Faith Part I: The Problem

In a way I am jumping the gun. If one wishes to keep a strict chronological approach in relating the ordo salutis (order of salvation, or the ordering of the steps in the process of salvation) then one needs to begin with grace. Indeed the oft repeated reformation mantra sola fide is inaccurate and does not really get at the meat of what the reformer Luther wanted to say. If we had to center on one element the correct mantra for salvation would be sola gratia (grace alone). If we allow two elements in our description of salvation, then, and only then, does faith come into the picture. Salvation is by grace through faith. In other words, the main emphasis in salvation is on God’s grace and He has arranged things so that this grace is salvific when appropriated through faith. Nothing of what I have just said should be controversial to an orthodox Christian. Protestants as well as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox should be able to agree at least upon this (it is the exact nature of this appropriation of grace that is the bone of contention).

So, why am I starting in the middle, with faith, and not beginning with the true foundation of salvation: grace? Well, for starters, faith is often so misunderstood. This is especially true in Protestant circles. But beyond this, a right understanding of faith can crack open salvation theology and an inadequate understanding can stall even the most eloquent ordo salutis. For good or for ill, a person’s understanding of faith will color nearly every other element of their paradigm of salvation. And for ill (not good) issues surrounding faith have been the largest divider of Protestants and high church traditions. Although neither side is without blame, I have found Protestants to harbor particularly incoherent and inaccurate views of just what faith is. The great thing is, a lot of these issues can be cleared up with just a little dabble into philosophy (really just a little dabble into common sense once philosophy has done the preparatory analytical work). My goal then, is to show how Protestants and high church traditions alike can come together on the nature of faith. I will do this through a careful analysis of just what faith is and how it works within the economy of salvation (or within: how salvation is actually worked out). But before we get to the nature faith and its place in salvation theology, we must first delineate what faith is not. And in order to do this we must begin with a problem.

The Problem: Faith is a Choice, Belief is Not

What could be simpler than salvation by grace through faith? Where exactly is the problem? The problem arises when we consider some common conceptions of what faith is in concert with what philosophy (or just some common sense reflection) reveals.

Salvation begins with God’s grace. Historically, Christians have maintained that in order to be efficacious, this offer of grace must be accepted in faith. Hence, the common Christian belief that salvation is by grace through faith. It has also been commonly assumed that this faith is a choice. In other words, a person can either reject or accept God’s salvific grace. So far, so good.

Naturally the question arises, “What is the nature of this faith decision?” The traditional answer has been that one chooses to believe when one exercises the decision of faith. However, taken in the modern, purely notional sense, mere belief appears to be inadequate to account for the content of a faith decision. A decision is volitional by definition, but recent philosophy has concluded that belief, for the most part, is an involuntary state. Just think about it for a moment and you will realize by virtue of common sense what philosophers have labored in analytical detail to prove. Suppose, for example, that I see a basket of fruit before me on a table full of apples and oranges. If I actually look at the table (and my eyes and brain are working properly) I will involuntarily form a belief that I am seeing a basket of fruit. I cannot simply decide to not believe that I am seeing a basket of fruit. Nor is it as if I say to myself, “hmmm, do I wish to believe that I am seeing this basket of fruit? Yes, yes I do. I think I will form that belief . . . now!” The same thing applies to other less obvious beliefs.

For example, let us say that you ask your spouse to wash the dishes. You come home and they are not washed. Your spouse tells you that she (or he) forgot. Now you will form one of two beliefs: either they are telling you the truth, in which case they really forgot; or they are lying, in which case they purposefully avoided the chore for some reason. You will have a bunch of evidence at your disposal in order to form a belief. You probably have some sense of how honest your spouse is and if they have ever lied to you before. You can read the body language of your spouse to detect the truthfulness of her (or his) statement. You may take into account if your spouse is particularly lazy, or if your spouse often forgets things. At best you may be able to decide not to consider all or any of the evidence. However, once you do consider the evidence you do not have a choice concerning belief formation. You will simply form a belief based on the evidence automatically and involuntarily. You cannot choose to believe the truthfulness of your spouse anymore than you can choose to believe that you are seeing a basket of fruit. You simply either believe it or you do not.

Here is where the problem arises. Most Christians, indeed most people in general, have assumed that one cannot be held accountable for an involuntary act or mental state. Thus, a tension results between a faith that is assumed to be volitional and a faith that is assumed to be primarily (or solely) notional (i.e. solely belief in content). One assumption will have to be relinquished: either faith is not volitional (and people are saved/condemned based on an involuntary belief) or faith is volitional and not primarily or merely notional (about belief).

A Way Forward

So this is the problem as it stands. In a few short paragraphs I have shown why “faith as belief” (at least belief in the modern, purely notional sense) is inadequate. Some Christians may go their entire lives without realizing this, and that is fine. I do not think you need to know the exact philosophical nature of faith in order to exercise it in a salvific fashion. However, this conception of faith is incoherent (upon careful consideration) and has led to some judgment of other Christians (especially the high church variety). In the coming weeks I will attempt to identify and evaluate some alternatives to this view of faith. Ultimately, I hope to construct a robust vision of Christian faith that stresses its active-volitional nature while downplaying the notional (belief oriented) content. It is this notion of faith that I feel, when properly understood, has great potential to bring Protestants and high church traditions together on issues concerning salvation theology.

Until next week . . . peace.