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?"
Hi Alexander,
Same problem while reading John 10:25-29. You are adding “faith given” and “God makes pre determination”.
Just wondering…has anyone here ever beaten a dead horse?
(as much as we are beating this one?)
Vinod,
Thank you for your response to my post. I’m not certain about the theological position of the other posters you mentioned, but I do think you would be very comfortable discussing theology with my Southern Baptist friends (As I said in an earlier post, I’m an active member of a Southern Baptist church where Calvin is tolerated, but Arminius is the hero). As a Calvinist-leaning Baptist, I enjoy the “tension” with my friends, and I’m always open to debate. Frankly, I find that Christians who lean towards an Arminian theology tend to struggle very hard with most of Scripture in order to support their position—apparently because of a need to feel worthy of God’s love. They have to, for a minor example, twist and turn the words of Romans and Genesis and Exodus and Job, etc and etc. in order to “sublimate” God’s sovereignty to their own good works and sense of responsibility (including God’s sovereign choices for election and predestination). In the end this only puts God in a very small box and encourages our pride and our (not very humble) sense of worthiness. .And I’ve noticed that, like many of my friends, Arminians often spiritualize Scripture passages in what philosophers would label “sophistry”. But this houise is built of straw. which, eventually, must fall. I’m aware at this moment that I’m approaching the line between offering an opinion and being arrogant—and I truly don’t want to cross it. Perhaps it’s enough to just point out that it’s not always wise to defer to those with whom we share a common worldview. Our opinions, in other words, should be held tightly, but only a few of them should be sewn into our skin. Despite all of my sin (probably much greater and more numerous–by any human measure–than your own) I’m convinced that God loves me unconditionally. His love for me is completely unearned or in any way deserved. And when the day comes to meet God face-to-face, I won’t be at all surprised to see Him running to meet me in order to make me feel that I’m His only child—and not his prodigal son. Again, thanks for your input, Vinod.
Richard
Richard,
I think the irony of all of this is that those who hold to a more Arminian persuasian see those of a Calvinist persausion as having to twist and turn another whole set of Scriptures to fit their theology!
I have personally come to the conclusion over the years that this whole discussion is one that holds a lot of mystery. I don’t see either side as truly holding all of the answers. There are just too many Scriptures that just don’t fit in either pigeon hole neatly without being seriously twisted into them.
I remember a friend and Bible teacher once saying regarding the whole election/predistination versus free will debate, “The Bible teaches both of them. Now try wrapping your mind around that one.”
K.A. Christian,
Perhaps I’m missing your point, but my first reaction to your post–the first thing that springs to mind–is to ask you what, in your worldview, do we do with the disciple Peter’s doubt, or with the doubting disciple Thomas…or, frankly, with most–probably all–Christians throught history, whether they’re mentioned in Scripture or not? We doubt; God expects our doubts–and He probably even welcomes our doubts in order to use them as tool to build our faith. But perhaps I’ve misunderstood your point.
Richard
Cherl u.,
Well said! I do believe, as a Calvinist, that Arminians must work much hard than I at pigeon holing Scripture (and few of them can do it neatly :), but isn’t it wonderful that we can’t wrap our minds around everything God tells us?!? God’s greatness just soars before of our innate ignorance! Thank you so very much for your…authenticity!
Richard
“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?”
Vinod,
You do realize that the Bible can teach a concept implicitly as well as explicitly don’t you? For example, I challenge you to find where abortion is directly spoken against in scripture. I promise that you will not find anywhere within the pages of scripture a direct prohibition against abortion. Using your myopic hermeneutic, one would therefore have to conclude that because abortion isn’t explicitly stated as being wrong, it must be OK in God’s eyes. I don’t think any sane person would make such an argument though. But that doesn’t change the fact that all scriptural arguments against abortion require an extrapolation of a variety of texts.
That being said, I would posit that while it may be true that the phrase “God gives saving faith” doesn’t appear in the Bible, it doesn’t mean that the CONCEPT isn’t taught.
Mr. Martian,
Thank you. Thank you. Well said! There are some O’people in the U.S. government, however, who claim to follow Christ, and yet support abortion–even to the point of infanticide. The value of life does seem to slip past them.
Richard
The question is not whether we can find the exact words you demand; the question is what the Bible teaches. The Bible clearly teaches over and over that God apportions faith to us; that salvation is of God, not of us; and that the honor for the faith we exercise is actually due to God.
If you were to be fair about your demand, you would first fulfill it yourself, by finding a passage that teaches that “God does not give saving faith”, or “You do not require God’s initiation in order to be saved.”
As of now, you have _nothing_ in favor of your position; not only do you have no verses that use the words you’ve chosen (which is the standard of proof you’re enforcing against us), the texts you’ve cited actually teach against what you claim the do, when read word-by-word.
