Chapter 8: Faith

15 March 2006

Go Back to Series Index

My commentary on this chapter will be very brief, for there is not much to say in response to Krueger here. Simply put, he is refuting a false definition of faith. Although his critique may be useful against those who say faith is “blind belief” or “belief in lack of or despite reason”, his arguments are utterly useless against a true understanding of biblical faith.

So, where does Krueger get his definition of faith? Like usual, he merely assumes that it is the case. He does provide a couple biblical passages, primarily Hebrews 11:1 (“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”) However, JP Holding counters Krueger’s claim:

““There, see! The evidence of things not seen. Blind faith. Case closed.’ Try again! The list that follows offers examples of people who had been given undeniable proof of God’s existence and power. Pistis here is a matter of trust in a God who has demonstrated His ability to be a worthy patron, and the examples are those of clients who, knowing this ability, trust in God’s record as a patronal provider. Hebrews 11:1 therefore is telling us that faith (trust in our patron, gained by conviction based on evidence) is the substance (the word here means an assurance, as in a setting under, a concrete essence or an abstract assurance) of things hoped for (this word means expected by trust, which is something earned!), and the evidence of that which is not seen, which in context means we expect, based on past performance, continuing favor from our patron, who has already proven Himself worthy of our trust by example, and this trust is our confidence in the fulfillment of future promises. Blind faith? Not in the least! It is faith grounded in reality.” 1

So, Krueger has no justification for his definition of faith. Therefore, all of his objections to “faith” in all of chapter 8 are irrelevant.

The only other thing Krueger discusses in this final chapter is Pascal’s Wager. However, I don’t fully support Pascal’s Wager either (See HERE). I feel that Pascal’s Wager should only be used to show that it is important to look closely at the issue of religion.

Conclusion:

Krueger is simply wrong about the definition of faith, and so this entire chapter turns out to be almost entirely irrelevant.


Go Back to Series Index

NOTES:

1. JP Holding, Fallacious Faith, found at http://www.tektonics.org/whatfaith.html

  Textile Help