Blind Faith
Is Christian Faith an Irrational Belief in God?
© Brian Tubbs
Nov 5, 2007
Can intelligent people today have faith in God? What exactly is faith? This article explains that faith is trust. And there is enough evidence to trust in God.
What is faith? How can one truly have faith in God? Can intelligent people today have faith in God? Is the Christian faith rational? Must people reject reason in order to have faith? What does the Bible say about finding faith in God? These are among many questions asked by people today in light of the modern age.
What Is Faith?
The book of Hebrews defines faith as the "substance of things hoped for" and the "evidence of things unseen." (Hebrews 11:1) What exactly does that mean?
Have you ever been skydiving? If so, you understand faith. You hope that the parachute will open, when it's time for it to open. Even though you've prepped and double-checked the chute, you don't know for sure that it will open, because you haven't yet seen it open. (Mabye you saw it open on previous jumps, but the jump you're presently taking is the one that matters most to you, and you won't see it open - until it does).
Faith is a decision to trust the parachute. And that is what faith is, no matter the example. It is a decision to trust.
What about "Blind Faith"?
Blind faith is when you have been given no rational or tangible reason to trust somebody or trust in something, and yet you do anyway. You simply decide to trust, even though you've seen no evidence to lead you to that decision.
With blind faith, there is either no evidence to speak of or there is a refusal to look at or consider any evidence that might be available. It is, quite simply, an irrational faith.
Does Christianity Call for Blind Faith?
Many people are under the false impression that Christianity rests completely on faith, and they associate such faith with "blind faith." In other words, many people say that Christianity in particular (or religion in general) is simply a matter of faith, and is wholly incompatible with science, history, logic, or common sense. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Here's a sampling of what the Bible says on the subject:
- First, the book of Proverbs is replete with admonitions to increase in knowledge and wisdom.
- The apostle Paul told the church at Thessalonica to "prove all things" and "hold fast [to] that which is good." (I Thessalonians 5:21) In other words, don't just believe things blindly.
- The writer of Acts praises the Berean Christians for "searching the Scriptures" to verify that what the apostles were teaching them was consistent with the Old Testament laws and prophecies. (Acts 17:11) In fact, the Bereans were contrasted with the more gullible Thessalonians.
- Finally, Paul told Timothy to "study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that need not be ashamed..." (II Timothy 2:15) In other words, never stop learning.
Bottom line...God doesn't want mindless Christians claiming to follow Him. God expects people to think, which is why He gave people a brain.
****
For more information, see the following:
"Reasons to Believe in God" by Brian Tubbs at Suite101 Protestantism
"How to Have Faith" by Brian Tubbs at Suite101 Protestantism
"Books for Christians in Doubt" by Brian Tubbs at Suite101 Protestantism
or try these books....
Examine the Evidence by Ralph O. Muncaster
No Doubt About it by Winfried Corduan
Is the New Testament Reliable? by Paul Barnett
Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell
The copyright of the article
Blind Faith in
Protestantism is owned by
Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish
Blind Faith must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Nov 6, 2007 9:55 AM
Pink
:
.
In his latest article, Brian asks, <b>1</b> "Can intelligent people today have faith in God?". And, he follows with, <b>2</b> "Is the Christian faith rational?", <b>3</b> "Must people reject reason in order to have faith?", and,<b>4</b> "What does the Bible say about finding faith in God?"
.
Four appropriate questions to be asked.
.
My <b>opinions</b>--for what they're worth:
.
<b>#1.</b> Certainly--without a doubt.
.
<b>#2.</b> That depends on what version one takes to heart. I wonder if Brian has any particular one in mind; COGIC, Reformed Baptist, RCA, GARB, Nazarene, Christian Scientism, Disciples of Christ, and or any of the many that are available.
.
<b>#3.</b> No.
.
<b>#4.</b> According to Ephesians 2:8, faith is a gift from god.
.
I don't think I have ever met a biblicist christian that has any pure faith in god whatsoever and I have known hundreds. Instead, they put their faith in the Bible. Two distinctly and completely different foundations for faith.
.
I would add that--before Fundamentalism's rise to power in the Protestant churches of America--many Christians put their pure faith in God; but, Fundamentalism has put a screeching halt to that. Today, it's the Bible or it's the road to Hell.
.
Nov 6, 2007 11:28 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
Pink, put aside the "Bible" and all the "Fundamentalist" rhetoric you've heard about that. Do you at least accept that the book of Acts is a fairly accurate narrative on the history of the early church? Please consider that question. And if you answer "yes" to it, then do you acknowledge that the early church (according to the book of Acts) "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine"? And we are talking about the very, very EARLY church here.
Speaking as a historian (not necessarily a Christian), I have to accept the book of Acts as the earliest written record of the early Christian church. Accordingly, there's a credibility to it that can't be denied. And there's no reason why the writer of Acts would lie when he tells us that the early church was committed to DOCTRINE - specifically, the DOCTRINE of the apostles.
It is my belief that the Bible today reflects the doctrine of the apostles. I realize that you may not share that confidence in the Bible. Okay, but I hope you can AT LEAST see that the early church considered doctrines and beliefs to be important - not just an existential, highly personalized journey of faith.
