What is the Anchor of Your Faith?

Let me lay my head on the chopping block for all the rationalists unbelievers and rationalistic apologists.

1. When I have my doubts, I must remember that Christ speaks to me by faith alone. I think of Bonhoeffer, “Jesus Christ alone is the certainty of faith.” Lest anyone misunderstand the context, Bonhoeffer isn’t speaking of the historical Jesus (or any other manmade construct), but the very Christ that is revealed to us by faith. The assurance of things unseen per se.

2. If I become a rationalist and analyze the resurrection purely as history, I am faced with two problems. First, I cannot “prove” that Jesus rose from the dead, but merely make strong arguments concerning how he was buried, the empty tomb, post-resurrection appearances, Jewish expectations, etc. Even if I do discover that the resurrection best explains the information (and I believe it does), where does that leave me? At best, I am left with one instance in history where someone rose from the dead. Now, I understand that in the grand scheme of things such as who Jesus was and what he prophesied concerning himself, how Jesus fulfilled the wisdom literature and made sense (not to mention inspired) the apocalyptic literature of the time. But why do I not stop where Pinchas Lapide did? Simply because my faith has revealed more than history is able to reveal.

3. The natural theology arguments give me some rational arguments for God, but where do they lead in and of themselves? Can they take us beyond the deistic god of Anthony Flew? Do they tell us anything of the Christian faith? If they are completely successful they may take me to an understanding of an immaterial, non-spatial, timeless, good being…but is that all that God the Father is? It’s by revelation in the Son, by the Spirit that we can make sense of who God truly is. Furthermore, don’t they somewhat minimize God’s transcendence? Isn’t this what Barth and Jüngel are getting at in their critiques of natural theology?

Sometimes I struggle with doubt, and sometimes I disbelieve, but it is in those times that I must remembered the trustworthy saying given to Timothy, “when I’m faithless, he is faithful.” To quote Dag Hammarskjøld, “God does not die on the day when we cease to believe in a personal entity, but we die on the day that our lives cease to be illumined by the steady radiance, renewed daily, of a wonder, the source which is beyond all reason.”

One of my most unspiritual anchors – “I have lived too long as a Christian… paid too high a price to know anything else.”

36^3 = 46656.

1 chance in 46656 (when specified, ie. your prayer) are pretty long odds.

My anchor for theism is thru general revelation, specifically design in this world.

I am convinced beyond any doubt that God exists.

As to Christianity, probably the historical truth of the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus, the existence of morality (I know I am a sinner).

I wouldn’t say I find it easy to hear God, or have dramatic encounters (though I would like that), but I have this general awareness that God is present everywhere.

My anchor is that the objective Christ has been made subjective by revelation of the Holy Spirit through God’s Word and experience.

I would say creation – like you said, if something exists, God exists. Secondly, the bible – it is just always right about everything! Time and time again the wisdom of the bible is something I cannot deny. Third, my own experience with God.

I need these anchors or I would fall apart in a minute when I think of children who are abused, especially sexually abused. How do you tell your child that God loves you and will protect you and then they get abused? Hardest thing for me to understand…makes me almost believe in Open Theism, but not quite! Anyway, I came to a point last year where I either was going to “quit” Christianity, or believe “even though.” It is hard sometimes, but I can’t deny Him anymore than I can deny my own lifeblood.

Great post!

I tend to go back to the resurrection too. I look at Peter who couldn’t even stand up to a pre-teen girl during Jesus’ trial and how he turned into a champion for the faith and was eventually martyred.

It seems too improbable to me for all those men to die for what they knew to be a lie. The 9/11 terrorists died for what they believed to be the truth, but that was based on faith. If Jesus was not truly resurrected then the apostles would have died for what they were certain was a lie. That just doesn’t seem probable to me.

My anchor is in the daily reminder from God, the gentle tugging at my heart to get my attention back to Him. My soul in anchored because all my human reasoning can’t explain something greater than myself and when all human reason fails, He says to me He was there all along and will now teach me of Himself. That is my anchor, the revealed God who reveals Himself daily in my life.

Bethyada,
is that 36 to the third power? I don’t understand math so you would have to explain what it means.

Apart from the Word of Godv we would not know who and what God is, who and what man is, and the judgment he is under, nor God’s redemption of man in Christ Jesus.

Nature testifies to the existence of God, but nothing else, it is not
sufficient to tell us who He is. All other religions believe in the existence of a god. But they lead to hell.

