Monday, October 03, 2005

What is faith? part 3

I want to look at a few more passages, especially the ones that are commonly used to advocate this notion of "belief without reasons." You often hear people use the phrase, "child-like faith," and this is supposed to mean some kind of naive approach to Christianity. The idea comes from Matthew 18:2, Mark 10:15, and Luke 18:17 which says, "Whosoever shall not recieve the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." In Mark and in Luke, we're left to interpret for ourselves in what way we are to be like children in order to enter the kingdom of God, and most people seem to take it to mean we're supposed to have a blind and naive faith. That's where the phrase, "child-like faith" comes from. But I think this is a mistake for two reasons.

First, Matthew doesn't leave us to speculate about what it means. He clarifies it for us. He writes, "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." So far, he's saying the same thing as Mark and Luke, but he doesn't stop there. He goes on to say, "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." In answer to the question, "In what way are we to be like children?" we can see that it has nothing to do with naive thinking, but rather, it has to do with having humility. We are to enter the kingdom with humility, not with blind naive faith.

Second, if we take it to mean that we are to think like children in order to enter the kingdom, we will be in direct contradiction with Paul who wrote, "Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men" (1 Corinthians 14:20). In the NIV, it says, "Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults." Earlier in the same passage, he wrote, "When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things" (1 Cor 13:11). Clearly, then, the Bible doesn't advocate that we have "child-like faith." We are to be like children by being "innocent about what is evil" (Romans 16:19), but we are to be adults in our thinking because "a simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps" (Proverbs 14:15).

Part 4

6 comments:

Paul said...

The wrong (though common) understanding of this seems to be implying that we should be uneducated and unsophisticated in our thinking. When put in these terms I can hardly imagine Jesus or the apostles commending such a thing. I've also thought of childlike thinking including such things as belief and trust without psychological baggage and presuppositions, and a sense of awe and wonder about God and the creation.

Sam Harper said...

Not at all, Steve. If you read the history behind the Arian controversy, you'll see that every side was very intellectual in their approach. They used reason and arguments to support their views. The issue was settled by debate, not by fiat.

Paul said...

Let me also point out that in that Arian controversy, the question was not whether Jesus was merely human, but whether He was of the same essence as God. Even the heretics had stronger beliefs about Jesus' nature than any modern liberal would ever dream of conceding.

Sam Harper said...

Steve, I don't know as much about those schisms or how they were handled.

Sam Harper said...

Well, Steve, I don't agree with the churches actions in using physical force or coersion to enforce theology.

Sam Harper said...

Steve,

I definitely think politics has something to do with why certain forms of Christianity exist in certain parts of the world and not others, but it's hard to say to what degree that is true. Christianity itself continued to spread in spite of persecution for the first 200 years. Arians did not go away as a result of persecution, and neither did trinitarians. To this day, there are lots of unitarians still around. At most, I would say political oppression has some effect on the proliferation of ideas, but it doesn't determine those ideas.

But all of this is irrelevent to the question of whether the trinity is true or what the basis is for thinking it's true. The church has never based its belief in the trinity on the fact that it had enough political power to enforce it. Even while enforcing it through what we might consider inappropriate means, they still based it on the same reasoning and arguments that Athenasius and others based it on.