Now it is also at this point in the given reference that we
should attempt to clarify somewhat, a very important concept that we have, as
of yet, not really dealt with in any real depth. What does it actually mean to "have faith in"
Jesus? It will require an answer to this question before the entire reference
can be understood. Once our conclusion to the above consideration is arrived
at, however, I think we will see that in regard to your question as to whether
we are taking the Saviour’s words “too
literally”, the actual case truly is, as I stated earlier, that you are not
taking His words literally enough.
To begin with, I offer below some excerpts regarding the
definition of "faith" from an entry in "Fausset's Bible
Cyclopaedia".[1]
What is faith:
1. the
substance of things hoped for
2. the
evidence of things not seen
3. Faith
accepts the truths revealed on the testimony of God...that testimony being to
us given in Holy Scripture.
4. Where
sight is, there faith ceases.
5. In
its barest primary form, faith is simply crediting
or accepting God's testimony ...Not
to credit it is to make God a "liar"!...The necessary consequence of crediting God's testimony...is believing in
the Son of God; for He, and salvation in Him alone, form the grand subject
of God's testimony.
6. Faith
is also an obedience to God's command to believe (1 John 3:23).
Perhaps points 2 and 4 in the above list would be the easiest
of the lot to consider, with an eye towards explanation, but let us take at
least a brief look at each of the points in turn, while adding a little more
depth to those easier-to understand items as we come to them.
When we speak of "the substance of things hoped for",
point 1, we must first determine, what those things that we are hoping for
consist of. The primary substance of the Christian concern, is the hope for
salvation from the curse of sin. Our assurance of receiving that which we
desire (hope for) is the result of the faith
we have in God's Word, that He provided a Plan of Salvation, and that that Plan
was accomplished through the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of His
Blessed Son. This particular type of "faith" is probably best
described as: "Belief in God, religion, or spiritual things[2]".
This is one of the main ways a Christian uses this word.
In point 2, we have a definition of faith that is experienced
just as frequently by professed non-believers, as by believers. This same
definition, "the evidence of things not seen", really takes the force
out of any statement made by an individual who claims they have no faith, in
anything. There are countless examples I could use to illustrate this point,
but any single one of the few which follow should suffice.
For instance, when you get up in the morning and head off to
work, I don't imagine you take a couple of hundred pounds of lead weights with
you in an attempt to avoid flying off the surface of the earth into outer
space, or an oxygen bottle to prevent asphyxiation. Your faith in gravity and
atmospheric oxygen, both things that can't be seen, allow you to avoid all that
trouble. If I asked you why you bought your spouse flowers and you said it was
because of love, I wouldn't ask you to show it to me. My faith in the concept
of love would make me believe you. As you probably want to point out, there are
ways of testing for gravity, as well as for oxygen, but if you really think
there are definite ways of testing for actual love, I would simply point out
that not even a spouse could accomplish that, as testified to by the number of
people murdered each year by their partners, and even their own blood
relatives.
Point 3 is very similar to what we already discussed when
talking about Point 1. It is my faith in God's Word (His testimony) that is
behind my belief in His Son, and my faith in Jesus' teachings that are behind
my belief in the accuracy of Scripture. Until a person believes in God, they
will never have true belief in His Son, and thus the promises contained in the
Word do not pertain to them. In addition to not claiming those promises, they
should also not assume that just because those promises don't relate to them in
their current state of unbelief, that they are somehow false promises that
don't relate to anyone, at any time, including themselves should a time arrive,
when, by an action of their own free will, and the assistance of the Holy
Spirit, they choose to return unto their creator in faith and genuine belief.
Now point 4 is perhaps, in direct connection to our present
discussion, the true crux of the matter, and the point that relates most
clearly to the stance you have taken. In your request of the Lord in the prayer
you have stipulated, you can look at it in any manner that you so choose, but
in the end, one specific truth stands out from the rest; you are asking God to
provide proof of His existence. Since we already discussed the
inappropriateness of this when we discussed the matter of Gideon, I won't
rehash the entire thing again, but will simply quote the following Scripture as
support for what I said in that place.
Romans 1:17
Since, as points 2 and 4 make clear,
faith doesn't exist where there is sight (proof), and since you can have no
relationship to God without faith (as stated in the above-given Scripture),
your suggested prayer becomes a self-defeating prophecy, and has no validity. The concept
of God curing a specific case of cancer, in a specific situation, still leaves
enough question about his involvement in the matter, that it would only serve
to increase an individual's faith, whereas the curing of every case of cancer
in the world in one night, in direct answer to a prayer, would prove beyond any
question, God's existence, resulting in the loss of faith, and along with that,
the loss of any chance at salvation.
It should also be understood that faith is not the only way for
God to act, but it is the method that He has chosen to employ, and unlike you,
I refuse to anthropomorphize The Lord of Creation by demanding that He act in
what I see as the "accepted human manner". Also, unlike you, I am not
arrogant enough to think I can dictate to a Being of His Nature, nor am I
self-centered enough to think I can understand His reasons for acting in whatever
manner He so chooses. And we will pick up our discussion, regarding the
remaining points, and the rest of your "proof", tomorrow. Until
then....
