Chapter 2 faith - Summary Theology: the basics PDF

Preview

Summary

Summary of the chapter...

Description

What is faith?: McGrath introduces both the textbook and the chapter by digging to the root of what allows Christian religion to even be possible, which is our faith, or our trust in God and what he says. He contrasts faith as it pertains to religion with faith as it pertains to general knowledge, and discerns the two by emphasizing that faith does equate to blind, unjustifiable belief as it may seem when juxtaposed with the facts and visible proof of subjects such as science or history. The author stresses that God and faith in Him is more complicated and, using the backing of philosophical theory, she makes the claim that nothing worth believing in can be proved in a conventional way. I think this set the tone for the chapter by urging readers who may not believe to open their minds to the possibility of trusting with more than what the eyes can see, while reaffirming to those who do believe that belief in God should not feel silly or naive and providing them with a defense. Can God’s existence be proved?: With the concept of blind faith addressed, the author goes on to discuss that while there are strong arguments in favor of the existence of God, trying to make sense of His existence in the same way that you would prove a theorem does an injustice to what it means to trust in God. Next, we delve into the history of Thomas Aquinas and the influence his Summa Theologiae and Summa contra Gentiles have had on the practice of modern Christianity and, of which, the latter serves as a relevant testament to the rationality of faith and the existence of God. His “five ways” of demonstrating God’s existence explain that the reflection of God and his status as creator can be observed in the nature of the world itself and, using the first “way,” he identifies God as the single cause of the series of motion and changes that make up our universe. Although combated by Darwin’s theory of evolution, using the fifth “way,” Aquinas further elaborates that the nature of the world displays deliberate purpose and forethought, and because things cannot design themselves or assign their own purpose, they must have been designed by none other than God himself; the author then utilizes Paley’s “watch and watchmaker” analogy to support this notion. While these points don’t disprove evolution or any other theories on the creation of the universe, I think they use reason in a logical way to construct a rational argument for the God being the intelligent designer behind everything we see. For Christians and believers alike, it complements what they already presume and for those who speculate or cannot accept that creation is more than a series of naturally occurring events, this offers itself as a sufficient alternative way of thinking. Are these proofs of any use? However, McGrath does not exclude counterarguments from the discussion and presents Pascal’s views, which state that the proofs use reason to explain the possibility of the universe being a creation of God rather than using it to explain the existence of God Himself, as opposition. While he didn’t disqualify the idea that God does exist, Pascal argued that the proofs provided by Aquinas did nothing to prove His existence either, as, according to him, it is just as hard to prove or disprove God’s existence as it is to prove the atheist ideology that nothing exists. He

maintained that even if the god spoken of as the Creator in the proofs did exist, it did not seem likely that this was the same God spoken of in the Bible. Similarly, Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein also criticized the proofs as unable to stand alone as a reasoned argument in favor of the existence of God and, too, unable to convince anyone to believe who didn’t have some amount of belief in God already. I appreciate that the author included this section because it allows the discussion surrounding the text, and that the reader has in their mind while reading it, to have a more well-rounded understanding of the information that exists on the topic. Faith is beyond reason but not contrary to reason: Reason has long been associated as a founding principle of philosophy and, using a letter written by Pope John Paul II’s, McGrath highlights the idea that humans naturally seek the truth, which God reveals to them through the partnership of faith and reason. As powerful as the will to know and understand the ultimate truth is, it cannot be done with just reason alone and faith allows for those revelations to occur. Polkinghorne takes this idea a step further, expanding that faith in God is faith based on evidence offered by the “highly suggestive” displays of nature around us rather than faith based in believing the impossible. Faith and God’s promises: This section moves from believing in God to trusting on God and provides historical examples of such instances. One example lies in Martin Luther’s perspective of faith as a relationship of trust between God, the merciful promiser, and Christians, accepters and believers of those promises. Using three main points, Luther breaks downs the complexity of faith into the idea that, firstly, Christians cannot grow their trust in God through their faith in the testimonies of the gospels alone but rather through their own experiences of trusting in God and witnessing his reliability. Secondly, he offers that in order to experience God’s faithfulness, believers must undoubtedly trust in God to carry them through to safety as a sailor on sea trusts its ship enough to get into it. He also reassures that it is the faith itself, and not the amount of it, that we place in God that matters because no matter the varying intensity of our faith, he remains the same God to us. Third, Luther concludes that it is through this commitment that the relationship between the believer and God is able to grow and open itself to a cradle of rewards such as forgiveness and hope. Faith and doubt: the problem of suffering: This section deals with a common question that arises both inside and outside of Christianity, which stems from the inability of faith to ever fully prove its claims without contradicting its own nature, and that is why God allows for pain and suffering if God is essentially good. To confront his, the ideas of Irenaeus of Lyons are proposed. It was his belief that exposure to good and evil is the only way to allow humans to experience growth or maturity and to learn to make informed decisions. Hicks complements this notion by adding that free will allows for humans to become complete and what God intends for them to be. Plantinga, contributing another take on the same idea, bids that free will, and the option to abuse it, are choices offered to us by God as

part of His way of presenting us with the best possible world. Cycling back to the initial question, then, Moltmann, gives the idea that God, in being the good and perfect God that He is, also suffers the pain of the world with us rather than inflicting it or allowing it to take place without intervention. A fifth and final theorists, Bonhoeffer expresses that it is through the church and the shared suffering of believers with God that we become most Christ-like and that we finally allow God to perfect us. However, with all of that said, there is apparently still debate over the true essence of God and his existence in relations to the suffering of humans. Engaging with the text: The final section emphasizes the importance of the reader learning how to consume the dense texts of theologians in a way that allows for the best understanding of the information offered. It examines the words of John Calvin and analyzes the selection of the words used and the meaning to suggest a specific way that the text is being conveyed. Overall, this chapter for me addressed a lot of common theme and questions that I have had myself when logically examining not only Christianity, but any belief system. It also presents the information in a presumably unbiased manner, letting the reader to draw their own conclusions from what it presented. My question on the content is: What two things combined did Pope John Paul II say allow for God to reveal the ultimate truth to believers? My discussion question is: What are others’ thoughts on the explanation for why God, if he is indeed a good God, allows for pain and suffering to occur? Do you find the argument believable and justifiable?...