufficient to show that confidence in things hoped for is an accident, not
an element of faith? Again, Paul in the 7th verse declares that
Noah prepared an ark to the saving of his house, by faith.' What
was his ruling motive? -confidence? 'Confidence as to things
hoped for'? Nay, verily, he was `moved with fear.' But faith was
confidence or firm belief that what God had threatened
He would perform and he doubtless had a hope
of escape from the coming storm, but his fear was stronger that his hope.
It was fear that moved him. .
We must notice one or two
other things that C. and S. have written, but space
forbids our doing so this month.
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