I have been in a conversation recently about doubt. Most specifically, the question that has risen is, “Can a true Christian doubt God at the most fundamental level.” A girl just wrote to me and said that she often envies Christians who don’t ever doubt. I told her that there is really no such thing. All people doubt!
Let me be clear (for this is something that many people would disagree with me on): I don’t think that belief should ever be conceived of as “black and white.” No, don’t go there. I am not talking about some form of relativism with regard to the nature of truth (i.e. there is no such thing as truth). What I am saying is that people vary with regard to the strength of their beliefs. And I am saying that this can vary from time to time. Belief can go up and down. In other words, belief is not something that you either have or you don’t.
I have already revealed my proposition (i.e. a truly born again believer can doubt). Let me define “fundamental level.” What I mean is that a Christian can doubt to such a degree that they even doubt the very existence of God. Yes, I am assuming that you have done the same. I have and sometimes still do.
Where did this come from? I had a different conversation today when a lady, whom no one would ever expect, came to me in confidence expressing her inner pain. “I have recently been doubting the existence of God,” she told me with much trepidation. I think that she was most surprised that I was not surprised (well, maybe a little).
A dictionary definition of a straight line is “the shortest path between two points.” The definition of doubt, at least from one perspective, is the line that bridges our faith and perfect faith. I am under the assumption that no one has perfect faith. If this is true, then everyone’s faith is lacking in some respect. This lack will take on different forms for different people and different circumstances. Sometimes it will show itself though particular habitual sins. Sometimes it is our own pride. Many times it takes the form of doubt at our most fundamental levels.
I don’t believe that this is wrong. Let me step back and rephrase. In a fallen world with fallen people—and Christians who are still battling the flesh—should we expect anything else? Do you really believe that once you become a Christian doubt is no longer a foe? So it is wrong only in the sense that living in a fallen world is wrong. It is bad to the degree that being a resurrection short of full redemption is bad.
These are the words of another who sent me an email today (it has been a day full of this issue for some reason): “I lived for so many years doubting as religion was crammed down my throat, and watched those very same people live in hatred and judgement…now I know that Christ is not about rituals, dogma, and I was so relieved to find out it was OK to question…I just didn’t know what I didn’t know.”
I can’t read too much into this, but my assumption is that many people, like the one above, are afraid to make a commitment because they have worked under the unfounded assumption that our faith must be perfect. J.P. Moreland once said if someone believes 51% and disbelieves 49%, they are a believer in that which holds the greatest percent.
Do Christians doubt? Of course we do. But this does not mean we don’t believe. You may be at 63%, 95%, or 51%, but know that your ability to rise above 50% is of the Lord. He is with you and will hold you tight. Doubt is a necessary by-product of imperfection. It is a necessary evil that accompanies us on our road to belief.
338 replies to "Can Christians Doubt?"
That is _not_ what Christ said there! Christ says that the Father wants everyone who believes on Him to be saved, and Christ promises in that verse and twice more in the verses before that everyone who believes will be raised up on the last day.
Again, there’s *nothing* about wanting everyone to believe; it says something about everyone who believes, not everyone period.
I definitely agree.
This is horribly backward; because Christ said that only those who have been sent by the Father can hear, and only those who hear can have faith. So being “sent by the Father” and being “drawn by the Father” both come prior to faith, since faith comes by hearing.
Oddly enough, I’m not going to argue this point 🙂 — it leads into Calvinism, which isn’t really the topic here.
-Wm
Wm Tanksley,
You said, “but if you realize that Paul is trying to say that salvation is God’s gracious act, and faith comes later, why that’s exactly how to say it.”
I honestly don’t see how that statement can fit with Ephesians 5:8 that says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, {it is} the gift of God;…”
If we are saved through faith, how can we be saved first and then faith come afterwards?
Hi Alexander,
Read the following verse.
Mark 16:14 Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen.
If faith is gift of God then why Jesus is rebuking people for hardness of heart? Shouldn’t He rebuke Himself? That verse clearly says that it is not God’s work to give faith.
As I said Eph 2:8 is misinterpreted one. All here are so much brainwashed that they can’t see that their interpretation doesn’t fit.
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
There are three things
1. grace
2. salvation
3. faith
Grace is what comes from God, that’s why you will not find anywhere Jesus rebuking anybody why you don’t have grace. Reason is simple grace is the part that God does not humans. When we do our part “faith” God does His part “grace”.
Why there is no boasting because it is happening by grace and we don’t deserve it. It is not happening by our merit.
God doesn’t draw a person who doesn’t draw himself near to God first.
James 4:8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
I agree with cheryl U.
If we are going to say man has no choice in the matter when it comes to deciding what he can have faith in, or even whether he can have it at all, according to the preceding arguments here, then we would have to logically conclude from that line of thinking that man would have no choice in doubting God either.
That would throw the whole concept of John 3:16, stating ‘who so ever believes in Him’ off, and and make belief totally beyond our control.
Isn’t that what Adam tried to pull when God questioned him, and he replied that it was the woman who ate the forbidden fruit, and then the woman caused him to make the same mistake?
Sorry, God didn’t swallow that argument that it was completely beyond their control, and neither do I. It’s an avoidance of personal responsibility that goes on even today.
Given that even by your interpretation the faith that saves has to be a gift of God, it’s hardly fair to attribute our beliefs to misinterpretation.
