The Thoughtful PromiseWrote: i know this answer is really simple, but to me faith is putting as much trust in one thing

as possible. we all know air is real, it exists but seeing isn't always believing. we have faith that air exists. its the same thing with God, you can prove Him in so many ways, but it really all boils down to believing He's there. i guess im saying faith is trust and beliefs --------------------ShalomWrote: Amen! I'd say faith is the heart's trust in God. ----------------------------Timothy I would say that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. It seems that faith is an assurance of things that we hope for. It seems to be a conviction of things that we do not see. It seems that understand faith that we need to understand assurance and conviction. We also need to understand "hope" and "things not seen." -----------------------------Bob Couchenour wrote: When this string was started I almost came back with the same quoted Biblical description of faith. But that was not in fact what was being asked for. A simple quoting of the verse may actually give an accurate and prcis theological depiction, but has been degraded to the place of convenient religious rhetoric. The words may be right on but the meaning behind the words has been lost. We may be able to analyze, dissect and produce dictionary images of the language, but the spiritual reality contained in the words and concepts is reduced to the mechanics of language. This verse Hebrews 11:1 is the entrance into an entire chapter describing the faith accomplishments of Old Testament saints acting in faith trusting God. If we would wish to understand faith as an action verb to believe Hebrews is recommended reading. But reducing it to a few convenient doctrines is not the intention of what is being conveyed. We in the Christian community have reduced faith the acknowledgement of a doctrinal statement. Quotes From Escape from Evangelicalism by Bob Couchenour

Romans 4:21-24 explains that our faith in Christ is essentially equated to or a facsimile of the faith of Abraham trusting God some 1800+ years prior to Christ Regardless of the human impurity that accompanies that pure gift (faith), the dross will be burnt away, and there is no reason to presume that any of us operate free of imperfections, or assume that everything we would see implemented is more the Lord then our own works. We do not know. We are called to be faithful. Faithful to what? That which we know. As with Abraham, sometimes that means we act impetuously, presumptuously and screw up. The point is that we act in faith. We move. We trust. We will screw up. Our faith is not in our own ability or the doubts that would immobilize us. Our faith is not in the keeping of a code or rules but in the one who has fulfilled the law. Our faith is not in temporal organizations, buildings or social or political ties. Evangelicalism has degenerated to that of catching men, proselytizing to the confession of a rhetorical declaration, and then catch more men to catch more men to catch more men. Faith is reduced to the function of ones ability to argue, debate, or sell a Christ that we are indoctrinated to assume no one wants. We are indoctrinated to argue Christ, the consideration that we are to be Christ hardly ever enters our conscious thought. If we ever begin to be Christ, rather than argue Him, we may find that being attracts better than pummeling some one with our religious stuff. Faith in action hears God, and acts accordingly. The role of the pastor is not to define the work of service but to see their charge mature to the place of listening and hearing God for themselves. As God speaks and personally communes, the work of service will be the result of the intimacy of relationship with God. Jesus heard His father and acted. Abraham heard the word of God, trusted and acted. It will be no different with us. We may not attain the perfection of Jesus in hearing and acting. We most assuredly have more objective knowledge and information to assess our subjective promptings than Abraham. We have the history of God amongst men. They call it the Bible. As we hear, act, we will walk in our work of service. Maturity is not applying the code. Maturity is listening, hearing, acting and walking with God.

Timothy Wrote The question that was asked was What is faith? What is the relationship between Faith and knowledge? That's why I pulled out the text book definition and tried to break it down. It has become misunderstood and rings empty because it has been so overused.

I think that once you break it down and dissect the Biblical definition that the meaning of faith will once again come alive. That's why I thought it would be helpful to look at assurance and conviction; and also take a look at "hope" and "things not seen." There are 2 parts to faith. It is the (1) assurance of things hoped and (2) conviction of things not seen. Now...Seeing that definition makes for an interesting question. How is it that faith can be an assurance and a conviction? Faith is often thought of as just believing is something that you can't prove. I think it is interesting that faith here is linked with assurance and conviction. Now faith will produce action. But the discussion about faith and what the life of faith looks like is different than what faith is. Faith is something and faith will do something. I was trying to work on and figure out what faith is. That seemed to be the question that was asked. It was helpful to read We are called to be faithful. Faithful to what? That which we know I think that starts to get to the heart of the issues. Faith acts on knowledge.

Bob Couchenour wrote: And theres the rub There are 2 parts to faith. It is the (1) assurance of things hoped and (2) conviction of things not seen. What is the source of the assurance? The conviction? The knowledge? Is it the product of Biblical analysis? This is not the case with Abraham. Christ knew the scripture, but there is no indication that He approached faith as a by product of dissecting their content. To the contrary, He rebuked the Pharisees for a reliance on such an approach. Many mentioned in Hebrews 11 do not fit the profile of the Biblical scholar in acting in faith. Some acted contrary to revealed Biblical knowledge. Or is faith something beyond our limited reasoning. That does not mean divorced from our reasoning, but confident in truth apart from our simple deductions? If the Spirit moves where He wills, and is the source of our new birth in relation to God, is it not reasonable that the by-products of that new birth, faith towards God and Spiritual things, are conveyed spiritually, transcending academic intellectualism? That

does not mean contrary to Biblical absolutes, but does imply the possibility of reinterpretation of presumed Biblical absolutes in light of the Spirit. I do not presume to think the debate will end in this thread. And I have no desire to get into a sparring match. When it comes to most (not all, but most) Fundamentalist theology I would probably be found in agreement. The problem is that most of it is the product of the human mind and held as absolute. The spiritual dimension is equated to that of academics and human reasoning. Where the Spirit moves, there is less confidence in our own theological constructs and an openness to reassess once held absolutes. The Pharisees faced the same problem when confronted with Jesus.