Struggling to Believe

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tom Hart

Puritan Board Senior
Imagine you had a Christian friend who one day told you that he/she struggles to believe

1) that Christ was born of a virgin, or
2) that Christ performed miracles, or
3) that Christ rose from the dead, or
4) that he will return again.

Your friend does not deny these things, but merely is unable to really accept them as true.

Can your friend be considered to be a believer? After all, what belief is there if one cannot be sure of the most basic tenets of the Christian faith? I recognize that there are Christians who are ignorant of some of the finer points. (I recall that I was extraordinarily ignorant of some major ones.) But these are the facts of Christ's birth, his life and ministry, his death and his resurrection, and his promised return; are these not the very heart of the gospel?
 
Ultimately yes, God wants us to embrace Christianity like that of a child, trusting and believing fully and simply, as a child would his parents.

But at the same time, it seems there are people in the Bible narratives who doubted "I believe, but help my unbelief." Then there's Thomas, Peter, the disciples scattering at the arrest of Jesus.

As well, we live in a world that is very science-dominated, and naturalistic, which makes things way more difficult. Jesus lived in a culture where it seemed everyone had some sort of belief in diety, and He even said "you see and believe, but blessed are those who haven't seen and believe." To me this sounds like He is saying there is going to be a challenge in believing because everything must rely on faith going forward.

But yes, it seems like it would be difficult to be a Christian and deny the basic teachings of the Bible. In 1 John, he pointed out that we have the true Spirit of God when we recognize Jesus came in the flesh. I think that idea solicits belief in the realities of who Jesus is, and what He's done.

Happy Lord's Day, brothers!
 
Your friend does not deny these things, but merely is unable to really accept them as true.

It is possible that they are simply a weak believer. Advising them to read and listen to a lot of apologetic material might be a good place to start.

This sort of thing is more common than we sometimes think. One of the most mature young believers that I know once came to me for advice because he was struggling with doubt as to whether or not God even existed. I advised him to listen to a series of YouTube videos by R. C. Sproul on apologetics and then to read more into the philosophical arguments for God's existence. He is a very busy medical student, so I am not sure how much headway he made with the reading, but he did find the R. C. Sproul lectures useful.
 
I appreciate the replies.

I was talking to my wife about this. She said that in such a case we should explain why Christ was born of a virgin, or why he rose from the dead. I think that can be a good place to start. Instead of saying, "Believe this, or you're no believer," we can encourage the person to come to an understanding of the whole schema.

I have been reminded of how ignorant I was (even of the Godhead) and how long it took to be set right. Further, one great benefit of Reformed theology (as opposed to the weak Pentecostalism in which I was brought up) is the consistent system that it sets forth.
 
Your friend does not deny these things, but merely is unable to really accept them as true.

Can your friend be considered to be a believer?
I would need to know more about them before making a judgment. I have dealt with some individuals of whom I am convinced had the root of the matter in them but were nonetheless afflicted with a chronic lack of assurance and an accusing conscience who have said similar things. But such statements were more often things they feared they might subconsciously believe rather than what they truly believed and hoped to be true.
 
Last edited:
I think there's also a question of how teachable your friend might be.

Do they recognize their doubts as something distressing them and in need of repentance? Someone who has many doubts about God and Christ but continues to struggle and submit themselves under the care of the Church proper - I would be remiss to consider them an unbeliever. An infant in the faith, needing encouragement and care. Apologetics are a helpful supplement, yes, but ultimately the Spirit will work with the friend's hearing of the Word to convict their own heart.

On the other hand, if they parade their doubts, does not recognize it as an issue and refuses to sit under the teaching of the Church, that would be a different matter and should be addressed in a very different way.
 
Go to first principles. Remind them that Genesis 1:1 is the most controversial verse of all Scripture. If they can trust God for the certainty (though imperfect) to believe Genesis 1:1, let them use that little faith to seek greater faith from God concerning all of Scripture's claims.
 
I was thinking some more about this. We all struggle to believe in one way or another. I believe that God is omnipresent, though I know that I would probably be more guarded if I could see Him sitting in the room. I believe the truth about my sin, yet why am I offended when I'm confronted with my sin as if I didn't have any? I affirm that Christ is sufficient, but why do I look elsewhere for strength and comfort?

Your friend is being honest about his doubts. It's comforting to hear from someone else that they are not alone in needing to look to Christ, crying together "Lord, help my unbelief!"
 
Imagine you had a Christian friend who one day told you that he/she struggles to believe

1) that Christ was born of a virgin, or
2) that Christ performed miracles, or
3) that Christ rose from the dead, or
4) that he will return again.

Your friend does not deny these things, but merely is unable to really accept them as true.