But what’s really sad here is how you reply to Alexander’s post, in which he discusses multiple passages that back our claim, and all you say is that nobody’s given any other passages. How about all the ones he gave? They’re right in the message you replied to.
-Wm
Also read
Mat 13:58 Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.
“because of their unbelief” if God gives faith then why He didn’t give faith?
To Vinod Isaac and others who have commented: Be careful with living in black or white. We are limited, as humans, only God can live in black and white because He has all of the answers. We learn and we grow, but certainty in all things is a bit beyond we seekers. I am an old man who has loved God from the time I was small. God penetrated my world and drew me to Him in an intimate way over a long time. I treasure that relationship more than anything in life and I still wonder and question and struggle to understand many things. There are many things in scripture and theology, I struggle to get my arms around. The older I get, the more I wonder. I do not doubt that God exists. That was earlier in life. I have had too much personal experience of Him in my life to question that. But, I doubt, on occasion, much of what I have been taught and I learn that much was wrong and I celebrate when God shows me a new light on a subject. Be open to new ideas and don’t crawl into a safe cocoon. It is ok to doubt God. We are human with frailities. David got angry with God in the Psalms, my most read part of scripture. He obviously questioned God as to when He would act. I do that in my struggles at times. I know He will act. I know that from experience. But, I don’t know when, but I trust His when is the right time for me.
Hi Wm,
Alexander didn’t give any verse that says “faith is gift of God”.
Eph 2:8 he is reading incorrectly.
John 6 “God draws” is not equal to “God gives faith”.
Where is the Bible verse that says “saving faith is gift of God”?
Instead Alexander himself quoted verses that says contrary to his assumptions.
John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God
Is very clear “whoever believes in him”
John 6:63-65 is simply talking about Jesus’ forknowledge.
“But there are some of you who do not believe.”
John 6:65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
It is very clear that because they didn’t believe Father can not grant them access to Jesus. Because people can have access only through faith.
Alexander is reading “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.” incorrectly and trying to fit with verse 65. Instead that should be read with verse 64.
It simply says Jesus is all knowing. Both Eph 2:8 and verses from John 6 are being misinterpreted because surrounding passages are being ignored.
Read
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
“you believe in Him”. Clearly says that believing is to be done by people not by God. You ignore the context and twist few verses to fit your theology.
Read
John 6:40 “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Again says “everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him”. Again believing has to be done by “every one” not by God.
Read
John 6:47 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
“he who believes in Me” again the believing has to be done by person not by God.
You ignore all these verses and twist the meaning of one or two verses and try to fit your doctrine in to it. That’s how cults come into existence.
BTW I think I need to set context for John 6:29
It is said in answer to question
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
So Jesus is saying when one believes he is doing the Work that God wants them to do.
“We are limited, as humans, only God can live in black and white because He has all of the answers. We learn and we grow, but certainty in all things is a bit beyond we seekers.”
I agree. Our faith should not be in our faith, or anyone else’s, but in His faithfulness in all things. I too have lived long enough to know that I don’t know it all, and never will, no matter how hard I try, and indeed, thanks to His grace and mercy, I don’t have to. That, to me, is the very essence of faith. We simply trust in Him, come what may, to know what we don’t, even we can’t, or won’t. That’s the real beauty of it.
Running away from that reality is silly. We will have to deal with it now or later. I, for one, prefer doing it now, while I still have a choice.
Supposing that’s correct, how does that faith get there? (I’m not sure that faith casts out doubt, since that’s not in the Bible, but let’s say it is.)
That’s not what James says — he doesn’t tell us to cut off desire. I suppose you mean to stop the chain that starts with desire before it leads to sin? But there’s no such chain identified for doubt or fear.
I have no argument here — I agree. Doubt is like sin because doubt is sin.
He never disqualified it, he merely rebuked it.
No, that’s simply the only sensible way to interpret the “faith as mustard seed” comparison. Growing doesn’t work because a seed isn’t growing while it’s a seed; bigness doesn’t work because mustard seeds aren’t big and don’t grow big.
First, the same story is told in Mark, in which the author recalls Christ as asking whey they had NO faith. Matthew could have said “little” if Christ actually had said “none”, but he couldn’t have said “none” if He’s actually said “little”; so it would seem that if Mark can be trusted at all, Christ must have actually said “no faith”.
Second, why do you say some amount of faith should calm the storm? I don’t recall that promise.
That’s not what it says! It means that Christ knew how little their faith was because of how much fear they showed, and how they didn’t solve the problem. I suppose we could debate the correct way to solve the problem; I’d say that the correct solution would be to turn to the One Whom the wind and waves obey (Ps 107:29), while you’d probably say the right solution would be to build up your own faith until you can do it yourself.
Either way, the passage doesn’t show that too little faith is incapable of producing ANY effect; it says that the amount they had (perhaps none?) wasn’t enough to…
Hi Wm,
You wrote:
Either way, the passage doesn’t show that too little faith is incapable of producing ANY effect; it says that the amount they had (perhaps none?) wasn’t enough to…
That’s what it says. Desciples had faith in Jesus that’s why they had left their nets and boats and followed Him. They had faith to be with Jesus at the moment but they didn’t have faith that Jesus can calm the wind.
That’s why they marveled
Mat 8:27 So the men marveled, saying, “Who can this be, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?”
They had faith on Jesus in one area of life and not on other.
Hi Wm,
Same disciples who didn’t have faith lot of times. Did the following
Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, “Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.”
