 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 1/25/2005 2:43 PM (GMT -6) |   |
Hey all,
In order not to hijack Selah's thread about Meph's positions, I thought that I would start a new discussion to address the "fides qua (the act of faith/the faith which believes) and fides quae (the content of what one believes/the faith which is believed)." distinction brought up by Modes.
I agree with Modes on a lot of what he says in his posts. Just because one has a good command of "fides quae" does not mean that they are giants of "fides qua". I also agree that fides qua is a gift of God's previent grace, and in that sense fides qua is primary.
However, I have some questions about what Modes says....
Modes: "It is principly fides quae that we debate on these pages. Fides qua should be pretty resistant to modifications in fides quae...... It is a misguided pursuit from the jump since the Truth, Ultimate Reality, is not an object, but a Subject. And we have nothing like "objective access" to this Ultimate Reality. Of course, given this, the most profound and meaningful assertions in life will also be subjective. We can argue about objective things (ie. How many Christians does it take to change a light bulb? Did Matthew REALLY write the first Gospel?), but it is generally uninteresting, at least to me, and probably not directly relevant to to the life of faith (fides qua). "
Here is where I would disagree. I see that in my life there is a close relationship between the two aspects. For example, if from scripture, reason, and experience a compelling argument is made that I do not have Libertarian Free Will, and therefore my actions are determined (definitely a modification of my "fides quae"), my trust that God is Love (fides qua) would be significantly weakened. No matter how much I tried, I just couldn't have "fides qua" in a God who made absolutely no sense to me.
For another example, if it was proven that the whole gospel story was a farce -- there was no incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection --then this change in my "fides quae" would most definitely change my "fides qua."
Thoughts?
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/25/2005 4:19 PM (GMT -6) | | | This is an interesting topic, Ross.
If I may translate the fides qua / quae distinction into terms that are more familiar to me, I take "fides qua" (lit. "faith by which") to be, basically, active trust in what one believes to be true, and I take "fides quae" (lit. "faith of which") to be, basically, the propositional content of what one believes.
So understood, these two are obviously interrelated.
(1) Fides qua presupposes fides quae. To place active trust in what one believes to be true there must be something with propositional content that one believes to be true.
(2) The genuineness of fides quae is tested by fides qua. A person who genuinely believes something will have a disposition to act as if that belief is true, the more so the stronger or more genuine the belief. So if a person professes to have fides quae in some proposition but exhibits no fides qua (doesn't act accordingly) in the appropriate circumstances, we have grounds for questioning the genuineness of their fides quae. It seems they don't really believe what they say they believe.
So when Modes says that "Fides qua should be pretty resistant to modifications in fides quae" I am inclined, with Ross, to disagree.
Seems to me that fides qua ordinarily reflects fides quae. For example, we place our active trust (fides qua) in God for salvation because we believe that (fides quae) there is a God who is gracious and loving and able to save. If we didn't believe that we wouldn't trust God. Similarly, I placed my active trust (fides qua) in my car this morning by getting in, starting the ignition, and driving it to work. I did so precisely because I believed that (fides quae) my car would reliably get me to work (without breaking down en route, running out of gas, etc.). If I had really believed that it was unreliable then I would have asked someone I trusted to pick me up instead.
Furthermore, I think that fides qua should track with modifications in fides quae. The alternative is that we should wind up putting active trust in things that we have no good reason to believe to be true. That seems a recipe for irrationality to me.
There is a sense in which Modes may have a point. Some beliefs are more fundamental, more central to our worldview than others. And we are and should be somewhat reluctant to change them. For example, my belief in God is central to my worldview. For me to give up that belief would require a radical, large-scale reorientation of my whole outlook on life, the universe, and everything. If science or some other discipline should produce results that seem to conflict with my belief in God, I would first look to see if there was some other, less central belief that I could give up instead. On the other hand, I have some beliefs that seem trivial or unimportant to me. If new data came to light calling them into question I would give them up without thinking twice about it. With this is mind, Modes' statement may be correct when it comes to fides qua in very important and central matters, but not when it comes to relatively trivial or unimportant matters. But still, it depends on what types of modifications in fides quae we are talking about and their relation to the instance of fides qua in question. For example, it would seem quite strange, if not irrational, for me to continue to place active trust (fides qua) in God if I came to believe (fides quae) that God didn't exist, or that God was malevolent.