-Wm
Wow. Post #259 is my error — my computer posted an old version of what I was writing, then disconnected from the Internet for a half hour (!). No, I don’t know how that happened, either.
The final version of the last paragraph is as follows (not edited; this was what was in my comment box when I pressed the back arrow after the web page reloaded); note the weaker claim I make that “the texts you cite do not teach what you claim” rather than “…teach against what you claim”.
As of now, you have _nothing_ in favor of your position; not only do you have no verses that use the words you’ve chosen (which is the standard of proof you’re enforcing against us), the texts you’ve cited at the very least do NOT teach what you claim they do, when read word-by-word (we would claim that several of those texts teach against what you claim, but let’s take this one step at a time).
-Wm
Vinod,
You are continuing to misread John 6:54-65, in my opinion. When Jesus says in verse 65 “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father” He is referring back to His earlier statement to the disciples (John 6:44).
In both verses He is explaining why some do not believe. Jesus uses the phrase “come to Me” to mean come to believe in Me. He is saying very explicitly that no one can come (believe) unless it is the Father draws them (John 6:44)/it is granted to them by the Father(John 6:65).
To me His language is clear and not confusing. However you seem to be very much against accepting the truth that God is in control of who comes to know Him (but these verses show He grants the ability to come to Jesus and believe).
Now you asked for a verse that actually says that faith is a gift from God and I and others gave one to you: Ephesians 2:8. Yet you claim that we are misinterpreting this verse.
But if faith was our own doing, as a response to God’s grace, as you argue, then we would indeed have something to boast about. Because one could say that they responded to grace with faith, while someone else did not. But who gives the ability to respond in faith? You claim that it comes from the person themselves and that it is their responsibility alone. But if this is the case then they can take credit for their faith (through which they will be saved) and therefore they will have something they can boast about. This is simply incorrect. We cannot take credit for any aspect of our salvation, neither the grace that God gives, nor our response to that grace, and this is why no man can boast. Boasting is excluded on the grounds that one cannot take credit for something they have absolutely no part in.
I hope you can accept this answer, though it does seem unlikely. I have no desire to continue debating this point. The main reason I was raising it was in connection with Michael’s article, in relation to the following points:
1) Faith does not require 0% doubt in order to be true faith.
2) Human beings, being flawed and imperfect beings, cannot achieve perfect faith in this life.
3) Our ability to have any kind of faith at all comes from God, as is proven from Scripture.
4) Doubt is not good by itself, but it is not necessarily sin; it may be a temptation to sin, but it may also lead us to investigate the evidence in such a way as to find the truth.
Your reading makes is sound like Jesus is saying that merely because some people are there who don’t believe — almost as though Jesus wanted those unbelieving people to hear those words. But that doesn’t make sense; Jesus actually wanted the believing people to hear his words, because they could understand them (and believe them!).
Therefore, there was meaning behind Jesus’ words, not just “I said these because there were some people here.” The meaning was that Jesus wanted the believers to understand when those unbelievers left, they left because they didn’t understand, and the reason they didn’t understand wasn’t because they were smarter (or stupider), but simply because it was not granted to them to come.
There is no mention of faith, but this is talking about believing and salvation; faith is clearly involved, because faith that saves includes belief (Heb 11:6), and accurate belief alone is not enough to save (Jas 2:19). And there is clearly mention of God making a predetermination, because the text specifically says (for example in 6:37-40) that the sequence is: Father gives; they come and believe; Christ raises on the last day. (Note that if you still don’t believe that “come” implies “believe”, see v.35.) This means that the Father gives before they come and believe.
Then we see Joh 6:65, which reverses the sense to rule out misinterpretations: nobody who isn’t permitted by the Father can possibly come. When Christ says this, John says that He was specifically thinking of some people who were not ever going to come to Christ — at least Judas, but John implies there are others.
You’re correct that it doesn’t mean “faith given”, but you’ll have to explain how someone can “come to Christ” and “believe” and be “given eternal life” without faith, in order to say that “granted” doesn’t imply “faith given”.
And as I’ve shown, it certainly does mean predetermination — specifically, God absolutely determines prior to that person’s coming to Christ, and anyone whom He does not so determine will not come.
-Wm
Can you explain what type of faith those verses are about, then? We can start by agreeing that Acts 17:31 is evidential faith, which is given to all without saving each and every one, and that is clear from the phrase that describes it; but what about all the other references to pistis in those verses?
9 gifts? There are several distinct lists of gifts; they add up to more than 9. You’re talking about the list of phanerosa (“manifestations”) in 1 Cor 12; the “gift of faith” here is a manifestation that (like the other manifestations) is given for the benefit of all.
