I've been reflecting on the interplay between faith and hope, especially when hope entails some degree of uncertainty and lack of intellectual assent but a strong desire for something to be true. Consider a scenario where an individual, exposed to the preaching of the Gospel, the promises of Christianity, and arguments and evidence for its core tenets, might express, "Though I don't know if Christianity is true, and I'm not highly or overwhelmingly confident, in light of the evidence I certainly believe it has potential to be true (i.e., it makes sense and I can't rule it out), and sincerely *wish* and *hope* it is true." Is it possible to redefine faith, traditionally rooted in strong beliefs, to encompass the prospect of being grounded in hope? Can individuals anchor their faith in hope rather than belief or intellectual assent, acknowledging uncertainty yet finding enough motivation rooted in hope in order to act "as if" a belief were true, with the aspiration that their hope-based faith may eventually, at some point in the future, evolve into a more solid belief? I'm interested in exploring whether this nuanced perspective has been discussed in philosophical or theological contexts, and how it might reshape our understanding of *faith* and its relationship to *hope*, *belief*, and *intellectual assent*. --- **Additional food for thought**: The application of [Pascal's wager](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager) might be considered as an example of this, where an individual, faced with the uncertainty of the existence of a higher power, may choose to embrace a hopeful faith. In acknowledging the inability to decisively prove or disprove the divine, a fence-sitter on the question might opt for a faith-driven approach, investing in the potential benefits of belief (by acting "as if" the belief were true) while recognizing the inherent uncertainty. **Another related and important question** is whether we can choose to believe something based only (or mostly) on our desire for it to be true and in spite of our prior uncertainty. See [To what extent do we choose our beliefs?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/849/66156) --- **Definition of belief** Someone in the comments asked for a definition of *belief*. I will quote the first paragraph of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [article](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/) on belief: > Anglophone philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to **the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true**. To believe something, in this sense, needn’t involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term “belief”, in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage). Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it’s the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology. The “mind-body problem”, for example, so central to philosophy of mind, is in part the question of whether and how a purely physical organism can have beliefs. Much of epistemology revolves around questions about when and how our beliefs are justified or qualify as knowledge. --- **Definition of hope** To clarify, I'm using hope in the following sense: > **Faith as hopeful affirmation** > > Now consider hope. James Muyskens (1979), Louis Pojman (1986a; 1986b; 1991), and William Lad Sessions (1994) have each proposed **accounts of faith that take hope as the central cognitive attitude**. Pojman claims that: >> If belief-in, or trusting, can be analyzed in terms of commitment to a course of action or a disposition to act, then it seems that we do not need to believe-that x exists in order to believe-in **or deeply hope in the existence of x**. (Pojman (1986b), 224) > > But what is hope and is this claim plausible? > > **Hope is a complex attitude that involves both evaluation and opinion or, at least, some relatively weak constraints on opinion**. If I hope for sunny weather on my sister’s wedding day, ordinarily this will involve both a desire that the weather be sunny and a belief, say, that this is at least possible. Notice that I can hope for sunny weather even if I believe that alternatives like rain or even snow are more likely. While there are differences of opinion concerning just how hope is to be analysed, quite generally, it seems that, **for any subject S and proposition p, to say that S hopes that p involves at least that (1) S desires that p and (2) S does not believe that p is impossible. Clearly hope is also an attitude one can have towards the existence of an object, entity, or person x (e.g. God) or the obtaining of some state of affairs. These conditions are arguably necessary minima for hope**. It would make little sense to say Dave hopes that his wound will heal quickly and not become infected but has no desire that this be the case or that he believes that this is impossible. But perhaps a religiously significant sense of hope requires a bit more. As stated, the first condition leaves the nature of the desires quite unspecified (e.g. are these emotions, considered value judgments, or what?); ‘impossible’ in the second condition might mean only logically incoherent. **A plausible case could be made, for example, that the second condition for religiously significant hope should be that p is a live option for S or that S believes that the probability that p is true is not so small as to be negligible or that S does not believe not-p**. > > [...] > > Although hopes can be misplaced, the minimal epistemic opinion involved in hope is a very weak one. Indeed, hope is most nakedly apparent in cases where something is hoped for despite its improbability. Moreover, and for this reason, the hope that p requires less, often far less, in the way of evidence to be rational than the belief in that same content p. It can be reasonable to hope that p in cases where belief with the same content would not be. Clearly, I can hope to win the lottery jackpot without believing that I will and indeed while believing that it is extremely unlikely that I will; that the odds of winning are about one in two hundred million. Lying blind and paralysed in a ditch, I might hope to see and walk again. Devastated by the kidnapping of her child, years later, a tearful mother might still hope to be reunited with her son. Enslaved, I might hope one day to be set free. **Similarly, one can hope that God exists without believing that God exists**. > > Source: [Authentic faith and acknowledged risk: dissolving the problem of faith and reason](https://philpapers.org/archive/MCKAFA.pdf) , DANIEL J. MCKAUGHAN. Religious Studies / Volume 49 / Issue 01 / March 2013, pp 101 ­- 124 DOI: 10.1017/S0034412512000200, Published online: 15 June 2012

