Case For Faith

Sometimes when we hear the word justification we find it accompanied by other “ation” words: sanctification, glorification, propitiation, regeneration and imputation. These words are from time to time used interchangeably. This can be confusing and needs to be clarified before continuing. Imputation is where credit has been given. It can also mean to lay responsibility on someone. With God, imputation is where He accounts righteousness to the believer. Sanctification is separate from justification. Justification is about one’s position with God; sanctification is about one’s spiritual condition. Propitiation is defined in “Reformation tradition as the satisfaction of divine wrath upon sin”. Regeneration is the creation of a new heart and new spirit. This change of heart and spirit is what allows us to live righteous lives. Glorification comes once we receive our heavenly reward. It is the completion of our salvation.

John Hick argues in this writing that the all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good Christian god is compatible with an abundance of suffering. He offers solutions to the problem of suffering which relies heavily upon a tripartite foundation. Hick divides evil into two: Moral Evil = the evil that human being cause - either to themselves or to each other. And Non-Moral Evil = the evil that is not caused by human activity - natural disasters, etc. He tries to explain that a world without pain and suffering, moral traits such as courage, patience and sympathy would not be developed.

How is the term justification defined by scholars? What is your own definition based on your research?

Many of the choices we make, using our free will, lead to suffering. We participate in risky behavior, without thinking of the consequences. For example, people that smoke have greater chances of developing health problem (e.g., cancer), which results in pain and suffering. This type of suffering is caused by our errors and mistakes. Many of the choice we make have consequences, but is it is impossible to live in a way in which we do not take risks. Furthermore, God's existence comes from intellect and not the sense, but suffering is felt through through our senses, whether it be external or internal pain. Suffering is adventitious and not

In life, there is a constant battle ensuing over faith and reason. Those two things are constantly feeding off of each other in someone’s mind when making a decision. Over time in which some say is a great conversation about history this battle is changing. The Great Conversation of history spans over many eras where the questions of faith and reason are always things battling for a spot in our minds, but they shouldn’t be in battle because they are very much dependent on the other. Among the time periods from Ancient Greece, the Enlightenment, and the 19th century, writers such as Socrates, Kant, and Martin Luther King Jr have looked at the issue of faith and reason.

As I was watching the Frontline Video, Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero, I was immediately faced with the question about evil. It is hard to imagine how someone could do something so horrific in the name of religion. So many lives were forever changed during the events that transpired on Tuesday morning, Sept. 11, 2001. As a believer of God, I could certainly identify with the feelings of the people who lost loved ones during the 9/11 tragedy.

Faith, defined as a strong belief in something which cannot be proven, has been argued over countless generations. Still, even without proof, individuals worldwide hold true to their faith each day. After studying faith and religion in texts written by scholars with varying backgrounds, it is easy to see faith is something which is widely disputed. Comparison of Sigmund Freud’s The Future of an Illusion and Paul Tillich’s Dynamics of Faith, fully displays the discrepancies in points of view on the function of faith, as well as the necessity of faith, in society; while the comparison of Viktor E. Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning and Karl Marx’s “on the Future of Religion,” demonstrate both similarities and differences

Since the 19th century, William Clifford and William James have been the foremost religious theorist and have attempted to answer significant creation and theological mysteries. However, Clifford and James have varying views on the belief debate, each formulating a rational argument of what the basis for belief should be. Clifford’s, Ethics of Belief and James’ The Will to Believe outline their respective arguments which are vastly similar and but have marked differences. Both articles will be examined for these similarities and difference and stated within this paper.

William Rowe defines gratuitous evil as an instance of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.(Rowe 335) In a world with so much evil it raises the questions If God is all powerful, all knowing and all good, how can he allow bad things to happen to good people? Can God even exist in a world with so such gratuitous evil? These are questions that has afflicted humanity for a very long time and has been the question to engross theologians for centuries. The existence of evil has been the most influential and powerful reason to disprove the existence of God. It is believed among many theist that God is the creator and caretaker

In the report, The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel was the main focus of study and discussion on the strongest objections of Christianity, additionally, the book following Lee Strobel as he sought answers intentionally to disprove Christianity. However, there were circumstances which led to him proving the case as to why faith in God is justified. Accordingly, the main task of this report provided answers to the theological objections proposed in the book. Given these points, a conclusion arose on the contents of the book disputing whether the information in the book is valid, as the overall opinions on the book were confirmed.

The problem of evil has been around since the beginning. How could God allow such suffering of his “chosen people”? God is supposedly all loving (omni-benevolent) and all powerful (omnipotent) and yet He allows His creations to live in a world of danger and pain. Two philosophers this class has discussed pertaining to this problem is B.C. Johnson and John Hick. Johnson provides the theists’ defense of God and he argues them. These include free will, moral urgency, the laws of nature, and God’s “higher morality”. Hick examines two types of theodicies – the Augustinian position and the Irenaeus position. These positions also deal with free will, virtue (or moral urgency), and the laws of nature. Johnson

These passions, like great winds, have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a deep ocean of anguish, reaching to the very verge of despair. Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people a hated burden to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate the evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer.3 The Greek philosopher Epicurus is most likely the first recognized philosopher to ask how the existence of evil could be compatible with the nature of God (The Wrath of God 13).4 According to Epicurean philosophy, the notions of good and evil are identified with pleasure and pain respectively. The Epicurean claim is that only pleasure is good. Accordingly, this translates into “pursue pleasure (good) and avoid pain (evil).”5 David Hume in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion says of Epicurus: “Epicurus’ old questions are yet unanswered. Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”6 Even if Epicurus is regarded as the first to raise

Pope John Paul II once said, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.” (Fallible Blogma) Based on this significant and powerful quote, one can infer that faith and reason are directly associated and related. It can also be implied that the combination of faith and reason allows one to seek information and knowledge about truth and God; based on various class discussions and past academic teachings, it is understood that both faith and reason are the instruments that diverse parties

As I sat in the church pew trying not to ask questions or cry uncontrollably I wonder if I will ever see him again. We all knew that he was not the boy that the pastor was remembering from vacation bible school. He had grown into someone we did not recognize. The kind of person who gets in trouble with the law and has to spend time in rehab. The guy that goes to a party and then never comes home. Elliot was never coming home and for the first time in my life I realized that the death of a loved one could be the last time I see them. My cousin was gone forever.

It is not whether a person has faith or they don’t, or whether they believe it or not. Everyone has faith, and we all trust things that we cannot prove all the time. However, how reliable or reasonable is faith? The term ‘faith’ is commonly referred to having complete trust in someone or something, or even having a strong belief in a religion. However, there may be no tangible evidence. On the other hand, reason contradicts faith, where information is taken and compared to the knowledge you already have, and a conclusion is produced.