In Romans, however, Paul is not talking about the manifestational gift of faith, but about the gift of prophecy — we know this because he says so. He doesn’t say “exercise the gift of prophecy only when you’re given the gift of faith”; he says to exercise it in measure with the faith you’re given. This faith is the same faith Paul talks about throughout the rest of Romans.
Do you have any reason why it would be a different faith?
On the contrary; this says that people should prophesy according to the measure of their faith, which directly states that people with less faith should also prophesy — and that those people are part of the Body of Christ!
You clearly seem to think that I don’t believe that people are given different amounts of faith, even though I’ve said otherwise. Why is that? In fact, my belief is that different amounts still allow salvation; it’s therefore clear that I believe that different amounts are _possible_. So… Why do you keep that strawman around?
-Wm
cheryl, thank you for asking. Sorry it took me a while to pull together a response.
I’m trying to interpret Eph 2; but while I’m doing that, of course, I must not contradict John 3:16 (or any other verse). But why do you claim I contradict it? You seem to think that it’s nonsense to say that “whoever has eternal life believes in Jesus”; but that doesn’t seem like nonsense to me.
John 17:3 — “And this is eternal life: that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
Knowing Jesus IS eternal life. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood IS eternal life (John 6).
Reversing the two isn’t incoherent, even though John 3:16 means what it says (and shouldn’t be reversed).
-Wm
This debate about “Christian doubt” has, necessarily, led us to explore the important, but unsolvable, tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. (BTW, directly to Michael Patton: Thank you for putting Christian authenticity and integrity on public display in your article. THAT is true discipleship.) Now (perhaps at some personal risk 🙂 ) I have a question that, while still dealing with the subject matter, steps just slightly to the side: What do you think of the terms “the power of prayer” and “prayer works”? Notice that these common Christian terms still make us look at the current topic–but from a different window, perhaps on a different floor.
Oh…It’s probably best to be clear: Personally, I hate these terms–at least as much as Jesus hated the practice of merchandising in the Temple.
Richard
Does the following answer your question? I don’t know what your question means… I hope it helps.
Eph 2:1 says “you were dead”, and is clearly talking about death in sin — which is on this Earth, since it’s part of being unsaved.
The word “wrath” I take from Eph 2:3, but this is in the context of “children of wrath”; it doesn’t mean that God poured His wrath on us when we were children of wrath, but it does mean that it would have been appropriate for God to have done so.
These don’t have “nothing” to do with eternity, but they are temporal. They must be, because God ended them by saving the saints at Ephesus (to whom Paul was writing).
I understand what you’re saying here. I’m just not sure what this has to do with our discussion. I agree; Rom 4 is indeed not limited to life on this earth; it refers briefly to life after death (Rom 4:17b), and it is part of an argument that Paul uses to apply to our justification to eternal life. But Rom 4 is about justification, and the problem with justification is that our lives on earth do not appear justified.
In Rom 4, Paul examines Abraham’s response (on Earth) to God’s promises, and how Abraham believed them (on Earth) and God fulfilled them (on Earth) solely because Abraham believed, BEFORE Abraham had ever followed the Law (on Earth) (Rom 4:10). Abraham hadn’t done what God required yet — and God justified him.
That’s actually reasonable, and I agree. I’m not reaching these conclusions by reading Romans 4; I’m reaching them by reading Ephesians 2. It’s fair of you to ask that my conclusions not contradict Romans (and every other passage); but it’s not reasonable to ask that the conclusions plainly evident in Ephesians 2 be explicitly taught in every other passage (although you have reason to be suspicious if they’re not present in ANY other passage, since that hints that I might be misinterpreting).
So why are you challenging my interpretation — do you think I’m contradicting Rom 4, or is there some other reason? I don’t see what you mean…
-Wm
[…] To comment on this, go here. […]
Actually, no; I’m saying that there is _no_ disconnect; that a person has that faith exactly because God has drawn them.
I affirm that we are drawn by the Father and the Spirit, not by our fleshly will. I deny that we have no control or responsibility.
Thank you — but look. Here are the characteristics he listed:
1. “hyper-Calvinists tend to stress the secret (or decretive) will of God over His revealed (or preceptive) will.”
2. “a denial that the gospel message includes any sincere proposal of divine mercy to sinners in general.”
3. “encourages introspection in the search to know whether or not one is elect.”
In response to 1: I haven’t addressed the comparison between decrees and precepts at all, so there’s no way you could accuse me of this.
In response to 2: I’ve not addressed the Gospel message. Ditto.
In response to 3: I’m arguing against the concept that introspection is healthy (messages #150, #200).
