Assurance and conviction. How do you arrive at 'accepting something as true without valid justification?' You've not demonstrated this.NSV wrote: “Now faith is the 1aassurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
J, this biblical use sounds exactly like how I used the word. “Accepting something as true without valid justification.” I would define justification as warrant, evidence, or reasoning. I would not say that hope lines up with this. As I understand the last line in that verse, I take that as conviction without evidence. I would need further explanation if I am to change how I understand this biblically.
Sorry, I'm not able to follow this explanation. If you can't be sure you could actually had truth, then how can you be sure now? I'm skeptical of your skepticism.I would agree with that.(But you do have to understand, my understandings of these words were quite different when I was a believer. I may have thought I had trust in god and in my religious leaders[if you will], but I do not think that I could actually have truth considering it was not demonstrated in the way that it had to be to be defined as trust. In other words, I thought they were catching me when I fell back, but it was an illusion of being caught.) So yes, I would retain the title of ex-Christian given my past understanding.
It is absolutely synonymous with trust and you've failed to demonstrate otherwise. I'd like to see your formal survey on faith/trust.The issue with trust, as I see it, is that I cannot accurately use that word given that I do not think god could establish trust in the way that I understand the word. If I was to have never seen, used, or known of what a parachute was, and I had to jump out of a plane with one, I would call that faith. If I had an understanding of what a parachute was, it was my parachute with many jumps on it’s record, and I, having packed it 100 times before, then I would call that trust. In any sense, the word faith as I understand it, as most religious people I know understand it, as modern definitions label it, and as I understand Hebrews 11:1, is not synonymous with trust.
Oddly, I've often used a parachute as an example in witnessing. Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Just consider the main words. Substance and evidence. Another translation uses the term confidence. Another assurance. If I say I have confidence that you can get the job done, what am I saying. I'm saying I trust your ability based on evidence.
The reason Heb. 11:1 doesn't say faith is trust is simply because the words are the same. There is no distinction in the noun and verb in the Greek. They are the same. It is in the English where confusion comes in.
I've already provided sufficient evidence for you to abandon your definition. There is ample evidence in lexicons to show what is meant by the Greek words Pistis and Pisteuo that are translated faith and believe and should convince any reasonable person. Beyond that, there is 2,000 years of scholarship regarding such doctrine.I am fully open to changing my understandings of these two definitions, but I will need some convincing. Maybe you could explain the difference or lack thereof between faith and trust. Maybe explain how I can have trust in god when I can never be sure it was god that acted to earn the trust in the first place. If I can never truly know god exists in the objective manner that Jac is trying to explain to me, how can I have trust in something that I cannot KNOW exists? I will use this a cheap example, and I hope it does not come off as an attempt to demean god, but I do not understand the use of the word trust if applied to the tooth fairy.
Jac is working through the other argument and has already provided a lot to chew on.
But I will add this. You make the statement "how can I have trust in something that cannot KNOW exists?"
Well, there are a couple of problems here. 1) I've already shown in the equation example that this isn't sound reasoning. You can state what you don't know, but you can't claim that it can't be known. And that is exactly what you are claiming. You are saying, for all intents and purposes, "how can I know something (or someone) that I cannot know exists?"
2) That it is a self-defeating statement. To make the claim you cannot know is to in fact claim to KNOW something about God (that you cannot know Him/it/that).
Just to make it clear, I would never make the statement, "It would be impossible for me to know Zeus or the Tooth Fairy." I can say that I have good reason to reject that the existence of the tooth fairy and no reasonable arguments to consider otherwise. In turn, Jac is providing good evidence and argument that there is reason to believe in a PC. And, as he will continue to show, good reason to accept that the PC of natural theology and the God of the bible are one and the same.
The above answer explains what is being addressed. I'm simply dealing with your postmodern skepticism.
I am not sure what is being address here. I fully agree with you. My point with the equation is that I was demonstrating that I did not know what the answer was. Not that I had faith that I did not know.