Risk taking and faith

[Jacob]

There are people who are willing to take risks, whether it is in their
business or other aspects of life. But there are others who are
'cautious' and think more than twice before taking any action. The
risk-takers are usually the ones who achieve great things, because the
others are many times too scared to make a decision. Of course risk-
takers make many mistakes because their hunches do not always work
out. That is also one reason why risk-averse persons who watch them
are hesitant to take risks.

Does this have any effect on Christians walking by faith? Is it
possible that some of those who propose fantastic sounding projects
'by faith' are risk-takers by nature? Perhaps some of the others who
question these proposals are risk-averse by nature?

The essential issue is about what faith is. Is faith something given
to us from God, or is it something that we can initiate from our side?
It is clear that faith comes from hearing God (Ro.10:17). Therefore
the process of receiving something by faith from God is like this: God
reveals to us what He is planning to do; we respond in faith believing
that what He has said will happen (He.11:1). For this process to take
place we must have another basic form of faith, which is a sincere
trust and confidence in God (He.11:6).

When a person receives faith like this he is really not taking any
risk even though it may seem so, because God is trustworthy and He
cannot lie (Nu.23:19). But what if we have not really heard from God
and we are trying to muster up faith by ourselves in order to get
something from God? We may imagine we have heard from God, or think
that if God has done something for someone else He will do it for us
too. If we are mistaken in thinking that God has spoken to us, then of
course we shall not receive what we are asking for. Even if God has
done something for someone else, it does not mean that He will do it
for us too, unless it is something He has promised for all of us.

When we have received faith from God we don't have to worry about the
negative things the others tell us about. But if we have not heard
from God and we are about to go ahead with our own schemes it will be
very good for us to listen to the suggestions from others, especially
those who appear to be negative. If we are natural risk-takers with a
tendency to jump into things on impulse without much thinking we have
all the more need to pay attention to what the others are saying.

Is it not possible for us to imagine we have faith when we don't?
Can't we make a mistake about hearing God? It may be humbling for us
to admit that we can make mistakes, but it is a fact nonetheless. Why
don't we have a check on ourselves by being open to correction and
advice (Pr.15:22). Hasn't God provided others who see things from a
different point of view so as to balance those of us who want to forge
ahead without delay? Shouldn't the risk-averse ones learn to listen to
God and expect greater things from Him?

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Jacob
There are people who are willing to take risks, whether it is in their
business or other aspects of life. But there are others who are
'cautious' and think more than twice before taking any action. The
risk-takers are usually the ones who achieve great things, because the
others are many times too scared to make a decision.

This is, of course, the popular belief. But neither you nor the many others
professing it can back it up with statistics -- or any other scientific method.

But why do so many people believe this, when statistics do not back them up?
Because we all know people who really are paralyzed by indecision, and we all
know people who take risks and do well.

But this is only fooling ourselves! It fools us with the help of another fallacy
people easily swallow, losing track of all those who took the big risks and
LOST! Take Saakashvili for example: he took a big gamble invading Tskhinvali,
and lost big time.

There is something in human nature that encourages us to overlook these people,
but that something is much stronger in American society, where people are
encouraged to blame themselves and each other for their failure to be a
'success', rather than objectively assess the situation that led there.

As an example, I know and have known lots of people who despise the Biblical
commandment to give to the paupers (Prv 14:21), because they told themselves
that if the beggar is poor and has nothing, then it is because he (the beggar)
did something wrong in his life.

What is this 'something' exactly? I am not sure. But I think it is closely
related to the "Gambler's fallacy"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy).

Post by Jacob
Of course risk-
takers make many mistakes because their hunches do not always work
out. That is also one reason why risk-averse persons who watch them
are hesitant to take risks.
Does this have any effect on Christians walking by faith? Is it
possible that some of those who propose fantastic sounding projects
'by faith' are risk-takers by nature? Perhaps some of the others who
question these proposals are risk-averse by nature?
The essential issue is about what faith is. Is faith something given
to us from God, or is it something that we can initiate from our side?
It is clear that faith comes from hearing God (Ro.10:17).

Not as clear as you think. There are at least three different meanings to the
word 'faith' or 'believe' in Scripture (depending on your translation). Sorting
out which is which in which passage is, unfortunately, controversial. Yet is is

Post by Jacob
Therefore
the process of receiving something by faith from God is like this: God
reveals to us what He is planning to do; we respond in faith believing
that what He has said will happen (He.11:1). For this process to take
place we must have another basic form of faith, which is a sincere
trust and confidence in God (He.11:6).

And then what do you say, how can you answer as Paul did, when someone asks
three times from the Lord, and it is still not given?

Remember how Paul answered:

And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn
was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from
being too elated. Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should
leave me; but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is
made perfect in weakness." I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses,
that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am
content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for
when I am weak, then I am strong.
(2Co 12:7-10 RSVA)

With your definition of 'faith', this is a problem, because the petitioner had
faith that God would give it, and God did not give it.

[snip]

Post by Jacob
Is it not possible for us to imagine we have faith when we don't?

Why, yes. It is possible. But this too, is a problem for your definition of
'faith'.