Finally, to change topic slightly, I'm puzzled by Modes' claim that "we have nothing like "objective access" to this Ultimate Reality". That looks self-refuting to me--like a claim to have "objective access" to Ultimate Reality to the extent that we have no "objective access" to Ultimate Reality. Perhaps you can explain further, Modes.
Regards,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/25/2005 6:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan:
There is a sense in which Modes may have a point. Some beliefs are more fundamental, more central to our worldview than others. And we are and should be somewhat reluctant to change them. For example, my belief in God is central to my worldview. For me to give up that belief would require a radical, large-scale reorientation of my whole outlook on life, the universe, and everything. If science or some other discipline should produce results that seem to conflict with my belief in God, I would first look to see if there was some other, less central belief that I could give up instead. On the other hand, I have some beliefs that seem trivial or unimportant to me. If new data came to light calling them into question I would give them up without thinking twice about it.
Isn't what you are describing, Alan, called something like "the principle of belief conservation"? I've heard of that before...and think it's the way we all live, to be sure.
Perhaps the issue is NATURE of our fides quae. Meaning what one's MOST CENTRAL AND ACTIVELY-LIVED beliefs actually are. What Modes MAY be saying (I don't know) is that, Christianly speaking, many people live in the OUTER RANGES of the fides quae in inquiry, discussion, and even disputation...while calling that the faithful life as a disciple. Debating over things non-essential to the trinitarian work in Christ...rather that truly exerting fides qua IN the central fides quae...which SHOULD be the PERSON of Christ.
Endless debating over NON-essential items that don't end up strengthening the fides qua in the PERSON OF CHRIST is on the road towards considering an existence of fides quae deliberation as BEING the essential life of faith...which is the trap far too many theologians fall into.
What do you think, Alan?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/25/2005 8:19 PM (GMT -6) | | | Hi Meph,
Meph: Isn't what you are describing, Alan, called something like "the principle of belief conservation"?
Alan: Yep. I would state the principle thus: When you have to change your beliefs, do so in a manner that makes the least overall adjustment to your noetic structure.
Meph: What Modes MAY be saying (I don't know) is that, Christianly speaking, many people live in the OUTER RANGES of the fides quae in inquiry, discussion, and even disputation...while calling that the faithful life as a disciple.
Alan: I'm not completely sure I follow. How people live is partially a function of what they believe and partially a function of what they desire. It may be that the noetic structures of some people are defective in that they have a false worldview (i.e., their "head" is incorrectly informed). Or it may be that their noetic structures are in good shape but their volitional priorities out of order (i.e., their "heart" is in the wrong place). Or, more likely, it may be some combination of the two--their beliefs are partly out of sync with the TRUE, their desires are partly out of sync with the GOOD and the BEAUTIFUL, and their beliefs and desires are out of sync with each other (i.e., their "head" and their "heart" are neither integrated with reality nor with each other). Cf. Paul's description of inner struggle in Romans 7 for an example of this.
I'm thinking here of fides qua as having to do with where one's "heart" is at and fides quae as having to do with where one's "head" is at. Ideally, a person's heart and head will be in sync with each other and both will be in sync with the REAL (which includes the GOOD, the TRUE, and the BEAUTIFUL). I think this is what Jesus was driving at when he talks about worshipping God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). It takes both fides quae (a properly aligned head) and fides qua (a properly aligned heart) to truly worship God.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 1/25/2005 10:05 PM (GMT -6) | |
Alan said "Seems to me that fides qua ordinarily reflects fides quae. For example, we place our active trust (fides qua) in God for salvation because we believe that (fides quae) there is a God who is gracious and loving and able to save. If we didn't believe that we wouldn't trust God. Similarly, I placed my active trust (fides qua) in my car this morning by getting in, starting the ignition, and driving it to work. I did so precisely because I believed that (fides quae) my car would reliably get me to work (without breaking down en route, running out of gas, etc.). If I had really believed that it was unreliable then I would have asked someone I trusted to pick me up instead.
Furthermore, I think that fides qua should track with modifications in fides quae. The alternative is that we should wind up putting active trust in things that we have no good reason to believe to be true. That seems a recipe for irrationality to me."