Any imbalanced teaching will do that. In Vinod’s case, he’s teaching that only perfectly formed faith, raised by the human himself, can ever be part of a truly saved person; therefore, any doubt must be met with hard work, and will produce conviction of one’s lack of salvation. Vinod has the mirror error of hypercalvinism, but it produces the same result.
Don’t my arguments against this demonstrate that I don’t believe it?
Bingo. The problem with false doctrines of salvation isn’t that believing them makes people lose their salvation; rather, it makes them lose their _assurance_. And that’s a crime.
-Wm
Wm,
Regarding # 266, I asked the questions I did because I believe the verses in Romans specifically contradict your contention that we are saved from wrath and death before we have faith. And as a matter of fact, I think Eph 2 does also as it says we are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH. Sounds to me like that says that faith comes first also.
I think it is wonderful that God, in His great mercy, gave us a choice in the first place to have faith in Him, whether we doubt Him or not. That to me is the ultimate grace. Otherwise, He could just as well condemn and sentence us all to hell, without the benefit of the cross, whether we believe in predestination or not.
Hi all,
I readily admit to not having read all the comments in detail, but browsed through them.
Perhaps someone has already made the distinction that there’s a difference between epistemological doubt and psychological doubt.
Here epistemological doubt pertains to disbelief about a proposition or group of propositions. About their truthfulness. So I have a serious doubt, ie “I doubt that God could make a rock he could not lift” [ I doubt this because it pits two aspects of God’s nature against each other. If I remember the answer it was something about His Creative abililty ( Omnipotence,) and his Sovereign ability. ]
So I can have questions about certain propositions, and these are epsitemological questions which I attribute to my own lack of understanding and indeed my createdness, since I am not all knowing.
But I would point out, this kind of doubt does not extend to doubting God’s existence, because that “conviction” has come about through the Work of the Holy Spirit. ( Which i would argue involves a truth statement, eg “Jesus is God” coupled with ontological reality – ie our being created in God’s image )
On the other hand, it’s here for convenience we might also talk about pyschological doubt. Some people going through a period of personal pain due to the loss of a child or partner may express psychological doubt that God cares about what they are going through. They lack certitude about some aspect of God, perhaps because they have not considered previously this aspect of God’s nature and His revelation about it.
Any ideas?
Gary
BTW Michael,
To use John the baptists questioning of Jesus as whether “he is the one” is perhaps a bit out of context.
John the baptist at that point wasn’t a “christian” in NT terminology. He was one looking for the promised Messiah and his question showed his faith in the revealed will of God in the Old Testament. It showed belief in God, not doubt.
Where he might have lacked was in understanding the role and actions of the Messiah, understanding that Jesus’ miracles and teaching are confirmation of Jesus as the Mesiah.
What we see in John the Baptist isn’t a problem of doubt as such but lack of his own understanding?
in Christ
Gary
@gary – I don’t think anyone here is talking about epistemological doubt.
Did you feel that my answers clarified the matter? Would you interact with them so that we can discuss the matter?
Salvation is not a simple flipping of a switch. There are many aspects of our situation that we have to be saved from. The first link of salvation is salvation from death, where God changes our nature from “dead in sin” to “alive to Him”; this is the salvation from death. He also saves us from being “children of wrath” by nature, which saves us from His just wrath (which is currently being held back thanks to His longsuffering). He also draws us to Christ, and we come to Him, believe in Him, eats His flesh and drink His blood, and by doing that become part of Him, and He of us. There are other aspects of salvation, and other ways to look at it.
One passage that’s often cited is Rom 8:28-30. I don’t want to force you to read this in “Calvinist mode”; please see it as a list of the factors that go into our salvation. God’s foreknowledge starts the chain (please, hold the arguments), then predestination to be conformed to the image of Christ, then the calling, then the justification — and justification is linked to our faith, so this is the first point in the chain that necessarily comes after our response of believing faith (which can only be a response to the calling). So God does enact our salvation prior to our faith — at least temporally (because His forknowledge and predestination are at least temporal) and possibly causally as well (because His calling us seems to be required in John 6 in order to trigger our faith).
I don’t want to force Calvinism here… This seems like a simple, straightforward interpretation, compatible with the typical Arminian reading that God’s foreknowledge is a simple seeing of the fact that we will respond.
Now, I’m not arguing that faith isn’t required. That’s clearly taught; my point is that our ability to have faith is actually part of our salvation. Without God’s actions, we would not have faith in the first place. Both Calvinists and Arminians share a belief that Christians are saved, individually and collectively, from total depravity so that they can respond in faith to God. (Arminians also believe that non-Christians are saved by God from total depravity, but this is still an act of God.)
Am I being unclear or unfair? If all is well, I’d like to see you interact with my interpretations of the verses you’ve brought up — both Romans and Ephesians, if possible.