What does it mean to a Christian that Christ is the son of God? On the one hand, obviously, the normal biological meaning of _son_ does not apply. On the other hand, "we are all children of God", but Jesus seems to be more so . That God offered up His only son as a sacrifice for humanity's sins is often used as an argument to demonstrate God's love for humanity. This would imply that God loves Jesus more than His other children, that this sacrifice was particularly hard, indicating that Jesus has a filial relationship with God in a sense that we would understand. It implies that sending His son to his death was extremely painful to Him, more so than the deaths of His other children. Now, these arguments seem to me to be a clear anthropomorphisation of God, Christians seem to be attributing human characteristics such as the love of a father --not metaphorically as when referring to humanity as God's children, but in a very literal way-- to God. This seems to clash with another central tenet of Christianity which states that God is beyond our understanding, that we cannot fathom His plan. If so, then any attribution of human emotion to Him would be wrong. So, my question is how do Christians interpret Christ being the "Son of God"? What exactly does that mean? I realize the answer will depend on the particular denomination of Christianity whose views are being expressed. I am particularly interested in *an overview* of the more popular churches such as the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox but welcome answers explaining the views of any group as long as the group in question is clearly stated. --- NOTES I have read the posts below, but though related, none of them addresses the same question: - If Christ is considered the 'Son of God' then how is He a part of a Trinity? - Does the Bible have any proof that Jesus Christ is the Only-begotten Son of God? This one was quite interesting, and the accepted answer states that <code class="inline-code ">His &quot;sonship&quot; is unique, one-of-a-kind, and distinct from all others</code>, which brings us straight back to my question, how is it distinct? - "Jesus Christ God's Only Son Our Lord" Again, very interesting, but it while it explains the contradiction inherent in Christ being the _only_ Son of God while we are all His children, it does not explain in what sense Christ is a son of God.

*Please note that this is a question and I am not trying to insult anyone.* The term "Papist" is often used as an insult in anti-Catholic rhetoric, and I have not heard it used by Catholics to describe themselves (except in an ironic or humorous way). I'm wondering why the term is considered derogatory. Etymologically, it would simply means someone who believes in the institution of the Papacy, which is not only accurate for Catholics but something they are definitely not ashamed of. The reason I'm wondering this is because it's somewhat of a shame that there's no neutral term for the RCC. By calling them the "Catholic Church" one implicitly accepts their claim to be the church that is catholic, which is an ecclesiological claim no-one outside the group would agree with. Sometimes Protestants call them the "Roman Church" or "Roman Catholic" in order to avoid this difficulty, and I have also heard of these terms used by Catholics to distinguish themselves from Anglo-Catholics. But this is also considered derogatory by some Catholics. Also it is not wholly accurate unless it is meant to be "the churches in communion with the Roman Church" since this term is meant to include Eastern Rite Catholics, which are not "Roman" except in the sense that they are at the top level part of the same organization. Anyway, I'm wondering about the origins of the term "Papist" and why it is considered derogatory by Catholics. I am mainly asking why it is received as derogatory by Catholics, who obviously don't take offense at being described as those who believe in the Papacy since they don't think this is a bad thing.

