Brian, I don't think we are disagreeing. Confidence can be either good or bad. It's not always bad. That's my point. If something can be either good or bad, then it's not intrinsically good or intrinsically bad, but instead it depends on what your confidence is in.

Also, I wasn't specifically talking about EC leaders (this isn't even under the EC category). I'm talking about our postmodern culture in general. Have you never heard someone in our culture say that people did bad things in the past because they thought they were right? I can hardly turn the radio on without hearing someone argue this. (And you're right, the irony is that people who hold this position still argue for their position and think they're right.) Start listening for this, and I'm sure you'll notice people saying it.

Even on this blog, I followed the links I had back to this statement that was written in a comment: “When one group believes that they are entirely and unquestionably right and all who disagree are horribly wrong, history has shown that bad things occur.” Again, Wilberforce serves as a counterexample to this.

Secondly, again, I don't think confidence is neutral. Confidence is at least quite similar to faith and that's never seen as neutral. It's either good or bad depending on what is producing it.

So I guess we disagree. That's ok, its something I'm somewhat familiar with.

I'm saying that the concept of confidence is neutral. When you look “confidence” up in the dictionary, it doesn't imply good or evil. Of course it's not something that we possess apart from good or bad convictions, so in practice, it's not going to be neutral. But I'm talking just about the concept of what the word “confidence” means.

he was compelled or overwhelmed by convictions that produced confidence.

Exactly! Precisely! He had very strong convictions, and I'm saying it was good that he had confidence in his convictions.

Brian, I think you're thinking too hard about this and misunderstanding me. I absolutely agree with you that we can't just decide to be confident. Other things raise or lower our confidence in what is true (e.g., the reasons that present themselves to us, the Holy Spirit's work, etc.) Just in terms of theology, think about the things you believe. Some doctrines you're very convinced are true, but for other more peripheral doctrines that you haven't studied much, you don't have a lot of confidence. You're not sure your tentatively held belief is correct. Were you to study it carefully, though, you would probably either become confident your formerly held belief was true or confident that it was false.

What is happening today, however, is this: there are many postmodern people who are scared of people who are confident about anything. They think that if you're confident about your beliefs, you're likely to hurt somebody. I'm using Wilberforce as a counterexample–confidence (when it's held about true and good things) actually can lead to something good. It doesn't necessarily lead to bad things, as postmoderns claim.

Further, because postmoderns think that confidence leads to evil necessarily (i.e., that the concept of confidence is by definition bad), they spend a great deal of time trying to convince people that they can't really know the truth for sure. They reduce people's confidence that they can know the truth (by trying to convince us philosophically that we can't know the truth) so that people's confidence in the truth of their beliefs will be reduced. They believe this is the key to having a good world.

I, on the other hand, think that there are ways we can strengthen our convictions–ways we can strengthen our confidence that what we believe is true (one way is by reflecting on the evidence that it is true). Further, I think (as Wilberforce demonstrated) that we would be doing ourselves (and the good of the world) a disservice if we bought into the idea that we can't know truth. Because if we did, our confidence in our good convictions would be reduced, and we would be less likely to persevere in doing good.

He couldn't have been unassured if he wanted to be.

Wilberforce's morals were informed by the Bible which he believed to be a true source of information. This led to strong convictions. But there are people these days who are trying hard to get people to doubt their convictions–to convince people with various arguments that they should hold their convictions loosely because they can't really know the truth. Should they succeed in changing people's minds about the nature of truth and our ability to know it, people will not have enough confidence in the truth to defend it, as Wilberforce did.

Here's the bottom line: I think what we need to do is raise or lower people's confidence that what they believe is true by presenting evidence and arguing a case for the good/true and against the bad/false. I don't think that we ought to lower everyone's confidence by convincing them across the board that they can't really know the truth, therefore they should doubt all their beliefs.

I hope that's more clear! Sorry for the confusion.

I get the impression you think of confidence as being assertative. Consider your example of Wilberforce. He didn't decide to be confident, he was compelled or overwhelmed by convictions that produced confidence. He couldn't have been unassured if he wanted to be.

Again, it seems as if part of your post is encouraging confidence. I would say one can't simply decide to be confident. It is the result of something working in us and producing assurance about something.

I get what you're trying to say, “confidence itself isn't a bad thing.” I agree; but I don't agree how you're getting there, calling it this neutral state that we attach to either good or bad motives.

Certainly. But I'm not talking about “confidence produced by the Spirit.” I'm talking about “confidence.” The base definition of the word–the confidence anyone could have about anything. Not confidence plus anything else. Of course if you add “confidence in good and true things” (i.e., produced by the Spirit), the result is not neutral. That's my whole point! It can be useful for great good. But the mere concept of confidence doesn't determine whether it leads to good or bad. Does that make sense?

I think most would at least say that “confidence” and “faith” are quite similar, especially when we move past the naive western notion that “faith” is merely “assent to facts.”

I define it as I said above–trust and confidence in God.

You seem to imply that “confidence” is some exercise of the “will.”

I'm not sure why it came across that way. Confidence is a state. You can have more or less confidence about something. Faith is active. If you have faith, you're placing your trust in God.