-Wm
I’m not so sure. At that point he’d already baptized Christ, proclaimed Him publicly… It’s true that he wasn’t a Christian by the filling of the Holy Spirit, since Pentecost hadn’t come, so he was an Old Covenant believer.
The problem with this is that John’s asking for confirmation of what he’d already proclaimed.
This is something we also sometimes lack, and Jesus’ answer to John is sometimes useful to us.
It seems clear that the only thing that can cause doubt in a Christian is actually a lack of understanding — because in reality, God does exist and did save us. (An unbeliever can doubt also, of course — but that’s not only caused by a lack of understanding, but by a lack of repentance!)
Actually, I’m suddenly reminded of Christ’s response to the people who asked whether tragedies were signs of God’s judgments — “unless you repent, you shall perish likewise.” Maybe doubt is just another chance to repent and throw ourselves back in God’s arms.
-Wm
To Most,
Who here believes that “prayer works” or believes in “the power of prayer”? Come on. Don’t be shy. I mean, after all, how is this discussion about “Christian doubt” (God’s sovereignty vs. man’s responsibility) at all important, or even relevant, if we ignore the fact that God answers our prayers–demonstratively beyond doubt?!? But, do be careful with your answer if Arminius is one of your heroes :).
In the same context: If a world-wide Christian “prayer chain” was praying to God to heal your 14 year-old daughter from imminent death (she has some horrible disease, let’s say) would YOU ask Him to ignore all those prayers, if–by HIS wisdom, and by HIS love, and in HIS sovereignty–HE thought it best that your child should die!?! Woud you pray that prayer to God beside your sleeping, dying little girl? I hope you would. I hope I would! Sometimes our rigid theology and God’s loving sovereignty do seem to meet life together, don’t they?!?
Richard
William,
I honestly don’t have the time or energy to go any further with this discussion. My life has been and continues to be “a zoo” lately. And I am just too tired to go any further with this. I think it unlikely that we would ever come to agreement on our interpretations of these verses anyway as we are definitely seeing things here from totally different perspectives.
God bless you with your zoo/life, and give you peace… Thank you for discussing this as far as you did with charity and persistence.
-Wm
Hi WM Tanksley
In reply to your comments at #75
you seem partially in agreement with some things i said, however I don’t think you grasped the point I vaguely made. That is that John the baptists comments to Jesus must be seen in the context in which they appear. so one must even if they approach John’s comments along with Luke’s comments in some sort of chronology as regarding his ministry, understand What John was saying about his expectation of the coming messiah, and the teaching given us through a specific Gospel as to how Jesus responded to that teaching of John the Bapt.
So many people these days try to understand the Gospels by seeing them merely as chronological histories of the life and teaching of Jesus, but as I frequently point out that if this were so we’d only need one. the point is that they are primarily gospels, each teaching something specific and needed. Preachers have failed the people of God by synthesising the “stories” or events found in all four Gospels into one “sermon”. It is the serious defect of using a parallel Bible.
John the Baptist, the preeminant Old testament prophet declared the coming of the Messiah and judgment. The “day of the Lord”. and as for many of Israel in that day, their desire was for a political redeemer, not a saviour from sin. Does that mean John doubted who Jesus was? Not in context, He understood rightly Jesus as sacrifice, the lamb of God as we are told in John’s Gospel. But John seems to have expected a Messiah who would return government to Israel who would rule, in essence the conquoring king of Isaiah 1-39. True this would be what the Messiah would do, but not yet.
When we read later in Luke, after earlier reading John the Baptist’s message of judgment and repentance, we see not doubt in his question as to whether Jesus is the one, but his need to understand properly what the Messiah was going to do. Even He only had a partial understanding, one which i would then be reluctant to categorise as doubt.
Many Jewish interpreters of Isaiah see two messiahs there, the mighty king Isaiah 1-39 and a suffering servant figure Isa 40-66. But Luke teaches that they are the one person.
Luke’s point in chapter 7 where he speaks of John the baptist, is first to speak of two healings, that of the centurion’s son, a gentile, and the poor widow of nain’s son. the point being salvation [ esp from physical death] comes to both the mighty and rich and powerful and the weak and poor in the same way – it is a gift from God. not by works or anything else. Salvation comes by faith, faith in Christ.
Notably for John the Baptist, the miracles of Jesus here, are just as Isa prophesied of the messiah and cover both mighty king section and suffering servant figure sections of Isaiah. Isa 35:3-5; 61:1-3.
See for a fuller explanation of this the great book by David Gooding, ‘According to Luke’ IVP1987 Eerdmans.