### Background Early (pre Protestant Reformation) Christian writers from the 1st through 5th centuries like St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and others seem to have universally condemned usury and defined it as charging any interest on loans, not merely excessive or extortionate rates. St. Ambrose of Milan (4th c.) explicitly stated the classic definition: > “Food too is usury and clothing is usury, and **whatever is added to the capital is usury**. Whatever name you wish to put upon it, it is usury” St. Augustine (late 4th–early 5th c.) likewise defined a usurer as anyone who expects back more than he lent : > "If thou hast given the loan of thy money to one from whom thou dost expect to receive something more than thou hast given; not in money only, but anything... **if you expect to receive more than you have given, you are an usurer**, and in this are not deserving of praise, but of censure." ### Question The practice of usury has had a mixed history in the Christian Church. How do modern Protestants define it, and do they still believe it is a sin? And what do they base their definition on? For example, is usury the collection of interest at any rate on a loan? Is it the collection of excessive interest?

Most mainstream Christian denominations refer to Christ as having a "glorified body" and teach that saved humans will have glorified bodies in the afterlife. The concept seems to be based on **Philippians 3:20–21**: > For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: > > Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his **glorious body**, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. The word "glorious" is an adjective, meaning: "*having, worthy of, or bringing fame or admiration*", or "*having a striking beauty or splendor that evokes feelings of delighted admiration*". It is used casually, without further explanation, yet today the term seems to be used quite freely in many publications, as if everyone understands that it means something very specific and very different from the basic meaning of that adjective. For instance, [*A Glorified Body: The Necessity of Our Resurrection*](https://www.gty.org/blogs/B130701/a-glorified-body-the-necessity-of-our-resurrection#:~:text=They%20will%20be%20real,and%20glorified.) says that glorified bodies: > will be real, physical, genuinely human bodies — the very same bodies we have while on this earth—yet wholly perfected and glorified. What exactly is the definition of "glorified body", and what is the origin of this term, the concept and doctrine that it will be physical? --- Note that I'm not asking for what scriptures are consistent with this belief, I'm asking for the history of its development.

[Isaiah 42:19](https://biblehub.com/isaiah/42-19.htm) says: > “Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like my messenger whom I send…?” When I read this alongside the rest of Isaiah 42:18–25, I struggle with whether this “servant” is meant to describe: 1. Israel as a spiritually blind people, 2. the prophetic servant/Messiah, or 3. both in different senses. My specific concern is this: If Christians interpret Isaiah 42 as a Messianic prophecy fulfilled in Jesus, how should we understand verse 19 describing the servant as “blind” or “deaf”? Does the text imply any lack of understanding in the servant, or is this metaphor meant in a different way? I’m looking for an explanation grounded in the text and Christian theological interpretation, especially regarding how the “blindness” metaphor can be reconciled with Christian beliefs about Jesus’ perfect obedience and knowledge of God’s law.

Possible ways to understand "***virginity***" : - Some people may define it as no sexual event whatsoever. - Some may define as not having intercourse with a male. - Some may define it as not participating in any intimate acts with a male. - Some may define it as an intact hymen. I have a problem with the last one, since a lot of girls are not born with a hymen, or the hymen can be damaged in sports activities. I can't see a logical reason to think that the Blessed mother was definitely born with one or didn't damage it with non sexual physical activity. **So, what exactly does the Catholic Church mean by the "Virginity" of Mary?**

"Crossing the Tiber" / "Swimming the Tiber" have come to be the shorthand term for converting to Roman Catholicism, as well as "Swimming/Crossing the Thames" for converting to Anglicanism. (source [*Wikipedia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiber#History)) I wonder whether there are swimming/crossing bodies of water related terms for conversion between other branches of Christianity, especially to/from Eastern Orthodoxy? How about for conversion among Protestant branches?

