Thanks for your conversation.

"Leap of faith" is neither a biblical term nor a biblical concept. In the Bible, evidence always—ALWAYS—precedes faith. Yes, leap of faith suggests some amount of uncertainty, but it's not something you find anywhere in the Bible.

> "Being sure of what we hope for" is not at all the same thing as "a guarantee".

As I mentioned, the Greek term is ὑπόστασις and was used in the business world for the basis or guarantee of transactions, so I'll have to strongly disagree with your distinction. "Being sure of" was meant as a statement guarantee—an absolute assurance of reality.

> People can hope for unrealistic things. And history is full of examples of people feeling sure of something that is simply wrong.

Of course they can. No argument there. But this is not at all what the verse is asserting.

> If a person has "proof", then there is no need for "hope". Why use the word "hope" if one is sure of something?

"Hope" in the Bible is not just wishful thinking or a bright optimism. The New Testament uses the term to refer to confidence and certainty about the things we've been taught, and therefore believe. Our "hope" is in Jesus Christ, meaning He is the foundation of all we believe, and we know by evidence that He lived, died, and rose again. Therefore we can be confident and certain that our sins are forgiven, that Jesus was who He said He was, and the relationship with Him is real, and there is life after death with Him. This is our "hope." It's what we know. "Hope" has to do with the object of our faith (Jesus and his death and resurrection, based on evidence), the content of our faith (the Holy Spirit in us and the reality of new life, based on evidence), the means of our faith (salvation by faith through the blood of Christ, based on evidence), and the goal of our faith (eternity with Jesus and our ultimate deliverance from this world, based on evidence).

> It seems to me that your definitions render the word faith rather meaningless.

Not at all, sir or madam. Faith is being sure of the reality of the object of that faith and having evidence for what we don't see.

> What is the point of the word if God's existence is a given?

As I stated in my original post, most of our lives operate operate in this realm. We can't be SURE the grocery store is there, but we make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make the assumption reasonable. So also when we go out to start our cars, turn a doorknob, or sit in a chair. I have plenty of evidence of those things and how they work, so I go through life making these assumptions that are well warranted. It's no different with God. I have plenty of evidence of God and how He works, so I go through life making these assumptions of truth based on enough evidence to make the assumption reasonable.

> Believing in something that is not provable requires a leap of faith.

There is a certain truth to this statement, but that's not the biblical use of the terms belief or faith.

I appreciate the time you took to explain your view.

The saying "leap of faith" comes to mind when considering these notions. One doesn't need to take a leap of faith if one is certain. Leap of faith suggests some amount of uncertainty. If someone is sure, or has a guarantee, then no leap of faith is necessary.

"Being sure of what we hope for" is not at all the same thing as "a guarantee". People can hope for unrealistic things. And history is full of examples of people feeling sure of something that is simply wrong. If a person has "proof", then there is no need for "hope". Why use the word "hope" if one is sure of something?

It seems to me that your definitions render the word faith rather meaningless. What is the point of the word if God's existence is a given? The existence of God is not guaranteed or proven to the same degree of as the existence of the brick wall I just banged my face into. There is no need for faith where a brick wall is concerned.

I am not criticizing anyone for having faith. Believing in something that is not provable requires a leap of faith. I'm fine with someone having faith.

> Schoonderwoerd

It's just a link to his book, no real information about it. Thanks for the thought, anyway.

> DeSilva

EXCELLENT article!! I spent two days digesting it and taking notes. Simply superlative. Granted, it didn't say much about faith (our subject of conversation), but still a great article. Thoroughly enjoyed it and benefited from it.

First century Judaism was certainly not radically empiricist. They subscribed fully to the transcendent in juxtaposition with the imminent. The spiritual side of reality was just as real as that which could be seen and heard. They believed there was a reality that had no physical existence. F.F. Bruce writes, "Physical eyesight produces evidence of physical things; faith is the organ which enables people to see the invisible order."