I’m only scratching the surface here, giving you the general lay of the…
Well written and right on. Only one correction that you are most likely already aware of, the word “though” is most likely meant to be through in this sentence “Sometimes it will show itself though particular habitual sins. Sometimes it is our own pride.”
I believe from personal experience and talking with others that doubt, most of the time, manifest itself from lack of knowledge. My faith and belief for the most part was based on a general belief of those around, especially since I grew up in church with Christian parents. That type of faith and belief is easily shaken, causing doubt. I just recently started reading and studying God’s word for my own understanding from which to build my faith and belief in God and the saving power of Jesus.
I have started this journey of establishing my own belief and faith thanks to The Theology Program at Reclaiming the Mind Ministries.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/?q=/ttp/home
Hi Alexander,
You keep ignoring the verses I gave you. Let me try one more time
John 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.
John 6:27 “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”
Verse 27 Jesus is asking people to labor for evaerlasting life.
It is a commandment Jesus is giving.
In Verse 28 they ask specifically what labor they are supposed to do.
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
Verse 29 Jesus makes clear that this labor is believing in Him.
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
Verse 30,31 They ask for a sign. Probably they learned Bible in theological college where you learned Bible. Jesus was asking them to believe but they didn’t want to believe unless faith is given to them.
John 6:30 Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do?
John 6:31 “Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'”
Jesus tells them He Himself is the bread of God.
Verse 34 they ask for the bread.
John 6:34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”
Jesus repeats “He who comes to Me shall never hunger” and “he who believes in Me shall never thirts”. Why He needed to say that? He could have said plainly that Father doesn’t want to give so don’t even try it. Why keep saying that they need to believe?
John 6:35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
Verse 36 again He puts the blame on them that they “do not believe”. Well if they do not have control on believing then why make that statement? If somebody knows that it is beyond their control then saying something like this is definately wrong. I mean first you tell them to labor for everlasting life and tell them to believe and then tell them sorry Father had already decided not to give. Doesn’t make sense to me.
John 6:36 “But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.
Now come to verse 37.
John 6:37 “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.
Read verse 37 in comparison to John 17:12
John 17:12 “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
What do you read? Don’t you read that “son of perdition” was given by the Father yet he is lost? Anyway that’s another topic.
I will say read John 17…
I will say read John 17 and it will make “Granted by Father” more clear.
17 Verse 2 and 3 if you read you will be tempted to interpret the way you are doing it. But wait read it carefully.
John 17:2 “as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.
John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Who are given by the Father to the Son? Verse 11 gives the answer that Jesus is talking about the desciples. Note “I come to you” and “these are in the world”
John 17:11 “Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
Then go to verse 20,21 that makes clear that others who will believe in Jesus through their (desciple’s) word. Read “that they also may be one in Us” Does that tell you with clarity that Father does not make pre determination instead they become one through their believing? If Father had made pre determination Jesus would not have prayed saying, “those who will believe”
John 17:20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word;
John 17:21 “that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
Believe me if God makes pre determination then asking people to preach the gospel and asking people to believe would be the most unethical thing to do. It will be like putting up a show with outcome already decided and players are just faking it up.
Vinod:
Your comments to me and others about where we learned the Bible (theology school or seminary) are inappropriate and irrelevant to your argument. You imply that your interpretation of the Bible is somehow superior because you did NOT go to seminary?
But the fact is that I myself have not (yet) gone to seminary. If your argument is correct it doesn’t matter whether you or I learned the Bible in seminary or outside of seminary. You only show the weakness of your arguments with these sort of comments.
These verses you quote from John (John 6:36-37, John 17: 2), as well as other verses I have previously pointed out, (John 6:44, John 6:65) all say that the ones who come to Jesus are the same ones the Father gives! Who comes to Jesus? Those the Father gives to Jesus. These verses state this over and over again.
So what “does not make sense” is your interpretation. You say:
“Believe me if God makes pre determination then asking people to preach the gospel and asking people to believe would be the most unethical thing to do. It will be like putting up a show with outcome already decided and players are just faking it up.”
But these verses are saying exactly this– that God the Father makes a determination and gives certain people to the Son, and these are the ones that come to Jesus and believe and are given eternal life and who can never be snatched out of the Father’s hand and cannot be lost.
The fact that they such persons come to believe by means of the preaching of the word is something God also ordains.
We are commanded to preach the gospel, which God uses to draw those whom He has chosen to Himself. For example, in Acts 18:9-10, God encourages Paul to go on teaching and evangelizing with these words:
And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, “Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people.”.