If we are talking anchors in the storms of doubt I have to say my hands. Ever since I was a little girl I knew by looking at my hands that a Creator much more amazing then I could imagine had to exist. Simple. Silly for some. But it is my anchor. Most of the time my doubt is not about the existance of God but rather my confidence in the Church. For that I need the word and teachings to bolster my faith. I realize eventually that I do not need to have confidence in the Church because God is able and more amazing then I can imagine.

minnow;
our trust must be in God and His Word, never in the church.
”Cursed be the man who trusts in man.” The Church didn’t die for you, Christ did.

Like some others here, I also find the existence of the universe a compelling reason to believe in a creator god – but that doesn’t in itself convince me of the truth of Christianity over, say, Islam or Hinduism.

Actually the understanding of God from nature is taught by David in the Psalms. We must understand that the Creator of nature is who we are to worship not nature itself. God transcends nature, but nature both the visible and the invisible speak of God. So it is the word of God when we refer to understanding God by nature…after all the heavens declare His majesty. God spoke nature, so in essence nature is His word as well.

Kara Kittle;
When Adam fell this world was cursed. ”Cursed be the ground.”
How can that which is cursed be God’s Word. He is holy.

When you say nature is God’s Word then all who say there is a god
would be saved, but that is not so. Only Jesus is the way, the truth
the life, no man cometh to the father but through him

Love this post, Michael. I was having a conversation with my wife about this just recently in response to the ABC satan debate, where I had to admit that, in the context of a national TV audience, our faith really does sound farfetched, even when the apologist is someone as culturally relevant as Mark Driscoll.

(Driscoll’s apparent anchor, about a man made faith coming up with salvation by chicken wings and napping, is very much my primary one. This faith of ours is too good to be true and too hard to be made-up for there not to be a God who controls it.)

As you say, anchors are necessary. I think what we forget is that our faith can be incredibly fragile, and that all of us need reminders and supports, and encouragement daily. For this reason as much as any other, I wish our faith communities were more robust than they are. You need fellow travelers if you’re going to stay on the path.

Dr. Paul,
Consider the lillies.

When I was younger, it was the resurrection of Christ that did me in. That is still valid for me today.

After that is the stars. Honestly, you go outside in the pitch black night and see the sky adorned with diamonds and, in awe, you think “the one who made all this has got my back.”

And third is Israel, weirdly enough. I grew up in New York City and went to church near Williamsburg which houses a huge Jewish community. Here’s a people that for all accounts and purposes should be totally gone, speaking Greek or Russian and worshiping Something Else. And yet there they go; gathering in communities, enjoying the Sabbath, building their booths, waiting for Messiah. I mean, yeah it sucks they have it wrong, but if God is faithful to people who up and rejected His ultimate revelation of Himself how much more faithful would He be to me who believed? God’s got my back.

If I hold to what I believe in (perseverance of the saints) I would say God is the ultimate anchor of my faith, 1 Peter 1:3-5. Natural revelation lends me comfort to that power by which my faith will endure.

Hmmm..

Did anyone say “Thank you CMP for showing us a vulnerable side that we all usually like to hide” ? Or am I the only one who has these same thoughts as CMP ?

So.. Michael… thank you.

I share the same challenge. The “What if … ?” questions. My anchor usually is the Bible and lot of ancient writings. And then the following reasoning…

1) Creation shows there is A God. Granted that’s true for all religions
2) History shows there was A Person named Jeshua who claimed a lot of stuff
3) The Bible and a lot of writings from the Early Church Fathers and other 1st and 2nd century authors, confirm that what this person claims would either be complete and utter lunacy or the Truth
4) I can only admit that I don’t completely understand, yet accept that the first three are accurate and
a) Accept that I am sinner removed from God
b) That Christ is who He claims He was
c) Accept His gracious offer that He called me to bring me in righteous relationship with Him
d) Pray for the Spirit to instill in me a continuous desire to seek Him more. Which won’t end until I die.

And somehow.. the doubt disappears 😎

And please… I know part C up here will lead to the whole Calvinist / Armenian discussion, but we already have that one going on in another thread so no need to restart it here.