The term 'substitutionary atonement' has been used within Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed Baptist circles for some time, and it is those I wish to examine in this question. But the word 'substitute' does not translate a Greek word found in scripture, nor does the term 'atonement'. The word 'atonement' is found once in the KJV, Romans 5:11, but it is a clear mis-translation of the word καταλλαγην, *katallagen*, in all other places rendered 'reconciliation'. Both words are vague in meaning. Nor does 'substitute' or 'substitution' convey a concept that the apostolic epistles express, the emphasis of the doctrine of Christ being union with Christ (in his sufferings, in his death and in his resurrection) rather than some kind of 'exchange' (another word never found in Greek except μετηλλαξαν, *metellazan*, in Romans 1:26). The word 'atonement' has a weak etymology and an ill-defined concept, its meaning a loose 'at-one' derivation and its application being a very general and overall term for the both the sufferings and death and resurrection of Christ that is never found in the greater precision of the apostolic writings. What exactly is being conveyed by the term ? When was the expression first coined ? What error was being resisted by the introduction of this couplet ? Again, I am looking for a response in regard to Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed and Baptist usage of the terminology. -------------------------- EDIT upon comment : I believe that 'Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures'. I believe that 'Christ gave his life a ransom for many'. I believe that 'He bare our sins in his own body on the tree'. I believe that 'he was made sin for us, who knew no sin'. But the scripture never uses the word 'substitute' to express that. I am questioning the terminology, not the doctrine of Christ. Further explanatory EDIT : My concern has always been the *emphasis*. If I have no relationship with Christ, if I am not in union with Him, if I know not his presence before my face when I pray, then *the facts* of his sufferings, death and resurrection are just that - historical facts. The terms 'substitute' and 'exchange' are distant terms. But kinsman-redeemer, for example, (*gaal* in Hebrew) conveys a relationship that exists *before the redemption takes place*, (see the book of Ruth, on this). And one is chosen 'in Christ' (not apart from him) before the foundation of the world. These are my concerns and the reason for my question.

Is **Hebron** referred to **Hebrew**? In **Genesis 39:17** → *The Hebrew Servant* → Here Joseph is called as a Hebrew. So this is my understanding that → Joseph's great grandfather Abraham was from Hebron → referred to Hebrews → often used with Israelites. It's usually refers to the descents of Abraham. **Hebrew** is → geographical reference whereas **Israelite** is → lineage reference Please correct me if I am wrong.

I have heard the term "Lordship Salvation" several times now, including in an answer I read recently. Can anyone explain to me what this is? Is this the official position of any major churches? Is this a term only used by critics of the view? (Like "easy believism" or "cafeteria Christianity" - terms nobody would actually associate ***themselves*** with!)

During much of the 20th century "Fundamentalism" was serious movement in Christianity. According to Britannica: > The term fundamentalist was coined in 1920 to describe conservative > Evangelical Protestants who supported the principles expounded in The > Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (1910–15), a series of 12 > pamphlets that attacked modernist theories of biblical criticism and > reasserted the authority of the Bible. Fundamentalism affirmed principles such as biblical inerrancy and the truth of Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the incarnation, physical resurrection, the rapture and the Second Coming. It grew up in particular opposition to modernist ideas like Evolution, in the wake of Scopes "Monkey Trial." It also became influential in politics through movements such as Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority. It seems to me, however, that the term has fallen out of favor, especially as a result of Islamic fundamentalism and its terrorist political ramifications. Indeed, I found only two questions in this entire site with titles including the word "fundamentalism" or "fundamentalist." Questions: Do fundamentalists, still use that term to describe themselves? Would it be offensive these days to call an anti-modernist Evangelical Christian a "fundamentalist?"

"Sanctified Unity Ecclesiology" was a phrase used in a couple of comments on Stack about seven years ago. One person asked what the O.P. meant by it. The response was that it is a name given for the pursuit of attaining Christian unity, while seeking to harmonize divergent views. In the OPs question there were answers with premillennial and dispensational views (which has nothing to do with this question here). The OP was happy to consider both them and amillennial and non-dispensational views. Sanctified Unity Ecclesiology was said to be one of “various tools of interpretation for understanding the scriptures.” Searching on-line only brought up links and books on the doctrine of ecclesiology and the doctrine of sanctification. I found nothing about “the pursuit of attaining Christian unity while seeking to harmonise divergent views.” Can anyone explain what this, as a title, has sprung from, and how it is used as a tool to interpret the Bible, plus whether there are any particular denominations involved in this? There is a p.d.f. with this link from a newsletter giving a review of a book on Early Holiness-Pentecostalism 1880-1909 by Joseph L. Thomas, "Perfect Harmony". The review gives that very phrase. https://urbanatheologicalseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/201409-The-Flame.pdf Thanks to Grateful Disciple for providing this.