I got on to post a response to your first post, but it looks like you have already clarified your position. Like myself you reject the idea that fides qua had little to do with fides quae. Faith in God is based on our belief that God exists and is good.
When I first read this quoted part, I was wondering if you were leaning to the opposite extreme. The way that I see things, I wouldn't say that fides qua ordinarily reflects fides quae, especially in matters of religion and ethics. When dealing with what is good or right to believe, there is also a major part to be played by our will. The devils know God (fides quae) without having faith in God.
If it were merely a matter of knowledge, then the more philosophically sophisicated a person is, the more spiritual they would be. This is clearly not the case. I'm guessing that this is the essential point of what Modes is trying to say.
Of course, you clarified your position before I could even ask the question in your response to Meph. How a person responds to God is "partially a function of what they believe and partially a function of what they desire." If we seek the truth, God has promised we will find it. He has given us good and valid reasons upon which to base our faith in the Triune God. But many people close their eyes to this rational basis of faith because they choose to. Fides qua is primary, because our allowing God's previent grace to bring us to trust in Christ keeps our eyes open to the truth of our propositional knowledge.
Looking forward to the continued discussion,
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/26/2005 2:05 AM (GMT -6) | | | Hi Ross,
You said: Fides qua is primary, because our allowing God's previent grace to bring us to trust in Christ keeps our eyes open to the truth of our propositional knowledge.
Couple comments.
(1) To my mind, there's nothing essentially different between exercising active trust (faith) in God and exercising active trust in, say, one's fiance by saying one's wedding vows, or in the airplane pilot when one boards a plane, or in the doctor one submits to in surgery, or in the authority one relies on for information, or .... The object or person in which faith is placed differs in each case, but that doesn't alter the fact that each is an expression of faith.
I'm not suggesting that you limit faith (fides qua) just to religious matters, but I want to make clear that I do not limit it in that way. So if fides qua is primary, as you say, it can't be simply b/c in the context of Christianity it is necessary for salvation or spiritual growth or what have you. If fides qua really is primary, then it has to be primary in other contexts as well.
(2) Is fides qua really primary? In one sense, yes. In another, no. On the one hand, fides qua presupposes fides quae. You can't (or can't for long and with rational integrity) place your active trust in something or someone if you don't believe that (fides quae) they are trustworthy. In this sense fides quae is primary. On the other hand, fides qua is, in effect, the culmination or the upshot of fides quae. It is the expression of the latter in concrete choices and action. In this sense fides qua is primary b/c fides quae by itself doesn't go anywhere, doesn't make a real difference, doesn't change the world. Faith without works is dead.
(3) It seems that we come into the world with some degree of implicit faith (in both senses). We naturally trust our senses to inform us about the world. And we naturally trust other people as reliable sources of information and as worthy of our trust, at least until they prove themselves undeserving of it. So in some sense we are by nature creatures of faith. If we didn't start out with faith in something (or someone) we could never attain it.
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/26/2005 7:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph: What Modes MAY be saying (I don't know) is that, Christianly speaking, many people live in the OUTER RANGES of the fides quae in inquiry, discussion, and even disputation...while calling that the faithful life as a disciple.
Alan: I'm not completely sure I follow. How people live is partially a function of what they believe and partially a function of what they desire. It may be that the noetic structures of some people are defective in that they have a false worldview (i.e., their "head" is incorrectly informed). Or it may be that their noetic structures are in good shape but their volitional priorities out of order (i.e., their "heart" is in the wrong place). Or, more likely, it may be some combination of the two--their beliefs are partly out of sync with the TRUE, their desires are partly out of sync with the GOOD and the BEAUTIFUL, and their beliefs and desires are out of sync with each other (i.e., their "head" and their "heart" are neither integrated with reality nor with each other). Cf. Paul's description of inner struggle in Romans 7 for an example of this.
I'm thinking here of fides qua as having to do with where one's "heart" is at and fides quae as having to do with where one's "head" is at. Ideally, a person's heart and head will be in sync with each other and both will be in sync with the REAL (which includes the GOOD, the TRUE, and the BEAUTIFUL). I think this is what Jesus was driving at when he talks about worshipping God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). It takes both fides quae (a properly aligned head) and fides qua (a properly aligned heart) to truly worship God.