In Him
Mick

Although I am persuaded by the empty tomb, I actually don’t find the resurrection of Jesus that convincing historically. I find the arguments for the existence of a supreme being–God–more convincing. Once that is granted, then the resurrection of Jesus becomes much more persuasive (but not on historical grounds). I have found that, over the years, the different grounds of my faith have varied in significance, while my faith overall grew in strength. I pray for stronger faith, and I do believe that God gives it as we grow in Him and become more confirmed in our Christlikeness.

regards,
John

Michael L,

I’d be careful on 3) “Lunacy or Truth.” All religions make truth claims. If we applied this same criterion to every one of them the followers of all but one would be lunatics. It may be reasonable to argue that they are all satan-deluded, mistaken, lost in depravity, etc but the fact that perfectly reasonable human beings are capable of accepting a vast array of different beliefs tells us a great deal about the human psyche but precious little about their sanity. 🙂

As John just said, once one views the existence of the universe as necessitating a Creator a lot of stumbling blocks to accepting the resurrection as plausible are eliminated. As a non-believer it is always nice to gain perspective on the relative non-lunacy 🙂 of the other side.

Thanks Michael

Scott,

True. But having dabbled in a lot of them, not a lot of them really provide an answer to the fundamental question of existentialism. Some of them admittedly don’t even try to answer it, think Confucius.

reasonable to argue that they are all satan-deluded, mistaken, lost in depravity

I will be the last (I hope) to call anyone any of those categories. But I will call someone non-Christian and happily discourse about the fundamentals of our faith.

As far as judgment is concerned, I like Matthew 7. Sometimes people have even claimed I hide behind it.

Oh well… See you on the other side.. or not 😉

In Him
Mick

Experience. I came to know God from an experience which led me to pray which in turn led God to answer my prayer. I’ve built many altars of memorial since then of different experiences I’ve had with and from God and they as a whole form a formidable anchor during the storms of life.

I enjoyed the post – thanks.

For me, here are a few:
1. looking at the stars
2. looking at my hand
3. a constant mindfulness of God that won’t leave
4. the fact of beauty
5. the presence of evil
6. the coherent brilliance of scripture
7. the need for a transcendent cause for the universe
8. various experiences that are undeniable (answered prayer…)
9. the resurrection is the best historical explanation
10. a sense of meaning and purpose

For me, it is a cumulative case – probably moving from creation, design, beauty, a sense of God, and along to the historical elements and personal experiences. All these together, for me, seem undeniable.

In addition, the options available to me seem pointless, purposeless, meaningless, and hopeless. If you will, the impossibility of the contrary.

Thanks again.

The resurrection of Jesus would be my anchor too, Michael. And strange as it may sound, when I hear of angels assisting people it helps me to know that there are things going on that we ordinarily have no understanding about, but our non-understanding does not mean the things do not exist. (I think that’s a bad sentence…I hope you get the gist of it.)

Thanks so much for all your answers. Very interesting.

I think it is a wonderful thing when you have a particular experience to anchor your faith, but when it is the only thing (i.e. a voice, deep impression, vision, etc) there are normally going to be some problems as many times these experiences are shared by others of other faiths. As well, the experiences often lack the ability to interpret themselves.

The Word of God will prove experiences, but never do the experiences prove the Word of God.

I think that experience counts for a lot. Moses had a wonderful experience with a burning bush. Then he went on to write about it.

But I should say, Mohammad also had an experience and wrote about his as well….well after he said what Moses wrote was wrong.

Experience wasn’t a permanent solution for the Isreal in the OT. It hasn’t been for me either. Experiences that were impactful and convincing in my youth though long forgotten…. have been too numerous to disbelieve 😉

if you pull the resurrection from me i’ve got some serious partying to do!

dm

I have to say though Israel has the unbroken tradition of Shabbat and Passover that still holds today and we do spiritually what they did naturally because it all pointed to Jesus. All the elements of Passover are found in Jesus.

I have been to Shul with my friend on Shabbat, and ate the seder meal for Passover and it made me understand so very plainly just what Jesus was talking about.

When John said “His fan is in His hand and He will thoroughly sweep His floor” that is the preparation for Passover as the father of the house (or the mother depending on if there is no father in the house), will actually go through their house to remove any bit of any thing that contains leaven.

Then we have the father of the table who breaks the bread as pulling it down from heaven saying the bread which came down from heaven and breaks it, Jesus said this of Himself.

And the wine which does not contain fermentation at all because it takes leaven to ferment it, Jesus said became His blood, which is pure.

The father of the table will fold the pieces of bread into a tri-fold napkin, to which he later reveals from the tri-fold napkin. One piece of bread broken in two, hidden in three. Jesus also folded the napkin that covered Him, revealing the resurrected and revealed Savior.

