Faith

I show that having proof of God (Judeo-Christian) denies the possibility of salvation.

In order to begin our discussion on faith, we must first define what faith is. I will provide two definitions, one from Paul and the other from the handy-dandy dictionary.

Paul defines faith in Hebrews 11:1 as: “Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.”

The dictionary defines faith as: “Complete trust or confidence in someone or something” as well as “Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.”

I will discuss the first dictionary definition later in the paper, but for now I wish to deal only with only Paul’s and the second definition (as it directly deals with religion).

Evidence of things not seen. Strong belief in which has no proof. Paul’s definition appears to contradict the dictionary’s at surface glance, but in fact runs alongside it. If something is not seen, there is no direct tangible evidence. If there is no direct evidence, then faith becomes the ideals and ideas you believe and hold onto as a proof of God. Thus, Paul’s definition does not accredit faith as absolute fact bearing proof of God.

Ephesians 2:8 says, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.”

What this means is that we are saved by God’s grace, and the saving grace we receive is only received by having faith in God.

But I say look at the dictionary textbook definition of faith: “Strong belief based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.” This means that faith based on proof is not faith, but a belief in facts. Thomas did not have faith Jesus was raised from the dead, but rather needed and received evidence. Thomas did not have faith Jesus rose. The same applies in general: having proof, tangible undeniable proof, of God denies the possibility of faith.

If faith is denied by any means, and in this case by proof, then the grace cannot be applied to man. If this grace cannot be applied, then the salvation process comes to a screeching halt, and salvation becomes unavailable to those with this proof. However, we must apply both definitions of faith.

Faith is also defined as “complete trust or confidence in someone or something.” If we apply this definition to the previous verse, then grace yet again becomes possible. Or does it? If one has complete trust in someone, and in this case someone’s actions and being, then there is no requirement of proof. In fact, the presentation of proof, I would say, removes the adjective ‘complete’. Without complete fulfilling its role, then grace yet again becomes inactive and salvation by extension.

We can assume, however, that only the second dictionary definition applies because of Paul’s statement. Evidence of things not seen. This means no proof, which directly lines up with the second dictionary definition, as well as presents its own argument as well:

If Paul himself establishes faith as evidence where which there is none, then the bringing up of evidence makes faith inapplicable as there is now evidence which is seen. This then re-applies to the Ephesians verse, removing grace and, yet again, salvation by extension.