Can your friend be considered to be a believer? After all, what belief is there if one cannot be sure of the most basic tenets of the Christian faith? I recognize that there are Christians who are ignorant of some of the finer points. (I recall that I was extraordinarily ignorant of some major ones.) But these are the facts of Christ's birth, his life and ministry, his death and his resurrection, and his promised return; are these not the very heart of the gospel?

1. If one truly is unable to accept the truth, then I don’t see how we may say that he “does not deny these things.”

If one does not believe x (assuming he has actually understood and considered x) I’d suggest he is not merely not believing x. He is also rejecting x is true. Whereas if one is simply ignorant of x, then he’s merely not believing x. (But once one has understood and considered x and still does not believe it, it would seem he is denying that x is true.)

2. Those doctrines aren’t derived. They’re stated plainly in Scripture. Therefore, one who’d deny those teachings does not yet accept the authority of Scripture.
 
Last edited:
Imagine you had a Christian friend who one day told you that he/she struggles to believe

1) that Christ was born of a virgin, or
2) that Christ performed miracles, or
3) that Christ rose from the dead, or
4) that he will return again.

If we fully and wholeheartedly believed those things constantly, giving due consideration to their ramifications, we would never sin. We would be so consumed by Christ's superiority that our sanctification would be complete.

One reason our sanctification is not yet complete is that our faith/belief is not yet full either. It is a mistake to think it is normal for our sanctification to be incomplete but abnormal for our faith to be anything but perfect.

Your friend should ask the Lord for greater faith, and should use appropriate means to prepare to receive it. If that's what you mean by struggling to believe, your friend is doing exactly what he should be doing. No one is unsaved for struggling that way. Refusing to believe would be another matter.
 
I was thinking some more about this. We all struggle to believe in one way or another. I believe that God is omnipresent, though I know that I would probably be more guarded if I could see Him sitting in the room. I believe the truth about my sin, yet why am I offended when I'm confronted with my sin as if I didn't have any? I affirm that Christ is sufficient, but why do I look elsewhere for strength and comfort?

Your friend is being honest about his doubts. It's comforting to hear from someone else that they are not alone in needing to look to Christ, crying together "Lord, help my unbelief!"

But we mustn’t conflate the binary aspect of belief with the spectrum of weak to strong belief. The latter consideration applies to true believers. “I believe, but help my unbelief.” The “unbelief” of a believer is actually doubt, which presupposes true belief is present. Beliefs can be assailed, yet they remain beliefs. The depiction of this other person is not belief but rather unbelief (as it was described, that is).
 
I would suggest the Tim Keller response if the doubts are new: "who are you sleeping with", or have you been looking at p0rn, or are you romantically interested in a non believer.

If they have always been this way then consider the above replies. But if it is recent, look for the immorality.
 
I would suggest the Tim Keller response if the doubts are new: "who are you sleeping with", or have you been looking at p0rn, or are you romantically interested in a non believer.

If they have always been this way then consider the above replies. But if it is recent, look for the immorality.
There’s something to that, Lynnie.
 
I would suggest the Tim Keller response if the doubts are new: "who are you sleeping with", or have you been looking at p0rn, or are you romantically interested in a non believer.

If they have always been this way then consider the above replies. But if it is recent, look for the immorality.
I see the shock value in that, and many times probably is true, but might that be a strong accusation to make right away? Would a Christian really approach another like that with so little understanding? I think of Paul telling us to think more highly of others than ourselves. Thoughts?
 
I would actually suggest a somewhat different track. Consider the logic behind Tim Keller's question "who are you sleeping with?" The more fundamental issue Keller is bringing up with that the individual is more attracted to the desire to continue in sin than they are to Christ. The doubts are not so much there because the truth is not apparent, but because our minds naturally suppress that truth to maintain our autonomy and not submit to God as our rightful ruler.

While I highly value and respect apologetics, I'm concerned dealing with these doubts primarily from that perspective is akin to wrestling an alligator in a swamp rather than on land. You're in it's turf. Our minds are not neutral ground to rationally consider both sides; then enemy enjoys a home court advantage there unfortunately.

The doubts you mentioned [1) that Christ was born of a virgin, or 2) that Christ performed miracles, or 3) that Christ rose from the dead, or 4) that he will return again.] are of course things that Christians need to come to accept. But, accepting these does not make one a Christian. Satan and the demons know these as indisputable facts, but to no benefit to them. Rather, becoming a Christian is fundamentally coming to see Jesus as our redeemer. The person of Christ revealed in the gospels is self-authenticating. John's gospel makes this particularly clear. When, with the illumination of the spirit, we see enough of the person of Christ as revealed in the gospels to believe, we recognize that the gospel accounts have to be true. We don't become persuaded of the reliability of the gospel accounts only for historical reasons and come to genuine faith. Perhaps those valid apologetic arguments for the reliability of the gospels may draw people to examine them and find Christ there. But, it is ultimately seeing that Jesus has to be who he claimed to be that saves.

