We usually speak of faith as a belief e.g. Christian faith.
But looking at Heb 11:1 it says...
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
In mathematical terms faith = substance = evidence
With you so far...
It does not say faith is what you hope for or something unseen.
The word "faith" itself is an abstract noun like "freedom, love, power, and redemption" meaning something theoretical and abstract.
I think you've missed something here since anyone can have faith in anything (or anyone) - misplaced or not. But the main place I would disagree here is that the faith described is not in the thing given, but in the giver. Otherwise, having faith that you will receive (whatever) is just faith in yourself. And since that obviously isn't scriptural, the tendency then is to make faith something (as you have said) abstract. But it really isn't. And I think that's where the whole "evidence" thing is tripping you up (if I'm reading you correctly). Remember, it is the evidence of things
not seen. And that apparent dichotomy is troublesome if the understanding of faith is in the thing itself (or in yourself). But if it is implicitly in God, then faith is understood to be trust - and I would even say an accompanying assurance - that God is faithful who has promised. And that is why Abraham could trust God and never, his entire natural life, received what God actually promised.
But as you read Hebrews 11 more, you realize that it was even more than just a settled "feeling" that God would provide. Abraham "...
looked for a city whose builder and maker is God." (Heb 11:10). Which leads very nicely into verse 13 that makes it crystal clear that this faith reveals that He has promised an eternal habitation to the faithful - something that goes beyond natural understanding. They could, in essence, continue to look and say "Nope. That's not it." all their lives because the trust they have in God wasn't just "He will provide" but even more that He had something more than what they saw. Otherwise, why not settle for some natural country (11:15)? So implicit in that faith (or trust) is the evidence - the recognition that there is something more. That God has provided something more - and that while they might not know precisely what that might be, they know it when they see it (and they know what isn't it when they see that).
And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
Hebrews 11:39-40
To this add James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
And one gets faith = substance = evidence = works.
I would change that slightly to (faith=substance=evidence)-->works
Works
are not faith. But the man who doesn't act on what he knows from the God he trusts really can't be said to have faith, can he?
Look at every example of faith in Heb 11 and it is always accompanied by an action, or a work. Even God's faith in verse 3 has a work (creating the earth).
Again, it isn't God's faith, it is our understanding. Even though we didn't see God create, we have the evidence for it in Creation. But that only goes to the original point I had about where faith lies. As for it requiring works, it flows just as naturally from faith as water over a fall. The water isn't the waterfall, but it certainly does fall in the event it goes over an edge.
So we can hope for something and believe in something, but if it has no substance, no evidence, no work, no action - then is it true Biblical faith?
I would argue that it isn't true faith period. It's like saying I believe this chair will hold me and then selecting another chair. That said, the nature of faith doesn't say that sitting on the chair IS trust - rather that it evidences that trust. It seems like too fine a point, but it is critical if one is to be able to read James and Paul as saying something slightly different (and so not directly contradicting one another on so critical an issue). James is being very practical. Paul is speaking about the faith
itself.
Paul seems at times to criticise works based faith.
But he holds up Abraham as our father in the faith.
Yet, Abraham's believed God, and showed it by works.
Probably James is the most insistent that faith without works is dead.
So insistent is he that he says it 7 times in one Chapter viz. James Chapter 2.
My question then is this. Can faith be a belief system only? Does it have to be accompanied by action or substance or evidence?
Paul is very much dealing with faith and justification by faith. That is, he is treating what it is - not how it expresses itself. And therein (I think) lies a critical distinction for understanding where faith lies. If it lies in one's self, then the act itself can be considered faith and you can then justify yourself by your actions. But if faith is in Christ, then there is no work needed by you because the faith itself is not in you or in the thing itself (salvation or justification) but in the one giving it.
Corrie Ten Boom was quoted as saying (I'm paraphrasing) that in the concentration camp, she had no faith - she only had Jesus. She said that if her trust was in her own faith, then she would have failed. But because it was in Christ (or came to be solidified in Him) then she was able to persevere and was delivered. In other words, her faith was not by works, but that faith in Christ brought her to a place where she could (and did) work. It seems a trifling point, but it makes all the difference in the world when the trying of our faith comes...