Do you see that “but what I do have I give you”. Will you say to Peter that it is blasphemy? How can Peter claim that he has the healing? Was Peter trusting in himself?
Do you think what Peter said and did was wrong and it should be removed from Bible?
He is the same Peter who tried to walk on water and Jesus rebuked him.
That’s a great response; so good, in fact, that Paul pictured someone giving it to him in Romans 9.
But there’s more I can say to your objection. First, God giving us faith is the ultimate solution to the problem, because it enables us to fully fulfill the Law out of love for God. But why didn’t we fully fulfill the Law on our own? It’s not because we didn’t _know_ the law; it was right THERE. It’s not that we were physically incapable; every line is physically possible. Worst of all, it’s not that the law looks wrong to us; the Law is beautiful.
The reason we didn’t obey the law — ALL OF US — is that we don’t _want_ to. How can we possibly blame God for our own unwillingness to do the right thing?
Indeed. Your blame here is only another instance of that.
Aside from the ones we’ve brought before you, of course…
But the gifts are _gifts_; they’re not earned. Asking doesn’t get them for you; it’s up to the Holy Spirit.
Desiring doesn’t get them for you either.
But this happens after the gift is given.
An excellent point. God works through _means_; He used Paul to gift Timothy, and He uses our faith to save us — but that salvation isn’t something we can boast about, it’s entirely the gift of God.
It definitely is. And without God’s work to make us alive, we couldn’t possibly fulfill our responsibility; we’d be “condemned already”, because that’s what we deserve. How can we generate life in ourselves?
-Wm
Wm,
I would still really like to know your answer to the question I asked in # 202 above. And I also wonder if your understanding is the Calvinist understanding on this point? I am a bit confused here.
That’s almost certain, because it’s what the rabbis of his time talked about.
That article is called “blogspam” — someone snipped together some info from Wikipedia and attached ads to it. Whoever did it didn’t know English very well; they seem to call every plant a “tree”, and they associate “mustard tree” with the mustard plants, even though there’s no relation aside from flower color (yellow). Check out Wikipedia on the two. The so-called mustard tree grows in the western hemisphere; not in Palestine.
No, He specifically tells us he’s seeing something very _small_ and comparing it to a mustard seed. He tells us that the Kingdom of Heaven is like that, except that the Kingdom grows into a huge tree that birds nest in.
It’s ambiguous — Christ uses “it” when says that it grew; so we have to decide whether he’s talking about a specific mustard seed, or the Kingdom.
From the passage immediately before that, right after Christ says “Don’t you understand this parable? Then how will you understand any parable?” (Mark 4:13); He then explains many symbols used in the parables of the Kingdom. There are many — the field is the world, the birds are Satan, the seeds are the word that is sown… And all three symbols I mentioned (Christ defines them in other passages) appear in the Parable of the Mustard Seed.
Christ explained the meaning of all the symbols, and those were symbols He explained. If it wasn’t symbolic, it frankly was an odd parable; parables are _very_ symbolic.
This parable had at least one purpose; I think one purpose was to explain that the Church would grow far beyond what anyone would expect, and Satan would actually find shelter inside it (in the form of false teachers).
That’s fine, but when the Kingdom of God grows, we give glory to God, not to the workers. Do you think that’s just a fiction, that we’re lying in order to look more modest? Or do you suppose it really IS God’s work, and we’re just the tools He uses according to…
Good good question, thank you for speaking up. I was terribly unclear. I meant to convey two things, and I spoke too quickly and muddled them.
As a reminder, this is in context of Eph 2. (You meant to type Eph 2:8.)
One thing I was trying to convey was that the final result of salvation — seated in the heavenlies with Christ — is stated _first_ (i.e. in verse 2:5) as a direct result of God’s bringing us to life; there’s no mention of faith there, only of God’s independent work. So _what_ God did (save us) is more primary to this passage than _how_ He did it (through faith). The point that God saved us through faith appears in 2:8, in an echo of 2:5; but even there, Paul clarifies that he doesn’t want anyone to think of this faith as being something we could boast of.
The other thing I was trying to convey was the causal order of salvation as given in this passage: we have faith only because God caused it by bringing us to life. Bringing us to life is salvation from wrath and death; giving us faith is salvation from slavery to sin; and seating us in the heavenlies is salvation from separation from God.
-Wm
Wm,
Then you don’t believe that having faith is a part of salvation from wrath and death? We are already saved from wrath and death before we have faith? Or am I understanding you incorrectly?
By the way, thanks for correcting my typo in the Eph. reference.
@Alexander – True, that quote taken alone is pure Arminianism, but taken in context of what else Vinod adds, he is certainly not Arminian. For example in comment #204 he says “God doesn’t draw a person who doesn’t draw himself near to God first”, which is basically nonsense, and not even supported by the scripture cited. This would be vehemently rejected by any Arminian.
FWIW, I think that most Arminians would reject the idea that they have cause to boast, just as most Calvinists would reject the idea that God is the author of sin. Each claim is made by one side to slander the other, and are not very useful, IMO.
Wm,
Romans 3:28, 5:1 and Galatians 2:16 all say that we are justified by faith. And then Romans 5:9 goes on to say, “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath {of God} through Him.” That sounds to me like justification, which the Bible says repeatedly comes through faith, comes before being saved from wrath. If that is the case, how can it be that we have salvation from wrath and death before we have faith?