What I was saying, essentially, is that some people feel like working out all the details of their fides quae either necessarily leads to, or worse, IS EQUIVALENT to greater operation of fides qua in some of their supposedly central fides quae. I believe that Modes was saying this is NOT true. It's possible to, using your categories, spend much time making sure you are correctly informed such that one's heart is ultimately misplaced into functionally operating as if the formulation of correct information IS the true heart motivation, not truly living out the information one knows to be true. Thinking gets miscontrued AS being. It would be like me effectively spending all my time trying to ascertain how and to what degree my car is reliable to the point that I NEVER drive it...but I feel that what I'm doing makes me a responsible car owner!
This, unfortunately, is the way MANY Christians live their lives.
Was this more clear?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 1/26/2005 8:25 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Alan,
Thanks for the feedback. I think that we are pretty much on the same page here. I'll try to clarify my ideas a little more.
Alan: (1) To my mind, there's nothing essentially different between exercising active trust (faith) in God and exercising active trust in, say, one's fiance by saying one's wedding vows, or in the airplane pilot when one boards a plane, or in the doctor one submits to in surgery, or in the authority one relies on for information, or .... The object or person in which faith is placed differs in each case, but that doesn't alter the fact that each is an expression of faith.
I'm not suggesting that you limit faith (fides qua) just to religious matters, but I want to make clear that I do not limit it in that way. So if fides qua is primary, as you say, it can't be simply b/c in the context of Christianity it is necessary for salvation or spiritual growth or what have you. If fides qua really is primary, then it has to be primary in other contexts as well.
(2) Is fides qua really primary? In one sense, yes. In another, no. On the one hand, fides qua presupposes fides quae. You can't (or can't for long and with rational integrity) place your active trust in something or someone if you don't believe that (fides quae) they are trustworthy. In this sense fides quae is primary. On the other hand, fides qua is, in effect, the culmination or the upshot of fides quae. It is the expression of the latter in concrete choices and action. In this sense fides qua is primary b/c fides quae by itself doesn't go anywhere, doesn't make a real difference, doesn't change the world. Faith without works is dead.
The distinction that I was trying to bring to the forefront is that in some aspects of exercising fides qua based on fides quae, the fides qua does not directly follow. Let me see if I can clarify my distinction.
In the case of the airplane pilot, if I have knowledge that the plane is safe (the airline prides itself on safety precautions) and knowledge that the pilot is trustworthy (there are high standards for this airline, when I talked to the pilot he didn't appear drunk, etc), then I would naturally trust the plane to get me safely where I want to go. But in our relationship of faith with God, I can have knowledge that there is a God (through various ways-conviction of the Holy Spirit, evidence for Christ's deity, arguments for the existence of God) but the fides qua does not necessarily come next. There is a moral decision that has to be made. Do I want to submit my life to God, or do I want to live my life as my own God -- do I want to live for the good or do I want to live for pride. In the Christian life, this is the primary and fundamental choice.
Peace,
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 1/26/2005 8:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Alan: Is fides qua really primary? In one sense, yes. In another, no. On the one hand, fides qua presupposes fides quae. You can't (or can't for long and with rational integrity) place your active trust in something or someone if you don't believe that (fides quae) they are trustworthy. In this sense fides quae is primary. On the other hand, fides qua is, in effect, the culmination or the upshot of fides quae. It is the expression of the latter in concrete choices and action. In this sense fides qua is primary b/c fides quae by itself doesn't go anywhere, doesn't make a real difference, doesn't change the world. Faith without works is dead.
Hi Alan,
I've appreciated your contribution on this board very much. Your simplified distinction of faith that flows from "head" and "heart" was especially helpful for me as I'm still trying to understand the relationship between faith and reason...and how they work themselves out practically in life. In the quote above, I get the sense that qua could be related to being and quae to the doing that flows out of that being over time. I'm wondering if you think there's ever a solidification of our qua to the extent that when we're dealing with a crisis of faith it's always related to our quae? If so, could we say that the idea of single-mindedness is the act of lining up our quae with our qua...working toward congruency by only working on the one, rather than undoing the whole mess??