Post by Jacob
Can't we make a mistake about hearing God? It may be humbling for us
to admit that we can make mistakes, but it is a fact nonetheless. Why
don't we have a check on ourselves by being open to correction and
advice (Pr.15:22). Hasn't God provided others who see things from a
different point of view so as to balance those of us who want to forge
ahead without delay?

Has he? How many of these "others" with their "different point of view" really
balancing, vs those who unbalance, distract and tempt? Don't forget:

Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals."
(1Co 15:33 RSVA)

How do you tell the difference between this "bad company" and the 'balance' you
so fulsomely praise?

[snip]

[Jacob]

Dear Mathew,

Actually a lot of your comments would have been unnecessary had you
read the full posting first before you started to comment.

You point out how many risk takers lose out, trying to show that my
statement, "The risk-takers are usually the ones who achieve great
things, because the others are many times too scared to make a
decision," is not supported by statistics. Of course risk-takers also
make BIG mistakes many times, as I wrote further down, "Of course risk-
takers make many mistakes because their hunches do not always work
out. That is also one reason why risk-averse persons who watch them
are hesitant to take risks."

You say it is not so clear when I said, "It is clear that faith comes
from hearing God (Ro.10:17)." The verse says so clearly. I don't
understand why you say it is not clear.

You say Paul prayed three times and didn't get what he prayed for,
even though "the petitioner had faith that God would give it." Perhaps
it is correct to say the petitioner had 'hope' and not 'faith.' I
doubt whether Paul had an 'assurance' that he would get what he
wanted, which is a characteristic of faith.

To make the posting short, let me sum up my explanation of faith.

1. There is a faith that amounts to trust and confidence in God. This
is not about getting anything from God, but knowing Him and trusting
Him as a Person.

2. When it comes to asking for and getting something from God, faith
of the first type does not give any assurance of getting what we ask
for. We need to also know the specific will of God. God may 'speak' to
our heart in a way that gives us an assurance that we are going to get
this what we are asking for.

I hope this makes things clearer.

Jacob

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Jacob
Dear Mathew,
Actually a lot of your comments would have been unnecessary had you
read the full posting first before you started to comment.

Nice try, but no. Also, you can get better attention if you spell your
interlocutor's name correctly.

Post by Jacob
You point out how many risk takers lose out, trying to show that my
statement, "The risk-takers are usually the ones who achieve great
things, because the others are many times too scared to make a
decision," is not supported by statistics.

And in this post, you still have no statistical support. I don't see
any other kind of support either. Except repetition, which is not even
really support at all.

Post by Jacob
further down, "Of course risk- takers make many mistakes because
their hunches do not always work out. That is also one reason why
risk-averse persons who watch them are hesitant to take risks."

But this still does not help you. You still do not have any
statistical support. All you have is a 'forced' explanation.

For that matter, there are still many, MANY risk-takers who don't get
that second chance after making the big mistake. This too, is a
fallacy in your reasoning.

The "risk-averse" would not shrink away so much if these washouts were
not so common. But they are common, and you are hiding from that
truth.

Post by Jacob
You say it is not so clear when I said, "It is clear that faith comes
from hearing God (Ro.10:17)." The verse says so clearly. I don't
understand why you say it is not clear.

Then now it is my turn to remind you to read the full posting
first. For I did explain why it is not clear. But you passed over most
of that explanation without comment, even pretending it was not there
at all, claiming that you don't understand why I say that.

Post by Jacob
You say Paul prayed three times and didn't get what he prayed for,
even though "the petitioner had faith that God would give it." Perhaps
it is correct to say the petitioner had 'hope' and not 'faith.'

No, that is not correct.

Post by Jacob
I doubt whether Paul had an 'assurance' that he would get what he
wanted, which is a characteristic of faith.

Well, perhaps you do doubt it, but on what grounds? Why should any of
us share your doubt? After all: how do you -know- that is "a
characteristic of faith"? That it is does NOT follow from Rom 10:17.

Post by Jacob
To make the posting short, let me sum up my explanation of faith.
1. There is a faith that amounts to trust and confidence in God. This
is not about getting anything from God, but knowing Him and trusting
Him as a Person.
2. When it comes to asking for and getting something from God, faith
of the first type does not give any assurance of getting what we ask
for. We need to also know the specific will of God. God may 'speak' to
our heart in a way that gives us an assurance that we are going to get
this what we are asking for.
I hope this makes things clearer.

Not really. I still do not see, for example, why I should share your
doubt, based on an odd consideration of 'assurance'. Nor do I see any
recognition (on your part) of the multiple meanings of the word
'faith' in Scripture. You cannot make things clearer while continuing
to deny this multiplicity of meanings.

Remember: it was you, not me, who tried to use Rom 10:17 as a
definition of 'faith'. But by that definition, 'assurance' is not even
relevant, since it is not mentioned in the definition, nor follows
from anything mentioned in the definition.

But even more important, I can find NO passages in the NT that justify
your conditioning 'faith' on 'assurance'. We have, for example,
Christ's own words:

And I tell you, Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will
find; knock, and it will be opened to you. (Luk 11:9 RSVA)

That assurance IS the only 'assurance' the gift is conditioned on. So
where do you get the 'assurance' you are talking about? How can you
justify claiming that Paul did not have it?