By the way, it also seems to me that Romans 4:16 and 5:2 make it plain that it is faith that gives us access to the grace of God that brings salvation. Not that the grace of God gives us life or salvation before faith. Of course, that does not negate the fact that the Bible says that faith comes by hearing the Word of God. It just doesn’t at all seem to line up to me with the idea that we are saved or made alive before we have faith.
William:
I tend to agree with #221. It does seem to me that it is more of a hyper-Calvinistic point of view than a biblical view to state that if God doesn’t choose us by predestination, then we can’t choose Him by faith. What would be the point of any of us even having faith at all if that were true? Would God be so cruel as to reject someone when they accepted Christ in faith on this earth when they get to the end of their lives, because they weren’t chosen?
It seems to me that would be at odds with Christ’s statements that if He be lifted up, He would draw all men unto him, and that He is willing for none to perish, but desires all to be saved. And we do have to accept Christ’s existence by faith first, because we can’t see Him!
That’s why I wonder if the predestination only thing doesn’t create more doubt in and of itself, because it would certainly cause one to wonder if they accept Christ whether they were really saved or not.
Why have you decided that I would object to this? What do you think this has to do with our conversation?
It seems that you’re attempting to change the subject — have you decided that the question of growing one’s own faith is indefensible?
-Wm
It is a _part_ of that salvation, because it is a _consequence_ of it. Having been made alive, we then have faith; but having faith is not what makes us alive, because while we were dead we could not have faith.
The reason I put things in this order is simply that I’m attempting to exegete this specific passage; I’m trying to keep consistent with the rest of the Bible, but I’m trying to only say what this passage says. Thus, I include salvation from wrath as part of the salvation from death — because this passage does.
I’ll respond more in my response to your other post.
-Wm
Yes, we are — to be justified (dikaio) means to have your works officially vindicated. That vindication is declared on the basis of your faith.
The point here — I think — is that this is “the wrath to come”. God’s wrath isn’t revealed right now; it’s waiting for the Day of the Lord, a future event. Eph 2 points out that we are saved from being “children of wrath”, that is, appropriate targets of that wrath; looking forward, we can know with certainty that even though the wrath hasn’t yet come, we will be saved from it, and in a sense we _were_ saved from it, by the revivification described in Eph 2.
The wrath that we’re saved from is future with respect to our faith; the event that caused us to be saved is past with respect to our faith.
In Romans 5:2 I see “the grace by which we stand” to be talking not about the grace by which we were made alive, but the grace by which our standing is viewed in light of how our faith fits the spirit of the law, rather than in light of how our actions fit the letter of the law. This fits the context well.
In Romans 4:16 the context is similar, but this passage isn’t talking about salvation, but about promises to be fulfilled on Earth, toward Abraham’s heirs. The question is not what saves us, but what makes our lives acceptable to God. The answer isn’t “the works of the law”, but rather the righteousness that comes from faith. This righteousness only appears as we enact our salvation in our daily lives (as James would say, I think); but the salvation isn’t caused by the righteousness, nor by the faith which brought the righteousness, but by God’s gracious gift.
Wm,
John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
How could anything be more clear that it is HE WHO BELIEVES in Him that has eternal life? To read it that he who has eternal life believes in Him makes no sense whatsoever and is turning what Jesus said around totally backward. And that is what you keep trying to tell us.
Wm,
So what in the world wrath and death are you talking about that we are saved from when we are made alive–only wrath and death here on this earth–it has nothing to do with eternal wrath and death?
And the whole context of the Romans 4:16 verse, if you read on through the first part of chapter 5, is that we are justified, etc, by faith. That verse is emphatically not in any way I can possibly read and understand it referring to just life on this earth!!
I am sorry, but it seems to me that you are taking these verses and turning them around upside down and backward from any literal meaning that they have in an effort to make them fit your theology. I don’t see how any one reading through them on their own could possibly come to the conclusions that you are coming to here.
First, two quick notes. 1: “hyper-calvinistic” isn’t another word for “wrong”; it means one of a set of errors, and this isn’t hyper-calvinism. 2: My intent is not to present or defend Calvinism, but rather to read the texts Vinod has put before us and see whether what he claims actually comes from the texts.
In every case, we’ve seen that Vinod’s doctines aren’t even present in the texts at all, and are usually contradicted by the plain readings.
In no case have I used the word “predestination”, nor have I spoken of eternity past, or the foundations of the Earth, or the beginning of time. I’m interpreting the text as it appears, specifically in Eph 2.
I didn’t use the word “chosen”, either. I said that faith is a gift from God. If we have enough faith to “accept Christ in faith on this earth,” we were given that faith by God. We won’t be rejected; God doesn’t judge us based on where our faith comes from; He accepts all who have faith.
Context: Christ was just approached by Philip and Andrew, who wanted to know whether the God-honoring Greeks could come to him; Christ’s ministry had been exclusively to the Jews. He answered by saying that after He was lifted up, then He would draw all {people} unto Him. Jesus obliquely answered a few questions, and then hid.
It seems to me that Christ was promising that the Gentiles (and Jews, “all”) would be able to come to Him after His lifting up. He then hid from them, so perhaps He also meant that they couldn’t come before that (but there’s not much evidence).
Again, context: pray for all people, especially the rulers.
God wants all manner of people to be saved; some are from the rulers, even though none were at that time.
If this were what faith meant, then Christ wouldn’t have used the word when talking to people who could see Him. For that matter, it also doesn’t make sense when Paul uses it to explain justification in Romans.