Also, keeping the distinction of the two, would you mind speaking to the following two quotes from Mephi from the faith/faithfulness thread?
1) Mephi: "One of mine is the following: Personal faith CANNOT be separated from one's interpretations of events, ideas, or other things. This is because of the very subjective nature of faith.
When we say that we experience God as being faithful or something like that we are INTERPRETING events in our lives and (whether we know it or not) making the CHOICE, to a significant degree, to interpret things that we have heard or things that happen to us AS God being faithful. For me personally, whenever I do this...I have a particular statement that I make for myself...or when I talk to others. "I choose to interpret this as..." I use this whenever I am talking perpsectivally about divine or demonic activity. This reflects the fact that my interpretation and actuality are RELATED, though DISTINCT. My interpretation of things may, AT MOST, be indicative of reality...but not totally things as they are in any naive sense.
In short, I treat "faith" as the significantly chosen subjective approriation of something as "true", even in the face of objective uncertainty and ambiguity."
2) Mephi: "So, this is why I CANNOT see a consistent open view theist having any type of unwavering faith in is God keeping TEMPORAL promises of deliverance, healing, provision, etc. Neither can I see unwavering faith that prayers WILL be answered...UNLESS God makes some declaration that said promise is COMPLETELY UNCONDITIONAL (which I say very rarely, if ever, happens)"
THANK YOU!
hope that made sense, I gotta RUN!
Blessings,
selah
For your steadfast love is higher than the heavens, and your faithfulness reaches to the clouds.
psalm 108:4 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/26/2005 10:04 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't have time to do more than say to Selah that fides qua and fides quae do not reduce to being and doing. In fact, both of those aspects of faith would be qua whereas the notion of quae as I understand it is not actually thinking (meditation and prayer include thinking and are also fides qua) per se be refers abstractly to the content of our faith. I think it better to say that one is the faith that is in us, the gift of faith from God. The other is whatever content we assign or ascribe to that.
Fides qua is not the correctness of faith but the energy of it. Here are some examples:
Worshiping with total abandon demonstrates fides qua
Abraham sacrificing Isaac demonstrates fides qua
Engaging fully in the energy, the life, the mysticism of faith demonstrates fides qua
A man in the Philipines at a Daoist temple who pours out his soul to whatever he names to be Absolute and True demonstrates fides qua
Writing on this board re: theological/biblical matters reflects fides quae
Writing a thesis on God's omniscience reflects fides quae
Debating an atheist reflects fides quae
Debates at Bringham Young demonstrate just as much fides quae as these discussions
Going to a conference to learn more about leading small groups---fides quae
It is NOT "heart" and "head" so much as it is spirit/soul expressed in qua and abstraction engagement with ideas about faith in quae. This is certainly not my distinction, it is Augustine's and Anselm's it is thousands of years old. Most of the people who have made use of it did not acknowledge a seperation between faith and reason. That distinction doesn't really arise until the Enlightenment.
Watch the movie Luther and you will notice that he is portrayed as one who's "doing" of theology appeared as much qua as quae. There was little real abstraction, it all was such a matter of direct spiritual importance to him. In fact, most of his content (in the movie) arose from his wildly dynamic engagment with God. It was an expression of his faith, not simply a reflection on it. Whether this is historically acurate or not, the movie offers a nice illustration of one whose fides qua cried out to him to make changes in his fides quae which he then taught. "I NEED a god of MERCY!" or something like that... It was truly FAITH seeking understanding as a matter of great importance to him spiritually. That faith ("being" ), and that seeking ("doing" ) are the qua, the abstracted content of the ideas that can be seperated out, like indulgences, grace, mercy as discussion points or dogmas, these are the quae. But I think Luther's engagement in this was qua because of the spiritual engagment of it all. This may confuse as much as it clarifies, sorry.
Perhaps these terms will help:
fides qua is the faith and the faith's expression through us
fides quae is reflection on that faith (necessarily abstracted as reflection always is)
Or:
the reality of faith
vs
the reflection on faith
This might be the best shot at the difference I've made other than the actual definitions (transliterations actually) I offered at the beginning, which again were not mine but Anselm's/Augustine's.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --docPost Edited (Modes of Thought) : 1/26/2005 9:11:27 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/26/2005 11:04 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Thanks, Modes. That was very helpful. It has always seemed to me that doctrinal orthodoxy (fides quae, right?) is often divorced from orthopraxy (fides qua?). History graphically reveals the stubborn fact that believing the "right" things doesn't necessarily mean one is practicing the right things (devotion to God).
