Ask a Philosopher: I often get questions in emails about my blog or books. I have been replying to these on email but decided I might also start posting answers as part of a series “ask a philosopher.” Who wouldn’t want to ask a philosopher something?
I recently gave a lecture on fideism and received some useful questions.
Q1: Didn’t Jesus say we should have faith like a child?
Reply: He also chastised his disciples for having little faith. He linked faith and understanding: “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread. Do you still not understand?” (Matt 16:8-9). So having faith like a child can’t mean having little faith and little understanding. Instead, it seems to be an example of “blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are the meek.” The child’s total dependence on the father and lack of self life. As a child grows up and becomes more mature he remains a child to the father. So this doesn’t even mean that one is to remain three years old forever. But instead, one grows up and grows in maturity and understanding of dependence on God which is also a deepening of that child-like dependence.
Q2: But doesn’t everyone have a starting point making everyone a fideist?
Reply: No, not all starting points are fideism. Some starting points need proof and some are inescapable. Starting with a claim like God exists, or all is matter, or this book is special revelation, is fideism. These have presuppositions that need to be identified and understood. Really the contrast for fideism is not proof but understanding and meaning. The fideist makes assertions and cannot follow up with understanding. It’s called a bald assertion or table pounding. Once one starts to try and justify or warrant the table pounding one is involved in proof and this can be critically analyzed for meaning. But in faith we understand and so can overcome trials or tests of faith (this is exemplified in Hebrews 11).
One can’t prove the very means of proof without relying on those means. This isn’t fideism. One cannot question if questioning is possible without becoming self-referentially absurd. That “a is a” or “a is not non-a” are the source of proof and doubt and therefore cannot be proven or doubted. Asserting that God exists, or the Bible is the Word of God, or that you had an experience of God, the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit, are all claims that someone can ask for further elaboration on meaning and proof. Fideism is about where you start beliefs not about starting with reason.
Q3: Are you saying that someone is not a Christian if they can’t prove with certainty that God exists?
Reply: No, not at all. This question could be about how we define “Christian,” or about what is “justification,” or what is “sanctification.” It seems that being a Christian is usually defined as believing certain things. For instance, that God the Creator exists, that I have sinned against God, that this sin requires redemption and that this redemption is only achieved through the atoning work of Christ.
What if we summarize this as all I want to know among you is Christ and him crucified (1 Cor 2:2). What does Christ and him crucified entail? Christ as the Word of God incarnate making God known. We see how this is presented in John 1:1. And we see how Paul develops this in Romans. So this phrase about knowing Christ and Him crucified is full of meaning and implications.
Or we could think of this with the faith of Abraham. Abraham was the father of the faithful which is a comment on his depth of understanding which allowed him to offer Isaac. Abraham “reasoned” that God could raise Isaac from the dead (Heb 11:19). By faith he understood. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen (Heb 11:1). It is that by which we understand that God created the world. (Heb 11:3). Our faith grows as our understanding grows and we see this in the lives of Abraham, the patriarchs, David, the disciples.
What happens both in us individually and in the history of the church is that questions get raised about the meaning of Christian beliefs as those beliefs are challenged. We see the faith deepened as these challenges are addressed in the creeds of the faith. This is true in the Apostles Creed, the Nicean Creed, and down to the confessions of the Reformation. So for instance, the Westminster Confession of Faith as a summary of the Reformation doctrines says the following in chapter 21.1:
“The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.”
That’s a significant number of things knowable by the light of nature. It doesn’t say that one must know these and give proof in order to be a Christian. That is more like asking “do I have to know these things?” Instead, it is saying “we get to know these things.” They are knowable.
We can take Hebrews 6 as a challenge and encouragement:
“Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2 instruction about cleansing rites, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And God permitting, we will do so.”
These are foundational things and Paul encourages us to get the foundation in place. They begin with acts that lead to death (the wages of sin is death) and faith in God (the eternal power of God is clear from the things that are made). These are foundational so that we can go on to maturity, they are not that maturity.
So to the original question, not every starting point is fideism, Christians aren’t defined by what they can prove, there is a distinction between justification and sanctification, and faith is related to meaning that deepens as we grow in understanding.