I'm curious about what other research you've done on the matter. I'm slowly collecting resources; here are two you might like:

Stef Schoonderwoerd 2017 Between truth, knowledge and belief: Πίστις in early Greek philosophy (https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/52295)
DeSilva 1999 Ashland Theological Journal Patronage and Reciprocity: The Context of Grace in the New Testament (https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ashland_theological_journal/31-1_032.pdf)

It seems to me that many conversations like this one presuppose radical empiricism, of the sort that neither Parmenides nor Heraclitus would have accepted. Rather, in the changing flux of sense-impressions, we have to suss out a deeper order, upon which we can rely. Here, I surmise that the Greeks and Jews deviate. The Greeks ultimately see matter as unreliable† and thus find their final repose in Form‡, whereas the Jews believe the "very good" of Gen 1:31 and are therefore willing to leave the land of Ur for something better. That is, something better than the Mesopotamian heart of civilization, a civilization so sure of itself that in all its clay tablets, they never compare & contrast their ways of doing things with other nations. (The Position of the Intellectual in Mesopotamian Society, 38 https://archive.org/details/Oppen1975Intell/page/n1/mode/2up) Incidentally, I found this while reading the TDNT on various words in Hebrews 11:1: (https://www.eerdmans.com/Products/CategoryCenter.aspx?CategoryId=SE!TDOT)

Man should have regard, not to ἀπεόντα [what is absent], but to ἐπιχώρια [custom]; he should grasp what is παρὰ ποδός [at his feet]. (Pind. Pyth., 3, 20; 22; 60; 10, 63; Isthm., 8, 13.) (TDNT: ἐλπίς, ἐλπίζω, ἀπ-, προελπίζω)

That sounds like what a culture full of itself might say. Our way is best! Don't experiment! And in particular, don't hope. Hope is for losers. It will only ever disappoint you. Therefore, don't do it—don't think that society could change in any appreciable way. Things are what they are, your station is what it is, so accept it. Then things don't have to hurt so much.

† Claude Tresmontant argues something like this in his 1953 A Study of Hebrew Thought (building off of Bergson), even Aristotle. https://www.amazon.com/Study-Hebrew-Thought-Claude-Tresmontant/dp/B0007DL5V8
‡ Ok, maybe Epicurus just didn't care?

Now faith is the assurance[a] of things hoped for, the conviction[b] of things not seen.(A)

Nsrv, most accurate translation. So anyway it’s clear it means evidence of things not seen. Faith is assurance of what you don’t see.

KJV: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The rest of the passage says by faith they understand how the world came to be so clearly faith is their evidence of how the world came to be. No misunderstanding on my part, we all know Hebrews 11:1 well and most of us read it the KJV way with the evidence word in there. Thank you

Now faith is the assurance[a] of things hoped for, the conviction[b] of things not seen. 2 Indeed, by faith[c] our ancestors received approval. 3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.[d]

> Heb. 11.1. ... I'm curious if you disagree with this definition.

I don't disagree with it at all, but I sense you think I'm saying something different. The verse speaks clearly of evidence on which faith is based. Let's look at it more closely with what I wrote to another person who brought up the same sort of objection.

Hebrews 11.1: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." There’s no absence of evidence here. The word for "being sure of" ("The substance") is ὑπόστασις (hupostasis). It is defined as "assurance; what stands under anything (a building, a contract, a promise); substantial nature; essence, actual being; reality (often in contrast to what merely seems to be); confidence; conviction; steadfastness; steadiness of mind." "The steadfastness of mind which holds one firm." The term is common in ancient business documents as the basis or guarantee of transactions. There's nothing wobbly or blind here. It's not just confidence or optimism, but a guarantee. It's a real knowledge.

Then the verse talks about certainty: "certainty; proof" (elegxos). What is it about these terms that you think show the in the Bible faith in belief in what has no proof?

In In John 17.8 (also Jn. 14.11) we learn that faith is a judgment of certainty based on the evidence.

What the verse says is that faith is an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make that assumption reasonable. It's all about evidence and certainty. Let's talk about it.