John
Modes of Thought said...
I don't have time to do more than say to Selah that fides qua and fides quae do not reduce to being and doing. In fact, both of those aspects of faith would be qua whereas the notion of quae as I understand it is not actually thinking (meditation and prayer include thinking and are also fides qua) per se be refers abstractly to the content of our faith. I think it better to say that one is the faith that is in us, the gift of faith from God. The other is whatever content we assign or ascribe to that...
Post Edited (JEE) : 1/26/2005 10:07:05 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/26/2005 1:23 PM (GMT -6) | |
Modes of Thought said...I think there is more danger in never having truly lived (qua) what you do believe than in being truly wrong in what you thought (quae) Just in the act of committing/acting we throw ourselves into life, and to that degree, life will find a way to correct us if we are wrong. (Reality has that quality about it  )
Could you explain this more? Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin all threw themselves (qua) completely into their beliefs (quae) to the detriment of others and never having been corrected by life.
What if your belief (quae) was you can fly? How many chances (qua) at reality correcting you? once? Twice if the first jump was from a short building?
That's the problem with "follow your bliss", it's subjective and thus a planet full of subjective bliss-followers collide. We need an objective traffic plan to avoid collisions, imho.
 Post Edited (Laika) : 1/26/2005 2:02:36 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/26/2005 3:06 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 1/26/2005 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | |
Hey Modes,
I appreciate you taking some time and responding to my inquiries. I never got a chance to thank you, but last year we had a conversation about Kierkegaard and inclusivism that I enjoyed thoroughly. I definitely see ole SK's influence on your thought in this thread as well 
Like Tom said, if your point is that we need to warn those who believe (quae) but do not walk in faith (qua), I definitely agree. But I'm not reading from your posts that this is your point.
Modes : No one claimed that faith was not a risky thing. In fact, quite to the contrary, I think there is good reason to warn people about what it is likely to cost them to become followers of Christ.
If we claim to follow Christ and walk according to the Spirit, we are not promised that collisions will be avoided, and any certainty we have about the outcome--even the final outcome--is based on faith, not objective fact.
Faith is a risky thing in that it will cost man his pride and autonomy. He must "die to self." But the risk it seems to me is not one of being uncertain about the outcome, or having a lack of propositional knowledge.
If our certainity about the outcome, and especially about our final outcome, has nothing to do with fact (fides quae), then is any worldview valid? Can a man throw himself whole heartedly into wickedness and deceit and have faith (qua) that this will bring life?
Really wondering,
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/26/2005 8:56 PM (GMT -6) | |
Modes of Thought said...
If we claim to follow Christ and walk according to the Spirit, we are not promised that collisions will be avoided, and any certainty we have about the outcome--even the final outcome--is based on faith, not objective fact.
Your faith is not based on anything objective? Why Christ? Why not Amida Buddha, for example?
Modes of Thought said...
I think there is more danger in never having truly lived what you do believe than in being truly wrong in what you thought.
Mephi, I thought Corey and Selah were asking you what the basis/grounds of your faith was, now that you've been chucking hugh chunks of scripture out the window. No one is questioning your faith or zeal for or anything, just what are you basing it on now?
Post Edited (Laika) : 1/26/2005 9:09:43 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/26/2005 9:32 PM (GMT -6) | | | Selah: I get the sense that qua could be related to being and quae to the doing that flows out of that being over time. I'm wondering if you think there's ever a solidification of our qua to the extent that when we're dealing with a crisis of faith it's always related to our quae? If so, could we say that the idea of single-mindedness is the act of lining up our quae with our qua...working toward congruency by only working on the one, rather than undoing the whole mess??
Alan: Forgive me, but I'm not sure I follow, Selah. I do not think the being/doing distinction precisely captures or parallels the quae/qua distinction. Active trust (qua) does of course involve an act of will, but I don't think this has to manifest itself in constant activity or business. Sometimes just being still and leaning on God can be an expression of our trust in God. Similarly, both mere believing and active trusting can be modes of being--we might say of someone, for example, that they ARE trusting in God.