But, as I was trying to contend, if “confidence/faith” in God is produced by God, than it is something that is produced, not something that is merely exercised. And if that's the case, the question isn't merely whether we should “exercisely confidence,” but ask, “how do we position ourselves to have confidence produces.”

I'm not sure where we differ here. In this post I'm arguing that confidence can be a good thing (contrary to popular opinion in our culture). Therefore, the next question should be, “How is our confidence increased? And how can I pursue confidence in the truth about God so as to persevere through trials?” But I haven't gotten to that question yet. 😉 (Although I did allude to it in my response to you above.) I'm still just trying to convince people that confidence can be a good thing! Since you agree with that, we're on the same page so far.

So if this is true, than I go back to my initial point: faith and confidence is really different ways to say essentially the same thing. And if faith/confidence (I would say) is produced by the Spirits activities, it would hardly be viewed as a neutral quality. So my point still stands, I believe.

I think most would at least say that “confidence” and “faith” are quite similar, especially when we move past the naive western notion that “faith” is merely “assent to facts.”

You seem to imply that “confidence” is some exercise of the “will.” But, as I was trying to contend, if “confidence/faith” in God is produced by God, than it is something that is produced, not something that is merely exercised. And if that's the case, the question isn't merely whether we should “exercisely confidence,” but ask, “how do we position ourselves to have confidence produces.”

Waht do you think?

Hi Brian! Faith could be called “trust and confidence in God.” But mere “confidence” isn't always the same as faith in God. (If A then B, but if B then not necessarily A.)

So I wouldn't say that the words “faith” and “confidence” in our culture are describing exactly the same thing. Our faith is us actively placing our trust in God. Our confidence about whether or not our faith is well-placed is not the same thing as our faith (although it can affect the strength of it).

Confidence is morally neutral in this sense–one could be confident that slavery is the right thing to do and fight for its continuance. Or, one could be confident that slavery is wrong and fight for its abolition. The confidence could serve a bad cause or a good one.

And if confidence is wrought by God, in what way can we be “certain” of it?

That's not the way I was using the word “confidence” in my post. It doesn't make sense to say, “How can we be certain of confidence?” But one can say, “How can we be confident that our faith is placed in something true?”

True religious knowledge, I would argue, isn't something that submits to theorems; true religious knowledge is displayed by faithfully attending to orphans and widows and keeping unstained from the world.

True religious knowledge about who Jesus is is displayed in one way and acquired in another. Do you learn that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected by taking care of an orphan? No. You would learn about the blessings of sacrifice and what it means to love, and you would probably be able to better identify with what Jesus has done, but you wouldn't learn that his death and resurrection occurred through that means. On the other hand, your confidence that his death and resurrection really occurred, that God's words are true, and that we ought to take care of orphans would motivate you to faithfully attend to orphans.

So one's “confidence” can't be held in some foundational sense, but as the fruit of one who is connected to God through Jesus Christ… something that can't really be “proved,” but demonstrated.

Confidence does reveal itself through demonstration (as my whole post claims), but it's not wholly acquired through that demonstration, as I explained above. Faith in God is a gift from Him. (You could have all the confidence in the world that Christianity is true and still not put your faith in God because you're confident that you don't want to submit!) But we can increase our confidence that our faith is well placed by different things–reading about God's character in His word, reading the stories of those who have served Him, looking at what He's done in history, reflecting on the way He's showed Himself in the world in the resurrection, or the design of creation, or whatever.

But all this is more complicated than the subject of this post. I'm not trying to make any theological statement. Here I'm simply saying that the more confidence you have that a course of action is good, right, and true, the more likely you are to persevere in that course of action in the face of persecution, as it says here in the Bible. This observation applies equally to Christians and non-Christians.

But in terms of what you're asking, notice that the things they did in the above passage (helping prisoners, etc.) came after they were enlightened by the Holy Spirit working in their hearts through their hearing of the truth. In the same way, as we pursue the truth, our confidence in truth will increase, and the Holy Spirit will increase our faith (trust in God). But you won't find anywhere in the Bible a story where the Holy Spirit changed someone's heart without the presence of propositional, “foundational” (as you put it) knowledge. (“How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard?”)

Thanks for the post. I'm curious if you make a distinction between “faith” and “confidence”. From a biblical language perspective (Greek in particular), there really isn't a distinction made between confidence and faith; it's almost as if they are one in the same.

And as you know, faith in God or the power of the Kingdom (the gospel) isn't something someone merely exercises, it is the result of God's gracious movement in our lives. It is graciously produced by God. So if that is true, can we truly think of “confidence” as morally neutral from a Christian perspective?

And if confidence is wrought by God, in what way can we be “certain” of it? True religious knowledge, I would argue, isn't something that submits to theorems; true religious knowledge is displayed by faithfully attending to orphans and widows and keeping unstained from the world. So one's “confidence” can't be held in some foundational sense, but as the fruit of one who is connected to God through Jesus Christ… something that can't really be “proved,” but demonstrated.

So, back to my first question: do you make a distinction between confidence and faith? Why or why not? And if so, what's the biblical warrant?

Thanks again for the post.