For a while now I’ve been contemplating the difficulty in the use of such terms as ‘faith’ and ‘hope’ in our modern/postmodern world. It is misleading in today’s world to use a lot of Christian terminology since the meanings of the words have changed. I read in Irenaeus’ work The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, written around the year 180, the following quote:
And faith is produced by the truth; for faith rests on things that truly are. For in things that are, as they are, we believe; and believing in things that are, as they ever are, we keep firm our confidence in them. Since then faith is the perpetuation of our salvation, we must needs bestow much pains on the maintenance thereof, in order that we may have a true comprehension of the things that are. Now faith occasions this for us; even as the Elders, the disciples of the Apostles, have handed down to us.
His point that faith is produced by the truth flies in the face of today’s use of the term ‘faith’. My point comes from this, that knowing something by faith does not mean that it is unreal or untrue. Not only is it possible for something to be true though known only by faith, but it is Irenaeus’ point that true Christian faith is true since it is “produced by the truth” and “rests on things that truly are”.
Faith, in Biblical terms, is always in opposition to sight, not to rationality. That is however not the way it is used in today’s world. Now we are likely to hear someone say, “Well, you gotta have faith,” when there is no reason to believe that the object of their faith is real or possible. It is now the last resort, the finger in the dam of truth. In effect, faith is today seen in opposition to truth.
The Bible uses the term rather differently. We are told that believers “walk by faith and not by sight” and that faith is “the evidence of things not seen.” By this definition I could say that I have faith that my car is parked in the parking lot outside of my apartment. I don’t really know for sure because I’m relying on the testimony of my wife that she parked it there. I suppose the car could have been stolen since then, but it’s not likely. It may have been hit by an asteroid or spontaneously combusted, but that is far less likely. I can’t see it right now, but I believe it based on the evidence and probability. That’s an example of faith in opposition to sight, maybe not a perfect illustration, but it’s close.
Take faith in the existence of certain people as another example. I have faith that my great-grandfather existed. I never saw him and have never seen a picture of him. I don’t even know his name or anything about his life. I know virtually nothing about him, but I have faith that he existed based on the evidence that I am here and the probability that my grandfather was virgin-born is fairly low.
In contrast, someone might have faith that Santa Claus exists and gives presents to kids at Christmas. They have never seen him, but they’ve seen pictures, as it were. They know a lot about him, about his story and about where he lives and what he does. The difference is that there’s no real evidence that Santa Claus exists.
A child might have faith in the existence of Santa and in the existence of their great-grandfather. You can’t say that the fact that they know something through faith ultimately determines the truth value of their beliefs. Rather you have to look at faith claims based on the evidence and testimony of others who historically have seen.
“And Lord, haste the day when our faith shall be sight.”
Tessera Sola 