Faith and reason are both sources of authority upon which beliefs can rest. Reason generally is understood as the principles for a methodological inquiry, whether intellectual, moral, aesthetic, or religious. Thus is it not simply the rules of logical inference or the embodied wisdom of a tradition or authority. Some kind of algorithmic demonstrability is ordinarily presupposed. Once demonstrated, a proposition or claim is ordinarily understood to be justified as true or authoritative. Faith, on the other hand, involves a stance toward some claim that is not, at least presently, demonstrable by reason. Thus faith is a kind of attitude of trust or assent. As such, it is ordinarily understood to involve an act of will or a commitment on the part of the believer. Religious faith involves a belief that makes some kind of either an implicit or explicit reference to a transcendent source. The basis for a person's faith usually is understood to come from the authority of revelation. Revelation is either direct, through some kind of direct infusion, or indirect, usually from the testimony of an other. The religious beliefs that are the objects of faith can thus be divided into those what are in fact strictly demonstrable (scienta) and those that inform a believer's virtuous practices (sapientia).
Religious faith is of two kinds: evidence-sensitive and evidence-insensitive. The former views faith as closely coordinated with demonstrable truths; the latter more strictly as an act of the will of the religious believer alone. The former includes evidence garnered from the testimony and works of other believers. It is, however, possible to hold a religious belief simply on the basis either of faith alone or of reason alone. Moreover, one can even lack faith in God or deny His existence, but still find solace in the practice of religion.
__________________
"Blessed is He who Comes in The Name of The Lord"
Quick answer is no. But I must admit when the hair gets up I think differently. That probably is a rather worldly thing and only indicates pride, vanity what ever. True faith is without doubt and can't always be justified by some historical happening. Is that what you said Alex.uh more or less?
The answer clearly is the word of God needs no defense whatsoever. It is when we get caught up in defending that we lose faith that those that hear his voice are those that are called. For it is not those that have seen (or have been convinced by force)and believe, but those that have not seen (nor question)that shall be saved. Jesus did not try to defend his position and neither should we.
__________________
Jesus said, "he who stands firm to the end will be saved" Mark 13:13.
Live Life in such a way that those who do not know Christ will come to know Him because they know you
IMHO Yes..there are times we need to defend our faith/ The faith.
IMHO I don't see a place to split theological hairs but yes..at times.
Example...
While Lyn's brother was with us and we were in the hospitol waiting to see her dad ;Perry was telling us of a wonderful psychic he had been communicating with. My wife and I listened for about 10 minutes and then my wife spoke up boldly contending that Jesus was the only Way and that communicating through these folks was an abomination. I've spoke up numerous times myself. This as I understand Leaf is defending the faith. Once a man made fun of me for carrying my "Babe New Testament in my pocket and for worshipping Jesus" I contended with this man....Later he was arrested for drugs and I won him over as I visited him in jail... Actually I've contended alot. I do try to be led of God though and make sure the subject is worth contending and if God is leading me.I've also blew it numerous times as well.
Chuck7
1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
I feel it's important to defend the faith. We are in a spiritual war and are constantly being bombarded with worldy and secular philosophies. The verse above was given as a command, not a suggestion. If we want to not only survive, but thrive, we need to heed these words.
__________________ And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
Paul said that he was set for the defence of the gospel. Phil 1:17 I think Paul was speaking as God was directing him. Some will say that no good can come from defending the Gospel, but I think Acts 13 will show that is not always the truth. Verse 8 El'-y-mas the sorcerer withstood Barnabas and Saul, seeking to turn the deputy from the faith. Verse 10 Paul rebukes him. Verse 11 he is smitten with blindness. Verse 12 As a result the deputy becomes a believer, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord. The question is, would the deputy have been converted if Paul had used the popular teaching of refusing to raise his voice for fear of causing division among the brethern? Is this an example of one who would perhaps remained unsaved if El'-y-mus had been unanswered for fear of not showing the love of God?
IMO When brethern are contending, and seeking the common ground of truth, this is not defending, but reasoning as a deeper knowledge and understanding is the desired result.
Since the Bible proclaims that Jesus is"the author and finisher of our faith;" it really needs no defense. However, if you preach your own faith, then by nature you will have to defend it, but man by himself can never defend what comes from man.
Since the Bible proclaims that Jesus is "the author and finisher of our faith;" it really needs no defense. However, if you preach your own faith, then by nature you will have to defend it, but man by himself can never defend what comes from man.
I would like it if you would explain the mechanics of what you just posted . . break it down to explain to me why we need not defend against false doctrine.
__________________ And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
Does Faith Need Defending?
uh more or less?