In other words God had chosen people in this city to be His people, and Paul was going to reach them and they were going to be saved by means of the gospel. As the ESV Study Bible comments:
Acts 18:10–11 gives helpful insight into Paul’s understanding of God’s providence and predestination in relation to human responsibility for preaching the gospel. Though God had told Paul, “I have many in this city who are my people,” indicating that many in Corinth would come to faith in Christ, this did not lead Paul to conclude that he had no further part to play. Rather, Paul stayed a year and six months, longer than he stayed at any city except Ephesus, preaching the gospel in order that through his preaching those whom God had chosen would come to faith. Predestination implied successful evangelism.
(continued)
Or, read Acts 13:48: And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
You point out many verses about the necessity of believing, as if this proves that people are able to believe on their own, apart from divine intervention. Jesus says the opposite. He explains that those who don’t believe are those to whom it has not been granted by the Father (John 6:65).
As Ephesians 2 teaches, “We (believers) were all dead in trespasses and sins in which we once walked, as we followed the course of this world, and followed the prince of the power of the air. We all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
People dead in trespasses and sins and in captivity to Satan need God to rescue them from their captivity to sin which blinds them to the truth of the gospel. So although we ought to believe the gospel because it is true and right, we have no power within our sinful selves to do so. This makes salvation all the more glorifying to God– it is an act of unmerited grace and mercy. We are saved by believing, but if believing was something we could conjure up on our own then God would not receive all the glory for salvation and we could boast about our faith in God. But we can never boast– for faith is His gift to us, not our gift to Him.
Again it is may be difficult to understand that the Bible teaches that God holds us responsible to believe and yet that we cannot believe apart from His granting it– but since this is what the Bible teaches, we must accept it.
Hi Alexander,
You wrote:
“But these verses are saying exactly this– that God the Father makes a determination and gives certain people to the Son, and these are the ones that come to Jesus and believe and are given eternal life and who can never be snatched out of the Father’s hand and cannot be lost.”
John 6 says Father gives or grants people to the Son. You are adding “pre determination” part. That adding to scripture is what changes the meaning.
John 6 doesn’t say when Father grants a person to Jesus. You again ignored John 17 where it is very clear that when people believe then Father adds them so that they may be one.
Those who had been granted by Father were those who were with Jesus. If Granted meant pre determination then in John 17 Jesus would have said John 17:20,21 differently.
John 17:20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word;
John 17:21 “that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
Did you read John 17? Distinction between who are already granted and who are going to be granted is very clear there.
Same thing is in John 1:12
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:
John 1:12 is very clear “as many as received Him” “to them He gave”. Your granted is right there and it happens when a person receives Christ. It doesn’t happen by pre determination.
As I see it, the Holy Spirit causes people to realize their sin and the need for salvation, but He doesn’t ‘give people faith.’ Faith comes when people cast themselves upon the mercy of God as a result of conviction. Thus, God doesn’t give faith directly; people have to do something first. If God simply gave out faith, He would be cooking His outcomes, and that wouldn’t provide any particular glory for Him. Greater glory comes from free acts, not ones made under duress.
I have a notion that Paul was strongly influenced by his personal experience. There is no indication that he had any desire for Christ prior to being stopped on the road to Damascus. Predestination may be the only explanation he could see for God to have chosen him and not others. The heavenly vision brought him to conviction, out of which faith grew. For most of us, however, the Holy Spirit works not with visions but through the Gospel.
Rayner,
So then faith is dependent on what ‘we do’?
The bible tells us that faith is a gift of God.
When Jesus speaks with Niccodemus He says that faith (being re-born) is like the wind, it blows where it will.
I think I am seeing part of the difference in understanding of these Scriptures right here in this comment: “When Jesus speaks with Niccodemus He says that faith (being re-born) is like the wind, it blows where it will”.
Calvinists equate being re-born with receiving faith, those of an Arminian persuasion don’t.
And Steve, I don’t think saying that being reborn equals being given faith is going to convince Vinod of what you are all saying.
There are just too many verses out there that speak of faith coming before justification, being given life, etc.
Cheryl,
I think you may be right.
Vinod:
Actually, the pre determination is explicit in the text: Jesus says that only those whom God has given (past tense) to Christ will come (future tense) to Him. God determined who He will give; He gives; they come. That’s pre determination.
Yes it does — it says that the Father has to give a person to Christ *before* that person may possibly come to Him.
-Wm
Hi Steve,
You wrote:
“The bible tells us that faith is a gift of God.”
I have been asking for reference and have got none so far. All I got is misinterpretation of verses. Ofcourse I am talking about saving faith not about gifts of Holy Spirit.
And as cheryl said yes I don’t see “re-born” equal to “giving faith”.
John 3:8 “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
seems to me is talking about the state of a born again person.
Look at few verses down
John 3:11 “Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness.
John 3:12 “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
There again Jesus is making clear that responsibility of believing is on the part of people not given by God.
Hi Wm,
John 6:37 “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.
