This is a characterization of faith. Is it a definition as well? Not every characterization of a thing is a definition of it. E.g., when I say that grass is green and eaten by cows, I am accurately describing grass, but not defining it.
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
“the assurance of things hoped for"
If it is, then it seems paradoxical: If I am sure, then I am not hoping. If I am hoping, then I am not sure.
(Consider the difference between wishing, hoping, and believing: I don't need any evidence in order to wish for something. I have not bought a lottery ticket, but I can still wish I were going to win, even though I know I can't. In contrast, to hope requires that I have some evidence, at least enough to believe what I hope for is possible. If I have bought a ticket in the lottery, then I can hope that I win, even if the odds against against my winning are very long. However, when I see that my number has been drawn and I get the official notification from the state lottery commission, I now believe--I'm sure--that I have won, and I no longer hope that I have won. So combining being sure with hoping is surprising.)
How about
“the conviction of things not seen...”
First: should the “not seen” be taken literally, or as a way to say “things not observed?”
But reading "things not seen" as "things not observed" still seems to include way too much. There are lots of things I cannot see, hear, smell, feel, or taste that I believe exist but that belief is not a matter of faith. E.g., I cannot observe atoms or radio waves but my belief that there are such things is not a matter of faith. Defining faith as belief in the unobservable still seems to include far too much.
I A person has faith = she has a belief in something she cannot see
II A person has faith = she has a belief in something she cannot observe
III A person has faith = she has a belief that she cannot justify
The author of the epsitle to the Hebrews must have had something more interesting in mind!
7 comments:
I don't think this is necesarily a definition of faith, but I'm not sure yet. I think "assurance" for our purposes is the greatest amount of trust we can put in an idea without being totally sure.
Conviction of things not seen, I believe, is our feelings of being convicted to believe in a God we have not seen in form. We answer to Him, wihtout ever seeing Him.
I believe this verse is coming at two different angles of the spectrum of faith, setting the bounds for a defintion.
I think a good way to understand a Bible verse is to apply it to a relevant situation. I'm going to consider the promises God has made to us in light of this Bible verse. He has revealed to us a small portion of the future and made promises to us in that "forecasting" (namely that which is described in Revelation). After hearing stories and promises of a new heavens & a new earth with no pain and suffering, everyone HOPES for this. However having FAITH in a promise like that is when you are confident and are certain that is what will occur because God said so. Thus, I don't think they are saying that having assurance and hope are synonymous. Instead, I believe they are trying to show a contrast, as you pointed out. FAITH is when you are CERTAIN of what God has revealed, when those without faith can only HOPE for them.
I agree with this description of faith, but I don't think it really is "whole" enough to be a definition. There's too vague of words. As you have pointed out, there's a lot of words in there that if taken in a different way would change the entire meaning of faith. A definition shouldn't allow for such manipulation and open interpretation.
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Assurance of things hoped for – seems like assurance should be backed by facts or truth, yet hope throws it in another direction saying hope is something that you truly believe yet have no “proof”. The second part the “conviction of things not seen” Professor Wacome gave the example of sound and wind, saying beliefs can’t be justified, but I think they can yet people just get frustrated because they way they justify their believe may not be justification towards another. We all think differently yet we have the same beliefs, but different ways in why we believe the things we do.
We have a significant disagreement between Steve, who says faith leaves room for not being totally sure, and Kaitlyn, who describes faith as involving certainty.
Re K:
I assume we can justify beliefs about things we cannot see, such as sound and wind, and that it seems pretty odd to think of such beliefs as matters of faith.
when i continue to read hebrews 11, i begin to put verse one in those contexts...Abel, Enoch, Noah Abraham, Sarah etc. had faith or (assurance that this idea they had hoped for would come about and conviction that their future...things not seen...lied in God's hands.
i don't know if that is any different.
as far as being "sure of what you hope for" and "assurance of things hoped for"...i read assurance as something that is given to you from God, not a feeling developed by one's self...such as being "sure".
maybe this verse would be a better characterization than definition...especially for those who have no understanding of faith, Hebrews 11:1 tends to be pretty vague and up to interpretation.
I wonder about the "logic" of assurance. An assurance can be what one person gives another, as in, "She assured him that the cat was fed." But the person who has been assured actually is assured only if his being assured leads to his no longer worrying, wondering etc., but instead to some sort of confidence about what he was assured about. So, I think I want to say that God assures us by means of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and thus that we have been assurred, and if we are faithful, we accept it.
Post a Comment