If you have never been to a seder meal and are not opposed to it, I recommend it because it is amazing to realize just exactly what Jesus was teaching. The depths of understanding reached from unbroken tradition. It is amazing.

“His fan is in His hand and He will thoroughly sweep His floor” has to dom with His 2nd Coming-read 2 Thessalonians 1;6-9.

Dr. Paul,
Have you ever been in a Jewish home during Passover? I learned this from a Messianic Jewish teacher so I asked my friend who is Conservative Jewish the meaning. It is their custom every year to thoroughly go through their home with a special broom and clean everything. This is only done at Passover. Jesus is the Passover lamb and every element of every tradition is fulfilled in Jesus.

I’m new to this blog and a little confused… How can a Calvinist confess doubt? Usually it is their air of self-assurance and arrogant superiority that I have come to expect. I need to take a deep breath and savor this…… It’s about as real as it gets…It takes one to break the mould I guess! If there’s any more like you I’d like to know them.

I’m being (half) facetious of course but that’s my desperation in dealing with cyber-Calvinists [resist that keyboard anxiety to pounce back in Jesus’ name 😉 ]

OK back to the topic at hand. Like others, I find creation to be a constant reminder of the reality of God. I’m not bothered by existential doubts about God when I lay in bed, but there are things about Him I don’t understand and get frustrated about (i.e. how to deal with those Calvinists-on-heat I seem to constantly stumble upon on the web 🙂 ) I prefer to remind myself to trust Him despite not having all the answers and to find comfort on the things that He has already revealed in His Word and lay the hazy bits aside (Deut 29:29)

What about the “Grace Separation” of Christianity from other religions… Do you think this is a good anchor?

The Lord has written my name with clouds. At first I wasn’t sure and I thought I was imagining things, but it was so clear and the letters were so perfectly formed that there was no denying it! He did indeed write to me personally.

Secondly the Lord directed me to scriptures that I will have a boy within the following year even though we have been trying for a while and sure enough, the next year my son was born!

I actually can go on and on, but if you live close to Him and spend quality time with Him you will hear Him speaking into your heart and you will feel Him pulsating through your veins.

Yipeng:

What is “Grace Seperation”? Thanks!

Dr. Foltz #13. You might want to re-read my concluding sentence before “correcting” me.

From #12 “I realize eventually that I do not need to have confidence in the Church because God is able and more amazing then I can imagine.”

Kara #35 Beautiful picture!

Thanks for this most important topic, Michael.
I guess it is a question of Christian evidences, that is, what particular evidence is most important or convincing to an individual. I find it interesting that Saint Paul wrote: If there is not resurrection your hope is futile (I Cor 15:14), but Christ has indeed been raised (verse 20). And the assurance for that is tied in with his intense conversion experience as he testified before King Agrippa ‘I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision’ (Acts 26:19). Paul was the first prominent believer who did not know Jesus’ earthly ministry or witness the events of the resurrection.

Few of us have such an experience, and for me the anchor is simply Jesus Himself. No other name claims what He claims–that is, to save (Acts 4:12). If Jesus fails, there is no alternative, and if He was a fraud or a fool (which I don’t believe of course) at least I will end up wherever He is. I believe there’s a bit of an existentialist in most of us.

Although what I know of Jesus comes from Scripture and the testimony of the church, those are not the anchors. They are simply fallible sources, like to creation and experience and all other evidences, which can lead to any number of alternative faiths in addition to the Christian. Jesus is indeed our unique anchor.

For me it’s Jesus, I know that’s an easy statement that no one would disagree with but it is His character, deeds and words that I am drawn to. Philip Yancey said that Jesus is the God I wanted, if there was a God I’d want HIm to be just like Jesus.

I would say that the historical evidence of the resurrection is a bedrock my trust in God rests on. John CT says that only probabilistic arguments exist for it and perhaps that’s true, but why is that a problem?

All historical records describe events that we will never see. If we are going to be hyper-sceptical it is quite easy to dispute Caesar crossing the Rubicon but it makes best sense of the subsequent events, that is the armed conflict between Caesar and Rome.

The resurrection was an event that we will never see, however it makes the actions of Jesus’ followers after his death understandable. The Jewish sense of resurrection was for the distant future, the end of the age, so it’s unlikely that his followers would have have found a present resurrection to be a plausible scenario. That was even if his death in such shameful circumstances (cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree) did not destroy utterly their belief in him as God’s anointed.