-Wm
Thank you for your open and honest discussion of Christian doubt. I hope you’ll someday write a paper on “Christian Authenticity”; that is, what it means to be authentic when we cross the threshhold of our church. You seem…well qualified to discuss the topic. Thank you, very much, for the oxygen you bring to my life.
I’ve been trying to respond to your verses; but here are some to meet that exact demand. By the way, I’d still like to see you explain how Eph 2 could possibly mean what you want it to mean, in light of the actual words (see my discussion).
Here, look at Rom 12:3, which clearly says that “God has distributed to each of you a measure of faith.” Look at Heb 12, where Christ is called the “perfecter of our faith” (note that “the author” could mean that He pioneered it, rather than meaning that He placed it in our hearts, so I’m not citing that as evidence).
The beginning of Rom 4 should also be counted as evidence against the idea that increasing faith is the result of our own efforts; there it contrasts the results of our own efforts against the results of faith. If faith were the result of our own effort, how would THAT make sense?
Now, look at Acts 17:31. Here you’ll find that “God has provided faith to all by raising Him from the dead.” There are no translations I could find that put “faith” here, but it’s the same Greek word, “pistis”. (I suspect this might be because the faith being discussed here is clearly not saving faith — but I’m not certain about that, because it may be.)
How about Rom 14:1, where we’re instructed to treat people with weak faith carefully (rather than lecturing them with our mouths full of meat offered to idols). That makes it look like there’s no blame in them for their weak faith.
-Wm
William,
I am not discussing or defending what Vinod has said, but trying to understand how you are arriving at some of your conclusions. What you seem to be saying is there is a disconnect between God’s spirit drawing someone and someone having the faith to answer that call.
You also say:
“hyper-calvinistic” isn’t another word for “wrong”; it means one of a set of errors, and this isn’t hyper-calvinism.”
I agree with the first part of the sentence that hyper-calvinistic is not another word for ‘wrong’, but not the second part. One of the points of hyper-Calvinism is that our faith has nothing to do with accepting Christ, in the sense that we are drawn only by God’s spirit and thus have no control or responsibility in the matter in the matter whatsoever. For those who don’t understand what I am talking about there is an excellent article on the subject here, which I suggest you read. It deals with William’s quote above in a very balanced and fair manner.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm
I maintain it is this kind of attitude that causes many believers like the person CMP has written above who hear these kinds of teachings to not only doubt their salvation, but the very existence of God. Because they doubt, they think they haven’t been saved because their faith isn’t perfect. The point is that somewhere in the church we are obviously not making the balance clear between our faith, and God’s grace to these people. And I don’t think it is because they were not genuinely converted, but they have been given improper discipleship.
And I do value context highly, but not using it with such strict literalism that a verse cannot apply appropriately to all generations as well. Jesus spoke both in descriptives and prescriptives, after all ,and spoke of the past, present and future. So, if we are only going to use the narrow context of His time and culture to prove scriptural points, then the Bible would be pretty useless to us today. So there should be an appropriate balance there as well.
That’s okay; the context wasn’t talking about faith in specific, but about the ability to respond to Christ in general. This clearly says that “nobody comes to Christ except the Father draws Him.”
Yes, whoever believes in Him clearly has saving faith; but that doesn’t tell us where the faith comes from.
That’s not true; there’s only one phrase there that mentions His foreknowledge, and it’s not Christ explaining that (it’s an interjection by John). Christ is saying that the Spirit gives the gift of life, and human nature is no help. That says _nothing_ about Christ’s foreknowledge; it makes it very clear that salvation to life comes about with no help from human nature.
Jesus also said that not all of those standing there were saved; John later realized that Jesus knew all along that Judas specifically wasn’t saved, and John says so here. But this doesn’t change the meaning of what Christ said here.
This isn’t talking about faith; it’s talking about coming to Christ. That coming itself requires faith, but that’s mentioned elsewhere. You’re still ignoring the plain message of this verse: God grants the gift that allows us to come to Christ, and without that gift we do not come.
Christ spends a lot of time explaining in John 6 that the reason those people don’t believe is that they aren’t granted that by the Father; if they were granted it, they would have come to Him. If that’s not the point of John6, then what do you think the point is?
That’s not true; I talked you through the passage surrounding Eph 2:8, and you’ve never responded except to deny it.
Yes, but the ability to believe is still a gift of God. Otherwise, why would these verses be in the middle of this passage?
-Wm
Thank you for attempting to explain Eph 2:8. I note, however, that you make no attempt to fit it into its context; instead you just read off a few definitions by rote.
No; the reason is that grace isn’t a thing that people *could* have. God’s grace isn’t a liquid that He injects into us; it’s the word for the way in which He works our salvation. The reason that Paul mentions “by grace you are saved” the first time (Eph 2:5) is that here we see God acting to save us even though there is nothing good in us — and that verse continues to claim that God completes our salvation, even to the extent of seating us in the Heavenlies, still by His grace alone.
Grace is not a thing. If grace were a thing, it would be grace no matter why God chose to “give it to us”; but look at Rom 11:6, “otherwise grace would no longer be grace.” In context, this is actually talking about the same thing we’re talking about: salvation isn’t given as the reasonable reward for anything we have or did, but solely because God freely gives it as a gift.
If we could generate in ourselves saving faith, then God wouldn’t be freely giving us salvation in response — he’d merely be giving us what we are rightly owed. That contradicts Rom 11.