Once someone comes to believe in Christ, examining who Christ had to be will help them to understand that He had to rise from the dead, that He will return as he claimed, and so forth.

So, I would suggest that you consider that the origin of the doubt is an inadequate view of Christ. (As Jack K wisely pointed out, none of us have an adequate view of Christ, or we'd be sinless.) Perhaps your friend would be willing to listen to a good sermon series on John or another gospel on their drive to work? Perhaps they may consider reading a book that really focuses on the person of Christ. Get your friend to fix their eyes there, and the rest will come into alignment.
 
I would actually suggest a somewhat different track. Consider the logic behind Tim Keller's question "who are you sleeping with?" The more fundamental issue Keller is bringing up with that the individual is more attracted to the desire to continue in sin than they are to Christ. The doubts are not so much there because the truth is not apparent, but because our minds naturally suppress that truth to maintain our autonomy and not submit to God as our rightful ruler.

While I highly value and respect apologetics, I'm concerned dealing with these doubts primarily from that perspective is akin to wrestling an alligator in a swamp rather than on land. You're in it's turf. Our minds are not neutral ground to rationally consider both sides; then enemy enjoys a home court advantage there unfortunately.

The doubts you mentioned [1) that Christ was born of a virgin, or 2) that Christ performed miracles, or 3) that Christ rose from the dead, or 4) that he will return again.] are of course things that Christians need to come to accept. But, accepting these does not make one a Christian. Satan and the demons know these as indisputable facts, but to no benefit to them. Rather, becoming a Christian is fundamentally coming to see Jesus as our redeemer. The person of Christ revealed in the gospels is self-authenticating. John's gospel makes this particularly clear. When, with the illumination of the spirit, we see enough of the person of Christ as revealed in the gospels to believe, we recognize that the gospel accounts have to be true. We don't become persuaded of the reliability of the gospel accounts only for historical reasons and come to genuine faith. Perhaps those valid apologetic arguments for the reliability of the gospels may draw people to examine them and find Christ there. But, it is ultimately seeing that Jesus has to be who he claimed to be that saves.

Once someone comes to believe in Christ, examining who Christ had to be will help them to understand that He had to rise from the dead, that He will return as he claimed, and so forth.

So, I would suggest that you consider that the origin of the doubt is an inadequate view of Christ. (As Jack K wisely pointed out, none of us have an adequate view of Christ, or we'd be sinless.) Perhaps your friend would be willing to listen to a good sermon series on John or another gospel on their drive to work? Perhaps they may consider reading a book that really focuses on the person of Christ. Get your friend to fix their eyes there, and the rest will come into alignment.

I’d like to pick up on a couple of things you zeroed in on.

We don't become persuaded of the reliability of the gospel accounts only for historical reasons and come to genuine faith. Perhaps those valid apologetic arguments for the reliability of the gospels may draw people to examine them and find Christ there. But, it is ultimately seeing that Jesus has to be who he claimed to be that saves.
And then this:


Once someone comes to believe in Christ, examining who Christ had to be will help them to understand that He had to rise from the dead, that He will return as he claimed, and so forth.
I’ve been lately impressed by something similar to these ideas. It might be hard to believe in the Resurrection, or a sinless Jesus. I find (with you) that we must come from another direction if we are to embrace those doctrines in full assurance of faith.

Of late I’ve been increasingly impressed by the idea that if we begin with what we know by nature, yet is also revealed to us in Scripture, we might begin our reflections beginning with our sin and God’s loving goodness toward his creation. In that context, the context of our need before a good and gracious God, the love for sinners that is displayed in penal substitution can begin to make perfect sense. Foolishness can become wisdom. In other words, the wisdom of God is on display against the backdrop of our innate knowledge of God’s goodness toward his creation and our desperate need of redemption. Once the special revelation of the cross resonates with us by the internal witness of the Spirit - the virgin birth, sinless life and all the rest become necessary preconditions for the wisdom of the cross. The point being, it’s not until we see our need will we see God’s solution, the cross. And once we are illuminated to the cross, those things that are necessary for the cross to make sense become much easier to see and believe (like the virgin birth, the two natures of Christ, etc).

All that stands in stark contrast to an Evidentialist approach that would try to build a case for the Resurrection removed from any soteriological context. Acknowledging our need in truthfulness before God is, I find, the precursor to a knowledge of the Truth.

So, for the Christian, we should keep short accounts with God. Apply the gospel to ourselves day by day, moment by moment. Given the cross, of course a Virgin was with child.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top