my first impression of this thought/picture is negative...
aren't faith and doubt opposites? just as light and darkness are opposites, and darkness cannot be present where there is light... or can faith and doubt be present in the same moment/situation/heart/life? if that's true than doubt cannot be faith's shadow, but faith's opposite. truly they don't fit into the same picture
am i wrong? this is just my first impression, written as the it formed. what do you think, mark? others?
To me, faith requires doubt. After all, if there is no opportunity for doubt, then it is not faith, correct? Doubt is a necessary part of faith. I don't like it, but I accept it.
I'm reminded again of this classic Frederick Buechner quote:
"I can hardly even imagine what kind of an experience a genuine, self-authenticating religious experience would be. Without somehow destroying me in the process, how could God reveal himself in a way that would leave no room for doubt? If there were no room for doubt, there would be no room for me."
Or, to put it another way, if there is no room for doubt in life (i.e. you have objective certainty) there would be no need for God.
Notice how Paul defines faith in Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen"
Faith is connected with conviction that something is true, not objectively knowing it is true, which means, I think, it includes the heart as well as the head.
(The NIV is alone among modern translations to use the term "certain" instead of something like "conviction". But it seems to me that "certainty" is a loaded word these days (meaning something along the lines of "objective knowledge") . And anyway, it doesn't make much sense: how could you be certain in an objectively knowing way about something that has not been seen? You can't, except *by faith*.)
Oh, and here's a quote from Daniel Taylor, which is what I was thinking of when rewording Buechner's words:
"Normally doubt is seen as sapping faith’s strength. Why not the reverse? Where there is doubt, faith has its reason for being. Clearly faith is not needed where certainty supposedly exists..."
12 comments:
Off topic but I believe you have mentioned the Rich Dad - Poor Dad people before, and there is a 5th estate on them tonite on CBC. Cheers
Cool, what time?
my first impression of this thought/picture is negative...
aren't faith and doubt opposites? just as light and darkness are opposites, and darkness cannot be present where there is light... or can faith and doubt be present in the same moment/situation/heart/life? if that's true than doubt cannot be faith's shadow, but faith's opposite. truly they don't fit into the same picture
am i wrong? this is just my first impression, written as the it formed. what do you think, mark? others?
*if THAT'S true ("that" referring to them being opposites)
*written as it was formed
(it's after 1 am over here, but i'll not be blaming the time for my typos!)
dayna :)
I believe faith and fear are considered opposites.
I think faith and doubt work together sometimes.
"I believe... help thou my unbelief" has always been reassuring to me. I do think it's okay to doubt.
To me, faith requires doubt. After all, if there is no opportunity for doubt, then it is not faith, correct? Doubt is a necessary part of faith. I don't like it, but I accept it.
The opposite of faith is unbelief, not doubt.
I'm reminded again of this classic Frederick Buechner quote:
"I can hardly even imagine what kind of an experience a genuine, self-authenticating religious experience would be. Without somehow destroying me in the process, how could God reveal himself in a way that would leave no room for doubt? If there were no room for doubt, there would be no room for me."
Or, to put it another way, if there is no room for doubt in life (i.e. you have objective certainty) there would be no need for God.
Notice how Paul defines faith in Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen"
Faith is connected with conviction that something is true, not objectively knowing it is true, which means, I think, it includes the heart as well as the head.
(The NIV is alone among modern translations to use the term "certain" instead of something like "conviction". But it seems to me that "certainty" is a loaded word these days (meaning something along the lines of "objective knowledge") . And anyway, it doesn't make much sense: how could you be certain in an objectively knowing way about something that has not been seen? You can't, except *by faith*.)
My 2 cents!
Oh, and here's a quote from Daniel Taylor, which is what I was thinking of when rewording Buechner's words:
"Normally doubt is seen as sapping faith’s strength. Why not the reverse? Where there is doubt, faith has its reason for being. Clearly faith is not needed where certainty supposedly exists..."
Post a Comment