In verse 37 it is present continuous tense “gives Me”.
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.”
In verse 65 it is past tense. But even 1 second ago is past tense so it doesn’t need to be pre determined.
And these verse just show involvement of Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the salvation of a person.
Holy Spirit is also involved in conviction and note that it is for people who “do not believe”
John 16:8 “And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
John 16:9 “of sin, because they do not believe in Me;
So Holy Spirit constantly works in convicting.
Father works in teaching
John 6:45 “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.
Every thing is to draw that person toward Jesus. But giving faith I don’t find anywhere in the Bible.
That is why preachers are there. Every time they preach, Holy Spirit tries to convict and Father tries to teach. Person has his free will and he can refuse to learn.
Read “Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” in John 6:45.
I don’t find anywhere that will suggest that Father gives faith or Father pre determines.
Vinod,
“The bible tells us that faith is a gift of God.”
I have been asking for reference and have got none so far. All I got is misinterpretation of verses.
Ephesians 2:8
“You are saved by grace, by faith; and this is NOT your own doing, but a gift of God.”
I don’t know how it could be any clearer than that.
There are four serious textual problems with your reading of John 17.
First, Jesus is obviously not using the terms “given to me” in the same sense in the two passages. In John 6, Jesus is specific that nothing can possibly take anyone whom the Father has given Him, and that He will raise all of them up on the last day. In John 17:12, Christ accepts that one of the ones He was given was lost, but he was “destined for destruction.” These would be direct contradictions if the two passages were intended to teach the same things about the Father’s giving.
Second, Jesus is not speaking of the same group in both passages. In John 6, the group appears to be universal; He uses “everyone” and “no one” frequently. In John 17, He is speaking about a group which is almost certainly only the Apostles, since although in John 17:12 He says that only one given to Him was lost, in John 6:66 many of His disciples in general left Him disillusioned at His teachings. There is a clear distinction between the objects of His prayer in John 17:6-19 and in John 17:20-23; the latter is specifically the people who hear secondhand what Jesus taught and believe on Him. Thus, John 6 is universal to all people, while John 17 is specific to a few groups of people (and doesn’t even mention the people who were taught directly by Jesus but didn’t believe on Him; it probably doesn’t include the people who were taught directly by Jesus, believed on Him, but weren’t themselves Apostles).
Third, the only possible sequence of events I can find in John 17 directly contradicts your claims about how people believe THEN are added to Christ. In John 17:6-8, we see that God owned certain people, He gave them to Christ, Christ told them the words that God had given Him, and they accepted those words and believed that God had sent Christ. Now, Christ telling those people the words of God _must_ precede those people accepting the words and believing that Jesus was sent from God; therefore, God giving those people to Christ preceded them believing that He was sent from God.
Fourth, your only actual attempt at exegesis in this passage doesn’t actually read the text reasonably. You claim that John 17:20-21 means that
…but this passage doesn’t mention that this latter group is “granted later” or “granted before” or granted at all. You then attempt to pull out of this by claiming that some phrase in John 17:22 means being “given to Me”, but that again isn’t in the text; in fact, I can’t even tell which “one with Us” or “In me” or “I in them” you intend to cite, since none of them are even close.
-Wm
Rayner,
Paul is talking about God has a plan for every person. God pre determines a plan and a purpose for each of us. It is up to us to walk on that plan. He has given us free will and we use the free will to rebell against Him.
Isa 30:1 “Woe to the rebellious children,” says the LORD, “Who take counsel, but not of Me, And who devise plans, but not of My Spirit, That they may add sin to sin;
Folks, let us return the the original topic if this is going to continue. It has strayed quite a bit.
Thanks so much.
This is irrelevant to our discussion; “to them He gave” doesn’t mean the same thing as “You have given them to Me.” We’re discussing what it means for the Father to give a person to Christ, not what it means for the Father to give something to us.
-Wm
Hi Steve,
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
I don’t read faith as gift of God, I read there grace as gift of God. And from passage it is clear that grace comes through faith.
If God was giving faith Jesus would not say what He said to Nicodemus
John 3:12 “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
Thanks Vinod. I give up.
Hi CMP,
I think discussion was still on the topic of doubt vs faith. Unless one gets it that believing is one’s own responsibility there is no way one can understand about doubt and faith.
Because if it is God’s responsibilty then there is no need of an article on doubt or faith because whatever is happening will happen regardless of what anybody does.
Well I received following email.
“We have been receiving complaints that your comments on the Parchment and Pen blog are disruptive, arrogant, and in violation to the rules. We love to have you on the blog engaging, but only if you do so with gentleness and respect without too much content and keeping on topic.”
When people can not handle truth that is what happens. I don’t know who complained but whoever did does not want to hear truth.