Hello Readers and welcome-or welcome back-to Renaissance Woman where, this week, I am continuing my study on the Whole Armor of God with my particular focus on the Shield of Faith.

I shared both the dictionary definition of faith in last week’s post and my disagreement with the first two entries of that definition.  These two entries define faith as an unquestioning belief that requires no proof or evidence and an unquestioning belief in God or religious tenets.  It isn’t until I read to the fifth and sixth entries that I find definitions that match the meaning of the Greek word translated by our English “belief” and “faith” in the New Testament.

Those definitions are “complete trust, confidence, or reliance” and “allegiance to some person or thing, loyalty”.  Even these definitions don’t quite convey the meaning of the Greek word pistis which, while it can be defined as trust, was originally used to describe conduct that honored an agreement or bond.  Such an agreement or bond was expected to be tested in critical situations and so the experience of faithfulness (or unfaithfulness) belongs to the idea of faith from the beginning (Brown, 594).  Thus, we see that faith was originally a covenant word and one’s faith in another was neither blind nor unquestioning but forged and proven in the crucible of experience.

As the prevailing philosophical and religious influences shifted, the meaning of pistis altered somewhat.  The Hellenistic period was a time of struggle with skepticism and atheism (much like our day) and pistis as faith in God began to refer to a theoretical conviction.  Stress was laid on the belief that life was constituted in accordance with this conviction but, instead of the covenant bond, there is a shift toward a conviction based on the intellect and conditioned by tradition. (See Brown, 595)

During this time (again, much like our day) there was an esoteric definition of pistis or faith where faith was defined as a higher form of knowledge.  The mystery religions of ancient times assigned pistis to the realm of the nous (Reason, Mind) so it was not in any way considered to be unquestioning or blind nor were the “faithful” thought to have abandoned all reason.  Quite the contrary.  This knowledge of faith meant man had been led out of the realm of the Logos, his spirit had found rest in this knowledge, and he was thus made to participate in the divine.  The danger of this is that such knowledge of faith belonged only to those initiated into the mystery religion and “all had the same demand to hand: ‘believe, if you would be saved, or begone’ [Origen, Contra Cels, 6, 11]” (Brown, 595).

The truth is everyone has faith.  There would be no relationships without faith because the very fact one is in a relationship-whether marriage, friendship, whatever the type of relationship may be-means that one person has put trust in the faithfulness of another, which is pistis in action.  I recently heard someone quoting from an article in a scientific journal where insistence was made a certain idea belonged to the realm of faith rather than science.  Faith was an object of ridicule in this article and science alone could be trusted.  But scientists too, have faith.

There are many scientific theories presented as fact that still are not proven or backed by solid convincing evidence.  However, there are those who believe there is enough to suggest these theories might be unequivocally proven one day and they have dedicated their lives to making those discoveries. Few would call this faith but faith is what it is in that these searchers for truth are doing so in the conviction their theory is true, that their trust is not misplaced, and that the evidence is discoverable.  If scientists did not have this type of faith, all scientific inquiry would cease.  If there is no belief that man is trustworthy and thus the thoughts generated by his own mind are trustworthy, and then that the universe is both searchable and understandable and thus there is more to discover than what is now known, why even bother?

I don’t know of many scientists who would say their convictions are the result of unquestioning belief that have required no proof nor evidence.  I agree and merely wish to assert once more my insistence that it does not follow that having faith in God means one has abandoned all reason.  Pistis never held the definition of unquestioning belief that does not require proof nor evidence.

Are there those religious denominations similar to the mystery religions of ancient times?  Of course.  I cannot deny there are such denominations declaring their leader alone has divine revelation nor do I deny that refusal to have faith in the leader’s revelation results in ostracism.  I would point out this type of behavior is not confined to religious organizations.  I have heard the stories of scientists who have lost their jobs because they questioned the tenets of their organization and I have heard the stories of those living in fear of losing their jobs if they openly ask the questions they have.  Those in charge of these systems-whether religious or non-would argue vociferously if it was suggested they have come by their tenets without proof or evidence.

The defining of words is not static.  The meaning of a word becomes that which is held by the majority of the population and our dictionaries reflect this shift.  I give the publishers of our dictionaries credit in that the definition held by the majority of the population is not the only one included, it just takes a little digging to understand what the word meant during the time it was written down and what meaning those who used it intended to convey. 

I hope I have shared enough that all who read this can, in their own minds, know with certainty that pistis which is the Greek word translated by our English “faith” and “belief”, does not, and never did, mean an unquestioning belief that requires no proof or evidence.  You may have this definition thrown at you by someone who wishes to ridicule your belief in God but stand firm my Fellow Believer!  You know in your heart of hearts that there was an instant: it might have been a something a loved one said or a teaching, or a situation: whatever it was there was something that persuaded you God is real.  That instant was enough to cling to Him through the inevitable trials and tribulations of life where He has proved Himself faithful over and over again.  There is no need to involve yourself in foolish or stupid arguments guaranteed to produce quarrels (2 Timothy 2:23-26) but neither is there any need to accept a definition simply because you are told it is so.  Test everything!

Now, we can take the dictionary definition of faith as a personal challenge.  On what is our faith based?  Is our belief one we have come to through intellectual persuasion, is it one conditioned by tradition, or is a vital living faith that has been tested in fiery trials and come out the stronger?  Is our faith that of mankind or is it the faith of Jesus Christ?  That is what I seek to explore in the upcoming weeks.  Until then, I offer up this prayer: may the faith of each one of us rest not in the wisdom of men but in the power of God (1 Corinthians 2-5).

Amen.

Some resources if you are interested in reading the works of some who are boldly questioning:

Berlinski, David, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

Carlson, Richard F, Science and Christianity: Four Views with contributions by Wayne Frair, Gary D. Patterson, Jean Pond, Stephen C. Meyer, Howard J. Van Till

Guillen, Michael, Believing is Seeing: A Physicist Explains How Science Shattered His Atheism and Revealed the Necessity of Faith

Lennox, John C., Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target

Lennox, John C., Seven Days That Divide the World

Martin, Jobe, The Evolution of a Creationist: A Layman’s Guide to the Conflict Between the Bible and Evolutionary Theory

Meyer, Stephen C., Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design

Wiester, John, The Genesis Connection

References

Brown, Colin, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Volume I, Regency Reference Library, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1967, 1986

Guralnik, David B., Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition, William Collins + World Publishing Co., Inc., Cleveland • New York, 1953, 1976