Is faith having an absolute unshakeable conviction, like 2+2=4, or is it trying to believe something despite what seem to be the facts? "Have faith" are common words, but does the Bible ever actually define it? For two years, I have said Christ was real, died for us, rose for us, and is the Messiah. My heart spoke something differently: lack of faith and unbelief... the New Testament is the only religious document that has ever given chills and profound answers to some questions, yet deep inside Christ seems to be unsure... Rome, my old church, declares that she wrote the Scriptures, and they are just one of her documents in the "sacred tradition". Anglicans say the books of the true canon were knowable to the early Church by the help of the Holy Spirit. It's so confusing... shouldn't the works of God be clearer about their own scope? Deuteronomy says that none should add to "these words", and yet more Books were added over the centuries... the New Testament writers speak of "the scriptures" as if they're only the Old Testament... and the N.T. works don't say "thus saith the Lord:" or "the word of the Lord came to me, saying:", so how do we know them, apart from the testimony of sinful human beings? I don't seem to believe in Jesus as I believe in one God, but how I want to! It is distressing... if you have any suggestions or especially Bible verses, please help with them...
Faith: To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see. Heb 11:1
Faith is the intellectual assent given to the revealed truths of religion. It is also a personal trust in the promises of Christ. I cannot recommend enough that you should devote yourself to reading the scriptures daily and to pray often. You must nourish your relationship with Christ our Lord. He's not a mere theological proposition we assent to or a literary abstraction that regulates our behaviour, He's the sovereign Lord, the Redeemer of our souls, a personal and living God in whom you should confide your hopes, troubles and aspirations at all times.
A few verses (NRSV) on the growth of faith in the Christian life. Stand fast in faith Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong1 Corinthians 16:13 Continue in faith There they strengthened the souls of the disciples and encouraged them to continue in the faith, saying, “It is through many persecutions that we must enter the kingdom of God.”Acts 14:22 Be strong in faith No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to GodRomans 4:20 Abound in faith . . . excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in utmost eagerness, and in our love 2 Corinthians 8:7a Be grounded in faith . . . continue securely established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope promised by the gospel that you heardColossians 1:23a Pray for increase of faith The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”Luke 17:5 Have assurance of faith I am not ashamed, for I know the one in whom I have put my trust, and I am sure that he is able to guard until that day what I have entrusted to him.2 Timothy 1:12 ...Scottish Monk
I can't explain Christ, I was brought up to believe. However, when you are baptised and have learn't the faith of the early fathers*, then been christened by the Bishop , you become a Member of Christ and a Child of God! You start on a road that will lead to everlasting life and become a member of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and whilst you will not become better than anyone else, you will become different. How-and-ever, you will be a catholic for ever, once baptised there is no going back, you will be judged on your knowledge of Christ good bad or indifferent! I have got a lot out of my baptism and I feel the work and study is well worth it! *Just try to miss out Seagull's patch! Please?
If you cannot help explain the reality of the living God, and the majesty of the Church that is his body, and instead point to some bureaucratic document as your way of explaining Anglicanism, then I wish all the best of luck to ya.
But it is not "some bureaucratic document". It is an articulation of Anglican identity and encapsulates the fundamentals of our Communion's doctrine.
First of all, let me first say that my comment wasn't made to offend, it was simply intended as a humorous quip! How-and-ever, in my opinion you have got a wrong idea of what Anglicanism is all about. To my mind it is the Body of Christ in this country and is in its essence, the distillation of two thousand years of catholic teaching; that is of Christ 's Revelation and its interpretation by the Holy Fathers of the Councils. I have never, that I know of ,disparaged, or disliked Anglicanism, so you are quite mistaken. Regarding the,'document,'the only thing I have against it is, that your bishops don't explain it, or the fact that it like scripture should be seen through the lens of our ancient fathers, to quote the Canons of 1570. Apart from which your bishops never mention it and scarcely ever explain it. In fact they explain very little and concentrate on introducing novelties and force feeding their flock with doubtful propositions that have very little to do with Anglicanism. Finally, I've never left Anglicanism! I hold to the fundamentals, Scripture, Revelation and the teaching of the Greek Fathers of the first three centuries. I bet that's more than the lady minister teaches!
A sad comment. My theological qualifications are limited to a distinction at 'A' level in 1962, but my Anglican credentials are quite good: sidesman, Electoral Roll Officer, Parochial Church Council and Deanery Synod. Our "lady minister" would prefer to be called a woman priest. She subscribes to Affirming Catholicism and is a member of the Society of Catholic Priests.
What is ,"Affirming Catholicism,"? Does it believe that Bishops are of Scriptural Provenance?Does it believe that The Church is just one amongst many, that Protestantism, or the "Reformed," are no different than Catholics? I ask you for your opinion , do you think that there is a difference?
Even the Nicene and Apostles creed which are far greater encapsulations of our doctrine, are not something one should recite to a newcomer. Summaries of doctrine are far different from compelling arguments. No wonder you have had such an awful time gaining any converts.
I don't have an "awful time" gaining converts, because I don't go round trying to convert people. Perhaps I should, but I don't. The Creeds you mention are not "a far greater encapsulation". They are an integral part of the Quadrilateral. I was pleased that Lowly Layman agreed with me, and that highchurchman agreed. But I suppose the answer is who you're talking to. If a RC or Baptist asked me to "explain", then, yes, the Quadrilateral would be a good starting point. If an agnostic did, I think I'd start at a more basic level, possibly via my own spiritual journey. My experience of these so-called "atheists" is that they set the agenda for "discussions" so you answer them point by point, and the Quadrilateral might not feature in these discussions (at least initially). But they normally have closed minds, so it's unlikely you'd get that far.