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