> I also think it's erroneous to use "faith" interchangeably with "trust" in theological discussions.

Like "faith," "trust" has different usages in the Bible. To trust God is to rest in the reality that God is sovereign, we have confidence in His wisdom (and how He is at work in our lives), working out salvation history to His ends. It is a confidence in the person, wisdom, and work of God. I'm using trust, however, in the sense of confidence in the evidence, which is how I'm using faith. "Faith" in the Bible is not just in ideas or claims that are not demonstrable. I showed quite clear evidence of that. Faith in the Bible is always based on demonstrable evidence.

Then you have truly misunderstood Heb. 11.1 and what it literally says. Let's talk about it.

Hebrews 11.1: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." There’s no absence of evidence here. The word for "being sure of" is ὑπόστασις (hupostasis). It is defined as "assurance; what stands under anything (a building, a contract, a promise); substantial nature; essence, actual being; reality (often in contrast to what merely seems to be); confidence; conviction; steadfastness; steadiness of mind." "The steadfastness of mind which holds one firm." The term is common in ancient business documents as the basis or guarantee of transactions. There's nothing wobbly or blind here. It's not just confidence or optimism, but a guarantee. It's a real knowledge.

If I decide to drive to the grocery store, I can't be absolutely sure it's there. But I have seen no explosions in the sky nor heard any. There hasn't been a news report about a building suddenly disappearing. So on the basis of evidence, I drive to the store in full hope and trust that it will be there, and of course, it is. I've been sure of what I hoped for. I drove there as an act of faith.

Then the verse talks about certainty: "certainty; proof" (elegxos). What is it about these terms that you think show the in the Bible faith in belief in what has no proof?

In In John 17.8 (also Jn. 14.11) we learn that faith is a judgment of certainty based on the evidence.

There is nothing true about the statement, "In the Bible faith is belief in what has no proof." Hebrews 11.1 literally says the opposite.

In the Bible faith is belief in what has no proof. Hebrews 11:1 literally says so

> Jesus rising from the dead is the opposite of this

For the original disciples, it wasn't opposite at all. They got to see Him, touch Him, hear Him teach, and watch Him eat. How's that different from you (or them) sitting in a chair? The evidence was reliable, and that's all we need to confirm an assumption.

> I have never seen anyone get raised from the dead after three days

Neither have I, and neither did the disciples (before Jesus). They didn't preach Jesus's resurrection because it was common or expected, but instead because they had evidence of its truth.

> the gospels are not reliable sources of information (in my opinion).

Well, this is a different discussion, but you'd have to show where they have been proven to be unreliable to establish your point over just an unfounded opinion.

> I think that most people would be Christian if Jesus' miracles and the resurrection had the same amount of evidence ut has the other things you mentioned.

They certainly did for the eyewitnesses. Two thousand years later, it's obviously a different situation. Do you know we have no contemporary writings of the life of Emperor Nero? None. Our evidence about Jesus is far stronger than our evidence about Nero, and yet I assume you believe Nero existed and did what is written about him close to a century later by three authors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero#Historiography). So why is that? Why is Nero so believable and Jesus so unbelievable to you when our support for Jesus is far stronger?

Maybe you'll say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," but this simply isn't true. All we ever require is reliable evidence. As long as the evidence is reliable, the thing is proven.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I still don't think that having confidence that your chair won't break is the same as having faith that Jesus rose from the dead. For instance, I have confidence that the chair I'm sitting on right now won't break because I've sat on it thousands of times before and it hasn't broken and also I'm a slim person and the chair is very heavy and strong so it would be incredible and out of the ordinary if the chair broke. On the other hand, Jesus rising from the dead is the opposite of this – it is incredible and out of the ordinary, I have never seen anyone get raised from the dead after three days and the gospels are not reliable sources of information (in my opinion). I think that most people would be Christian if Jesus' miracles and the resurrection had the same amount of evidence as the other things you mentioned.