Encounters with God (the Father) are called *Theophanies*, encounters with Jesus are called *Christophanies*, but what about encounters with the Holy Spirit? Is there a specific term for an encounter with the third person of the Trinity? **Note**: by encounter, I mean any sort of self-authenticating experience through which a supernatural being makes its existence or presence known, obvious and clear (i.e. reveals itself) to a person. _____ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86291/50422

It is common to associate Abraham as "father of the faith" and the first Jew. However, since Abram's family came from the land of Ur, isn't it more accurate to say that he wasn't a Jew but - in reality - a Babylonian that **became** a Jew because of his faith in God? This is open for answer by all denominations. I would like to hear their thoughts on the matter.

If Moses was of the tribe of Levi from both parents Exodus 2:1-3, and he never lived in Judah/Judea, in what way was he a Jew/Judean G2453 or "Jewish"? I have an understanding based on crystal clear scripture, and I've been told it's a false interpretation, so I am here looking for actual experts who can offer sound scholarship. Any takers?

I was wondering what the different names of the various hours mean in the liturgy of the hours? Where did they come from and what is their significance? They sound badass, but it would be nice to know why they are called what they are called. The hours: - Matins - Prime - Lauds - Terce - Sext - None - Vespers - Compline (I have a hunch that "None" is etymologically related to the english word "noon", seeing as this hour is prayed close to noon)

I was watching a well-known sermon by Paul Washer: ***[Shocking Youth Message (2002) | Paul Washer | HeartCry Missionary Society](https://youtu.be/HkPFv7v9CkY?t=1902)*** . At minute 31:42, Paul Washer says: > Brother Paul, it’s absolutely absurd. It is impossible, Brother Paul, to have an **encounter** with something as large as a logging truck and not be changed. > > And then my question would be to you: **What is larger—a logging truck, or God?** > > How is it that so many people today profess to have had an **encounter with Jesus Christ**, and yet they are not permanently changed? So my questions are: - What does Paul Washer mean by an "encounter with God" or "encounter with Jesus Christ"? How is this different from a "false" encounter with no lasting impact? - What is the scriptural support for the idea of having such "encounters"?

In common parlance, prophecy is often considered to be "predicting the future." For some, it conjures up images of telephone psychics and the like. Others might envision a crystal ball. It generally has a mystical connotation of some type. On the other hand, the "prophets" of Scripture (e.g. Malachi, Habakkuk, Jonah) seem to be doing something different. Making explicit predictions about the future seems to be a small part of their function as a "prophet." So my question is: **Biblically speaking, what exactly is prophecy?** Is there a Biblical definition that matches the actual practices of the prophets? ------ *If possible, please support your answers using the 66 books of Scripture that are found in the Protestant Bible.*

When I medidate on the Passion of Christ, I end up falling into the same doubts about the atonement, which I want to ask. The Catholic Church denies the penal substitutionary atonement, i.e. the notion Jesus presented himself before the Father so that He may be punished in our behalf. Instead, to atone for an offense is to offer to the offended something that he love equally or even more than he hated the offense, and so, because sin is an offense to God, the Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ to the Father is this offering on our behalf, which, in virtue of Christ being the Son of God, is more pleasing to the Father than the whole collective of sin of human kind. Furthermore, the suffering, crucifixion and death of our Lord were meritorious of all grace to us, this making sense of the seven sacraments, the sacramentals and the spiritual authority of binding and losing of the Church. **My question:** I admit that my doubts, and thus my question, is half driven by emotions. My doubt is this: "Sacrifice" in more general therms can just mean offering for the sake of the one to whom we offer, e.g. I can offer to God my time in prayer and meditation, or my intellect in faith, or my will in obedience, for the sake that He is God, is the ultimate object of my desire. Then why did it needed for Christ sacrifice be in the sense of given His life to suffer and die on the cross, and not just an offering of Himself in this less bloodsheded way? I know that God could save us in any other way for Her is omnipotent, and that He choosed the cross because He thought of it as the fittest way. However, on this I reach another face of my doubt, i.e. when Christ was on the Getsemani He said: > Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, but not as I will but as You will. Implying that His death on the cross was of the will of the Father. So, how then the Father pleases in the sacrifice of His Son that He wills? For, when I imagine my son sacrificing for the sake of another, I truly understand and can't help but to love my son for it, but not as my son sacrificing himself for the sake of my will. Again, this is half driven feelings, but these often get in the way of my spiritual life so I thought of getting rid of these. I appreciate any comment, and God bless.