Rom 11 says that would make grace no longer grace.
-Wm
That’s not what James 4:8 says; it says that God _will_ draw near those who draw near to Him. It doesn’t say that He never makes the first move; it does say that He always does respond when we move.
Worse for your reading, this passage is clearly addressed to Christians (“brothers and sisters”). So this isn’t the same drawing that Christ spoke of in John 6.
-Wm
This discussion has been very interesting. Thank you all. And I say this as someone who is ill and has had only 3 hours of sleep over the past two days. And I will now shamelessly use this as an exuse to admit that I have actually lost track of those of you who camp more comfortably with Calvin and those who favor Arminius’s worldview. I think it’s only fair to be clear from the outset: I’m an active member of a Southern Baptist church who leans heavily on Calvin’s views of God’s sovereign election—so being shunned is a daily risk I gladly take :). I find nothing with which to disagree in Michael Patton’s article. But because of my Baptist/Calvanist roots, the inescapable tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility does occasionally inspire debate with my friends (especially, it seems, in Sunday School). There’s always at least one thing that stikes me with this God’s sovereignty/man’s responsibility problem–other than no one can solve it with complete personal satisfaction, and that it always brings to mind an uncomfortable image of Job asking God, “Why?”). But…the thing that “gets me” the most is that the discussion usually leads us to a high cliff, with Kierkegaard, in his fideism, yelling, “Leap off the cliff and have faith that God will save you (Afterall, he would say, faith supported by reason is not genuine.) On the land side of the cliff, however, stands someone (a Calvanist, I assume) calling out, “Use the common sense God gave you” (He doesn’t tell you not to jump, only that you should really think twice about it.) Personally–because the truth is more important to me than being right—I can not read Scripture and hope that it fits my worldview. Frankly, if I understood everything in God’s Word, I wouldn’t believe in Him. I see no way to read the Bible—Old and New Testaments—and not see clear evidence of God’s election of individuals, some to salvation and others, somehow and for some reason, to their own choice. I don’t fully understand it, and I’m not sure I even like it, but I can’t escape it without hard work, and I do know that each step I take away from the notion of God’s sovereignty, the smaller He seems, and the more doubt—and less humility—I find in myself. God loves us enough to allow us the freedom to doubt Him—while His ego remains well in tact.
Richard
Vinod,
You claim that the verses I quoted in John 6 contradict my argument that saving faith is a gift of God.
For example, you quoted
John 6:65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
and said about this verse:
“It is very clear that because they didn’t believe Father can not grant them access to Jesus. Because people can have access only through faith.”
It is not very clear at all how you arrive at this interpretation. The verse says no one can come to me unless it has been granted to him by My Father. You claim this means that the Father cannot grant them access to Jesus because they did not believe? But Jesus is saying the exact opposite. He is saying people did not come to Jesus (i.e., believe in Him) because it had not been granted to them by His Father to be able to believe. The verse is says no one CAN come (no one has the ability to come), unless the Father grants it. It is NOT saying that because one displays a faith that Jesus foresees, God the Father then grants access to Jesus.
Jesus makes a similar point about belief/unbelief in John 10. He was speaking to certain Jews that did not believe He was the Messiah.
24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do l in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. ”
Notice that Jesus says “you do not believe because you are not part of my flock “. He does not say, “you are not part of my flock because you do not believe”. In other words it is those whom God has chosen to be His flock that believe. This corresponds with John 6:44, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” Jesus is talking about the drawing of a person by God the Father that leads to salvation (“I will raise Him up at the last day”).
You have argued that it is man’s moral responsibility to believe in Jesus and I fully agree. Yet at the same time there are many verses, many from Jesus’ own lips, that show that the ability to believe comes from God Himself.
Another example is Peter’s confession of Christ:
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”
The connection between this discussion of the source of faith and Michael’s article is that we are all sinful “doubters”– until the Lord saves us. Even as believers we wrestle with various temptations and sins. Doubt is a temptation to unbelief, but is overcome by the faith that ultimately comes from God.
Hi Wm,
Finally you have given some verses that talks about faith as gift of God but none of them is saving faith. I will be still waiting for a Bible verse that will say that saving faith is gift of God. Believe me you will not find it in the Bible.
Rom 12:3 For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.
Look at the context. It is talking about the gifts.
Rom 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith;
I already discussed the gift of faith one of the 9 gifts of Holy Spirit. It is talking about that. In fact it refutes your “simple faith idea”. It clearly says that different measure of faith is given. And it increases as I had given example of faith working in Moses to part the red sea.
I also gave example of Peter healing the paralyzed. Same Peter who didn’t have faith before is now full of faith.
It is like parable of talents God gives gift and when these gifts are used He multiplies them. Who had 5 talents earned 5 more. Using what God has given we earn more.
Acts 17:31 you yourself said that is does not talk about saving faith.
Rom 14:1 talks about weak faith. I have been saying different messures of faith from long time so nothing new there. It simply says who has more faith should not boast on his faith and should not put down another who as weak faith. Every believer who has not increased his faith will have weak faith. Those who are growing they will have weak faith at start and as they grow their faith will get stronger. So in Christian walk you will find people at different levels of faith.
Rom 14:1 just confirms what I have been saying all along.
So still you have not given me a Bible verse that says saving faith is gift of God.
Hi Alexander,
You are reading John 6:65 reverse. They didn’t believe is in verse 64. So “they didn’t believe” happened first and verse 65 comes in picture after that.