Nov 6, 2007 11:53 AM
Pink
:
.
I have never been one to discount the Bible off hand.
.
But, that has nothing to do with my comments on your article in which I definitely stated that every biblicist christian I know or know of, does not put their faith in God; but, they put their faith in the Bible. Two completely and distinctly separate foundations for faith. You cannot claim you put your faith in the God of The Bible claiming that to be your foundational faith. Such a claim only verifies that your faith is in the Bible and not in God as separate from the Bible. Persons that start out with their faith in God are soon convinced to switch their faith to be in the Bible. That's organized religion for you.
.
That is my point--and it isn't that I do not hold the Bible to be of extreme importance as an historical book with great wisdom and of great impact on humanity's understandings of God.
.
Nov 6, 2007 1:13 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
Do you acknowledge that the early church was committed to doctrine? Please answer that.
In response to your point, I've been through two periods of intense soul-searching in my life. (I'd like to think that I'm always going through some soul-searching, but two periods really stick out). One of those periods involved this question.
Growing up, I saw God completely and totally through the lens of the Bible - and more specifically, what I was TAUGHT the Bible means. So, when that perspective was challenged (not only externally, but also INTERNALLY), it shook me to the core.
I emerged from that period, with the recognition that the Bible derives its authority from GOD - NOT the other way around. Which is, I think, what you're getting at.
Of course, I still put more confidence IN the Bible than you appear to, although I certainly understand you're not dismissing the Bible outright.
In answer to your point....my faith is based on God and my relationship with Him -- BUT it is informed by the Bible.
Nov 6, 2007 3:36 PM
Pink
:
.
Brian sez, <i>"In answer to your point....my faith is based on God and my relationship with Him -- BUT it is informed by the Bible."</i>
.
That's too bad. The promise is that God will give you a deposit and that the deposit will inform you. Apparently, you are afraid to go into the deep water?
.
You opened your post with, <i>Do you acknowledge that the early church was committed to doctrine? Please answer that.</i>
.
I don't truly know the detailed answer to that question; but, I think the early church was ALL about doctrine. Accepting the doctrine was how people got to stay alive in many cases. And, as the church progress, things got worse and worse--until the Enlightenment, I guess.
.
.
Nov 6, 2007 6:13 PM
redback
:
I'm not hung up on 'blind faith' being a derogatory term within Christianity. The more we know, the less <b>need</b> for faith...is a truism, right? But this is often confused with 'the more we <b>THINK we know</b>..."
It seems to me the Christian faith seeks a "total" faith...nigh impossible if I understand the Bible on imperfection. What means 'que sera sera' when it comes to a person believing they'll make it to church today? Very, very few blind people are totally blind. So, blind faith suggests shades of grey to me. And applies equally to believer and non believer. Aint nothing wrong with optimism or daring-do despite the odds? God did invent adrenaline, right?
I think we can display reckless faith at times and faith despite the facts at other times. Having misplaced faith is better than no faith?
It seems to me that a "little" belief in the God of the Bible can lead to exponential leaps of faith. The Bible facilitates or 'informs' (consistently?) as exampled by suite101 dialogue. :)
While there seems some concession or lip service the Bible and God are 2 separate entities, it seems harder to argue the Christian God without total dependence/faith in the Bible. But given the core faith, maybe tis a logical or rational way to do business.
I think there are other rational and logical ways to do business but tis the 3C within. :)
Nov 6, 2007 7:38 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
Your concept of biblical authority (the doctrine of it, that is), Pink, is based on your bad experiences within the fundamentalist Baptist movement. That's how it seems anyway.
I think we need to go back into history to recover what the Bible was intended to be. It was a written record of the teachings of the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles. In Jesus' case, it was also a record of his death, burial, and resurrection - along with some highlights of his earthly ministry.
It is authoritative because of its CONTENT. The Bible represents (to us) the preservation of apostolic doctrine.
Nov 7, 2007 4:30 AM
Pink
:
.
I think the Bible is valid as a subject text for discussion and the development of ideas. But, not as the foundation of absolute truth. I believe it is valid to question it in every respect.
.
Instead, it has become a standard for defining who is and who is not a legitimate person with whom to have what is known as <i>fellowship</i>.
.
Nov 7, 2007 8:40 AM
Migisi
:
.
<i>Instead, it has become a standard for defining who is and who is not a legitimate person with whom to have what is known as fellowship. </i>
.
Would I even <b>WANT</b> to have fellowship with such a person who uses ~any~ sacred text to justify bigotry? I think not.
Nov 7, 2007 11:38 AM
Pink
:
.
<i>Would I even<b> WANT </b>to have fellowship with such a person who uses ~any~ sacred text to justify bigotry? I think not.</i>
.
I appreciate your response. And, I think the key word in what you are reacting to is "fellowship". To them, it means total agreement in understanding of doctrine and what it means to have membership in such an exclusive group.
.
I don't care for that either. And, that is precisely why I do not attend any of their churches which are the hotbeds of their dogmatism.
.
Other than that, they are as human as the rest of us. And, some of them are pretty nice folk.
.
But, I'm not so sure of Brother Jones. Are you? (Pinky nudges Migisi in the ribs with a big wink.)
.
:)