As for "solidification of our qua", I would suppose that to mean that our trust in God can become more stable, more consistent, less wavering. I think this unlikely to happen if the content of our faith, what we believe (quae), is not genuinely in sync with and supportive of what we are actively trusting in (qua). As someone has said, the heart cannot long rejoice in what the mind rejects as sheer fantasy.
On the idea of single-mindedness, I think God wants our head and our heart (and our whole being) to be in sync with each other and with the reality of God and His creation. Anything less reflects, I think, a kind of insanity, a kind of cognitive, affective, and existential dissonance.
Modes: I think it better to say that one is the faith that is in us, the gift of faith from God. The other is whatever content we assign or ascribe to that. Fides qua is not the correctness of faith but the energy of it. ... That faith ("being" ), and that seeking ("doing" ) are the qua, the abstracted content of the ideas that can be separated out, like indulgences, grace, mercy as discussion points or dogmas, these are the quae. ... Perhaps these terms will help:
fides qua is the faith and the faith's expression through us
fides quae is reflection on that faith (necessarily abstracted as reflection always is)
Or:
the reality of faith
vs
the reflection on faith
Alan: If I understand you correctly, Modes, you seem to be saying that fides qua is faith in the full or genuine sense. It involves a real and passioned commitment of the person. Fides quae, on the other hand, is just an abstraction from fides qua. It is a merely intellectual grasp of the content of faith in the sense of fides qua.
If this is correct, then the whole qua/quae distinction looks misleading to me. For fides qua turns out to just be fides, simpliciter. Adding the "qua" makes it look like we're already operating at the level of abstraction by distinguishing two different aspects (qua and quae) of one, prior concrete reality, fides.
Modes: If we claim to follow Christ and walk according to the Spirit, we are not promised that collisions will be avoided, and any certainty we have about the outcome--even the final outcome--is based on faith, not objective fact.
Alan: Why the faith / fact dichotomy? Seems like a false either-or to me, just like the Enlightenment divorce of faith from reason. Perhaps you can comment further.
Regards,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/27/2005 1:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika:
Mephi, I thought Corey and Selah were asking you what the basis/grounds of your faith was, now that you've been chucking hugh chunks of scripture out the window. No one is questioning your faith or zeal for or anything, just what are you basing it on now?
Hmmmm...I know I've said this before. My faith is fundamentally grounded on my EXPERIENCE with a being that I have reasons to believe is the Risen Christ. Kind of a "Paul on Damascus Road" experience. The context (sociolinguistic context, time in my life, etc) in which I had the experience (and from whence I interpreted the experience) seemed to validate that is WAS the Triune God I was experiencing. The experience dealt with a powerful force and speech...thus my fundamental belief in a speaking, ACTING God. After looking at the Christians scriptures, I gathered that the Biblical God would INDEED act in this way. In short, my experience not only VALIDATED my belief in God's reality, but also allowed me to further grant authority to scripture...even as being in a Christian community of faith historically, in some way, informed the very interpretation of my experience.
Longer story short, because this experience--and continued experiences--ground my faith, I have absolutely no problem being as critical as I am with scripture and theologizing from it. My experience forms the innermost core of the content of my fides quae. [Digression: This, I feel, is by NO means new. I bet Abraham's innermost core was God telling him to get out of his father's house. I bet Moses' innermost core was his experience at the burning bush. I bet Paul's innermost core was his Damascus experience. In this way, I feel like my experience is par for the course] From there, my central fides quae in which I place total fides qua lies in the existence of a speaking, acting triune God revealed in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth, who is also the Christ.
Everything else (the historicity of Adam and Eve, Jonah, or Esther, inerrancy, etc) is up for discussion.
Because my very faith is not BASED on certain views of inspiration, modernistic apologetics, or a theological system...I can feel free to VERY CRITICALLY examine a lot of the sacred cows out there and have my beliefs challenged without fear...which, unfortunately, makes me to some people a "loose cannon"...
And...I...love...it. 
How's this for explanation.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/27/2005 12:43:53 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 87 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:11 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|