John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
Those who believe are the ones who are granted the right to become children of God. That is what you read in John 6:65
John 6:64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.”
John 6:65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
They didn’t believe so Father doesn’t grant them to come to Jesus. They didn’t believe so they are not granted the right to become children of God.
You again ignored all the verses that were explicitly saying that believing is part we humans have to do. And deliberately misinterpret other verses that don’t say anything about faith is gift of God. I repeat those verses again.
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
Can you read verse 29 and tell me who does the beliving?
John 6:36 “But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.
Who did not believe? people or God?
John 6:40 “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
“every one who sees the Son and believes”
John 6:42 And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
They didn’t believe again instead they were questioning.
John 6:47 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
Again who does the believing?
John 6:64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.”
Again “who did not believe”?
After so many explicit verses that says beliving has to be done by us humans you say humans have no control and faith is gift of God. While none of those verses say that faith is gift of God.
Ok on John 10:25-26 again talks about all knowing quality of Jesus. Jesus knew that their question was just to find fault.
John 10:24 Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
Jesus was responding to their unbelief even after seeing the miracles performed by Jesus.
John 10:20 And many of them said, “He has a demon and is mad. Why do you listen to Him?”
John 10:21 Others said, “These are not the words of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”
Looks to me exact same situation when some healing preacher says Jesus heals there are people who say that he is doing it with the power of devil. Even after reading in Bible it is hard for people to believe that Jesus heals the sick.
Jesus was responding to that part saying you don’t hear my voice and you don’t understand because you are not my sheep.
John 10:26 “But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.
John 10:27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
That verse needs to be read in connection with 27. Because verse 26 ends with “As I said to you”.
If you read it without verse 27 it looks to be what you are interpreting it but when you read in context with verse 27 it gives the meaning I just explained above.
A distinction of who is capable of hearing God’s voice clearly. Because they don’t hear they don’t believe.
Another confirmation “Faith comes by hearing and hearing from the Word of God”. They were not listening to the Word of God they were just trying to find fault.
Hi Vinod:
I have not said people are not responsible to believe. As I have preciously argued, the Bible shows that yes, it is our responsibility to believe in Jesus. However at the same time it shows that the ability to believe comes from God (as I have shown in many verses). It is difficult to hold these truths together– to comprehend how we can be held responsible to believe while at the same time people are so blind in sin that they are unable to see the truth unless it is revealed by God. Yet over and over Scripture reveals exactly this paradox.
You are the one reversing the order of what Jesus says in John 65. Jesus is explaining why some did not believe, or did not come to Him– and says it is because it was not granted to them by the Father. What was “it” that was not granted by the Father? Faith– the ability to come to Jesus and accept His message.
He had already said the same thing to His disciples in verse 44: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day”. So He repeats this teaching in verse 65. He explains that those who were now turning away from Him and not believing His message and being saved were not believing because it had not been granted to them to come to Him (i.e., believe). He is explaining why they did not believe.
These verses describe not just having access to Jesus but coming to Him, believing in Him and being saved. Jesus clearly states that this coming to Him does not happen apart from God drawing the person or “granting” it.
You did not quote the John 1:13, which contradicts your interpretation of John 1:12. You seem to be saying that believing (by our own power) earns us the right to become children of God. But if you read the two verses together, you see something very different:
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Verse 13 shows that when one is born again through believing in Christ, the source of that birth is God. These verses show we are not born into spiritual life when we are born the first time (“not of blood”). We cannot will ourselves into spiritual life (“nor of the will of man”); nor is being born again a product of the flesh (“nor of the will of the flesh”). Instead to be born again is to be born of God– it is a sovereign gift of God:
“The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” John 3:8
It seems you think that since it our responsibility to believe then the ability to believe must be within us already, or God could not hold us responsible for unbelief. These verses don’t support this view. They show a paradox- we are responsible yet God must grant the ability to come to Him in belief.
Vinod,
Reading John 10:27 together with the previous verses does not invalidate my interpretation, but rather, supports it.
The passage, beginning with verse 25 reads:
Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
Again Jesus tells these Jews that they do not believe, not because they are unable to hear– for they were hearing the word of God being spoken by the Son of God. No, Jesus says it is “because they are not part of my flock.” If they were part of His flock, Jesus goes on to say, then they would know His voice, follow Him and be given eternal life that would never be taken away from them. But because they are not His sheep they do not believe.
Is it unpleasant to accept the implication of Jesus’ words here?
Nevertheless Jesus clearly states that they do not believe because they are not His sheep. This implies that because they were not chosen by the Father to be given to the Son as His sheep they were unable to believe Jesus’ words or to accept the evidence of His miracles.
Jesus is not saying that because they don’t hear correctly therefore they don’t believe. He says they are not His sheep and therefore they do not believe. Taken together with other verses I’ve pointed out (John 6:44, 65) we know also that they CANNOT believe.
Again, why did Peter believe that Jesus was the Christ? “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:17).
You guys do realize (don’t you?) that anyone–even a Buddhist or Muslim–can selectively “proof text” the Bible to support almost any of their preconceived and…needed ideas of the truth. Right? I could probably build a case for infanticide, or rape or slavery or murder…if I was more interested in being right than in truth. Sometimes God’s word just doesn’t need to be over analyzed. The simple meaning, in cultural context, is usually best. Angel d’Urbervilles told Tess, in a Thomas Hardy novel, “This business of being alive is pretty serious, don’t you think?” Personally, I believe life’s mostly about our personal, sovereign God loving us more than we can possibly ask or think–while we watch Him prepare a new future that will be…just as it ought.