There does not seem to be any need to create a resurrection, and a number of reasons why it would not be advisable to do so. Not least that in doing so they would be putting themselves outside the bonds of Jewish brotherhood for no good reason.

Probabilistic arguments demonstrate their strength when comparing them to alternative scenarios.

Did Jesus swoon? Unlikely based on what we know of Roman crucifixion, and a revived Jesus who somehow managed to move a ton or more of rock to escape his tomb wouldn’t convince anyone that he had conquered death.

Did Jesus have a twin brother who took over his identity after his death to convince others that he had survived? No record exists of such a person. James, Jesus’ brother, would be highly unlikely to follow such a person to martyrdom.

Was Jesus a space alien who flew away in a flying saucer? I’ll say no more about that.

Well, maybe not quite a space alien, but a heavenly being anyway.

The resurrection of Christ is certainly a bedrock to anchor one’s trust in God, but there may be a weak link in the chain. That is, since Jesus was a unique person, God certainly raised His own Son, but that is not really evidence of our own resurrection. Saint Paul firmly believed that Christ was the first and like Him all saints would be resurrected but he didn’t show a necessary connection. I guess one has to say that there is no salvation for us without resurrection (our resurrection, that is).

Rayner Markley;
You weren’t reading I Corinthians 15-”Christ the first fruits, then those that are his.”

What we believe to be the truth is a result of socially learnt factors. Who has actually determined the speed of light (i.e., done the experiment?)–but no one doubts that the speed is 186,000 miles per second. Much of what we take to be true is taken on faith, and what we believe we can put our faith in depends on our socialization. During socialization we internalize what sociologist Peter Berger calls “plausibility structures.” By that term he means those social structures—schools, degrees, peer-refereed journals, reputable reference works, credentials, even white lab coats—that signal to the individual mind that all this reported knowledge he has been learning is plausible knowledge.

Note the word “plausible” because the socialization of knowledge and truth is NOT about the actual truth of the knowledge we possess, but IS about how we accept something as true. Peter Berger writes, “One of the fundamental propositions of the sociology of knowledge is that the plausibility, in the sense of what people actually find credible, of views of reality depends upon the social support these receive. Put more simply, we obtain our notions about the world originally from other human beings, and these notions continue to be plausible to us in a very large measure because others continue to affirm them. . . . Most of what we “know” we have taken on the authority of others, and it is only as others continue to confirm this “knowledge” that it continues to be plausible to us.” So we believe what someone says as true because they have a relationship to us that has proved them trustworthy in the past, or because they have university degrees, or other people have redone their experiments.

This, of course, is also true about religious knowledge, including knowledge of history, or truths revealed to us directly by God. I did not disparage history as a source of knowledge about Christ’s resurrection, but only stated that I did find it to be overwhelmingly convincing.

Now take for instance the reports of the disciples that they had seen the resurrected Jesus. How do we know that their reports are trustworthy? We know nothing worthwhile about (in terms of character or trustworthiness in regards to reporting on some alleged historical event) about Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus or Simon the Cananaean. That’s 2/3 of the disciples. Contrast that with what we know about the character of the early Mormon witnesses to the gold plates, the signatures of the “witnesses” inside the cover of the
Book of Mormon, etc. There is much to be said pro and con about their testimony and the trustworthiness of their characters.

Or what about the 500 that claimed to see Jesus? We don’t even know the when or the where, let alone the identity of any of them. Unless you are already a believer, the claim that 500 people saw Jesus (not reported by anyone else in antiquity) is not persuasive at all.

And how do we know that the tomb was in fact empty? Apart from the Easter morning visitors, we have no records that anyone else ever visited the tombs. And even if someone had tried, would not Joseph had rolled the stone back to protect the other bodies and bones in the tomb? And wouldn’t the tomb have been marked with a curse upon anyone who opened it, as was the custom? So then, we are only dealing with the veracity of a very few people–again, about whom we know little.

So, historically speaking, we have little to go on that is not open to the same sort of skepticism that we rightfully have about other alleged historical events. True, there is enough evidence to make one wonder, and to be persuasive (depending on what one finds to be probable), but not enough to be conclusive. However, once one crosses the line over to belief in God, then it becomes much more probable and persuasive.

regards,
John

MY JESUS NEVER LIES THEN WHY DOUBTS.