Oh…and thanks to the person (sorry, I lost your name) who posted the the link to the the Phil Johnson article at http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm. Interesting.
Absolutely no arrogance intended here,
Richard
Richard,
Thanks for reminding us about motivation. I suppose you’re right that one can make any argument by selectively presenting proof-texts from Scripture. On the other hand believers ought to (and must) make their case from Scripture, which is the truth revealed by God. Jesus expects us to know Scripture and to understand and apply it correctly. Of course not all interpretations are equally correct.
As Michael Patton I’m sure would agree, what we believe (our theology) is reflected in the way we live. Wrong ideas lead to wrong conclusions and applications. None of us has perfect theology yet we are called to teach and preach and defend sound doctrine. So that has been my aim in this discussion, though as one who is a sinner I could be wrong on certain things or at times express myself in a way that is less than godly.
If I become too caught up in just arguing for the sake of being right I hope I’ll have sense enough to bow out of the conversation.
Alexander,
Amen! I agree with all you’ve said. Thanks for displaying such a great heart…and Spirit. You spoke about the natural imperfections in everyone’s theology, while also being called to preach and defend sound doctrine. Well said! But, perhaps, we are safer in our Christian walk to simply embrace true humility… as Calvinists 🙂 Sorry, could not help myself (LOL).
Richard
I believe we must first qualify the difference between a Christian and a disciple (because there’s a difference in the two in this Westernized Christianity)… We’re all aware that every disciple must be a Christian; and every Christian is not a disciple… with that being said, I believe disciples can’t doubt God and be truly disciples…
If we take into account the early disciples of Christ and how the Church was built… I don’t think they had room for doubt… I believe if they exercised doubt then we wouldn’t have anything to build upon…
It’s imperative that we know God in order for us to teach and preach God… How can we be effective in our calling if we exercise doubt? True faith is believing without seeing or knowing…
Hi Michael,
Good article!
I can think of several places in the New Testament where we see doubt that can both instruct us and encourage us.
One of my personal favorites is St. Peter, when he says to Our Lord, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” (Luke 5:8) Here he is doubting that the Lord can and will accept one so unworthy. Frankly, I feel the same way sometimes, but the relationship Peter had with Jesus and the things that God did through him build up my faith.
Another is St. Thomas, who expressed his doubt about the apparition of the Lord after the resurrection, and yet when Jesus appears again with him there he utters my own favorite proclamation of faith, “My Lord and my God”. (John 20:19-31)
Even Matthew ends his Gospel dealing with doubts even at the ascension when he tells us, “And seeing him they adored: but some doubted.” (Matthew 28:16-20)
I find encouragement and strength in passages like these where I see the Lord Jesus dealing with us weird and frail humans with such power and yet gentleness,
Take care my friend!
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
(The peace of the Lord be with you all always.)
Church Militant
Hi Alexander,
John 6:64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.
John 6:65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
The continous sentence will be
“But there are some of you who do not believe. Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
“who do not believe”, “there fore I have said”, “no one can come to Me unless it has been granted”
I don’t know what difficulty you have to read it that “who do not believe” is the reason for necesity to say “no one can come to Me unless it has been granted”
Every thing you are trying to interpret you are trying to add to it.
I don’t see any mention of faith
I don’t see any mention of God making a pre determination.
Nothing is there. You are adding text to reach to your conclusion.
So for you could not give a single Bible verse that says explicitly that God gives saving faith. Not one. Without adding extra text you can’t interpret the way you are interpreting.
The word “granted” does not mean “faith given” or ” pre determination”.
When You apply for a college admission, your application is reviewed and admission is granted. Unless admission is granted you can not come to the class. Does that tell you that college has pre determined that who is going to attend the class and who is not? Does that tell you that college is going to give extra credits to help student (who are pre determined ) to quality?
I mean come on if you don’t add those extra words in college admission how come you add them in Jesus’ statements?
Hi Richard,
You wrote:
You guys do realize (don’t you?) that anyone–even a Buddhist or Muslim–can selectively “proof text” the Bible to support almost any of their preconceived and…needed ideas of the truth. Right?
Yea exactly right. That’s what Alexander, Wm and many here are trying to do. In a passage where I can not find “God gives saving faith” and I can’t find “God makes pre determination” You guys are reading those words into the Word of God.
I am still trying to ask how can somebody add those texts?
Hi Alexander,
You said:
Again, why did Peter believe that Jesus was the Christ? “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:17).
Father revealed it doesn’t equal to “Father gave faith”. Father reveals. He doesn’t give saving faith. It is human responsibility to act on that revelation and believe.
Psa 95:7 For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture, And the sheep of His hand. Today, if you will hear His voice:
Psa 95:8 “Do not harden your hearts, as in the rebellion, As in the day of trial in the wilderness,
Heb 3:7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: “Today, if you will hear His voice,
Heb 3:8 Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, In the day of trial in the wilderness,
When father reveals a person has responsibility to “not harder his heart” in other words it is a responsibility to act with believing on that revelation.
How about 1st Peter 3:21?
“Baptism now saves you also.”
The previous verse (20) says that this happens through water (and the Word attached to that water), which we can or shouldn’t anyway, take any credit ourselves.