Is Doubt Unbelief?

[0isez]

Brothers and Sisters,
Seems a lifelong question in my mind what constitutes damning doubt versus another kind of doubt. Example in Genesis 16 4 Now the word of the Lord came to him: “This one will not be your heir; instead, one who comes from your own body[c] will be your heir.” 5 He took him outside and said, “Look at the sky and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” Then he said to him, “Your offspring will be that numerous.”6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
But, soon afterwards, Abraham asks...
8 But he said, “Lord God, how can I know that I will possess it?”
This question was not answered by the Lord as "Hey wait a minute! Do you or don't you believe me?" I must admit, this confuses me. Didn't God count his belief as righteousness? Yet, Abraham was asking for more information (a sign perhaps?). Is this not evidence of doubt on Abraham's part? Is faith a compound of percentages of surety and doubt? Or, is it the pure angelic faith of the Fundamentalists who insist that a shadow of doubt is enough to quench the smoldering wick?
Still more perplexing to me is Mark 9:24. Father brings a son possessed by a daemon, in faith brings him to the Lord...23 Jesus said to him, “‘If you can’?[a] Everything is possible for the one who believes.”24 Immediately the father of the boy cried out, “I do believe; help my unbelief!”
How to separate and recognize the differences between unbelief, dis-belief, doubt and/or caution has always been a struggle for me. I thank the Lord Jesus for my Calvinistic conversion of a year ago, but I think the ghosts of Fundamentalism lurking in the background are still a bane to my soul. Looking forward to your esteemed opinions.
...Ken

 

[Polanus1561]

I don’t think it is wrong to ask for a sign in Abraham’s case. Isn’t it a case of desiring to strengthen the faith which is there-like the Sacraments? In our case, the sign is already given in anticipation of our need for a visual sign for the invisible promises of God.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Oz Guinness wrote a book on Doubt and I can't recall the exact wording of the quote, but I think he rightly notes that Doubt is not the same as unbelief. But rather it is a state of suspension between belief and unbelief.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

Brothers and Sisters,
Seems a lifelong question in my mind what constitutes damning doubt versus another kind of doubt. Example in Genesis 16 4 Now the word of the Lord came to him: “This one will not be your heir; instead, one who comes from your own body[c] will be your heir.” 5 He took him outside and said, “Look at the sky and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” Then he said to him, “Your offspring will be that numerous.”6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
But, soon afterwards, Abraham asks...
8 But he said, “Lord God, how can I know that I will possess it?”
This question was not answered by the Lord as "Hey wait a minute! Do you or don't you believe me?" I must admit, this confuses me. Didn't God count his belief as righteousness? Yet, Abraham was asking for more information (a sign perhaps?). Is this not evidence of doubt on Abraham's part? Is faith a compound of percentages of surety and doubt? Or, is it the pure angelic faith of the Fundamentalists who insist that a shadow of doubt is enough to quench the smoldering wick?
Still more perplexing to me is Mark 9:24. Father brings a son possessed by a daemon, in faith brings him to the Lord...23 Jesus said to him, “‘If you can’?[a] Everything is possible for the one who believes.”24 Immediately the father of the boy cried out, “I do believe; help my unbelief!”
How to separate and recognize the differences between unbelief, dis-belief, doubt and/or caution has always been a struggle for me. I thank the Lord Jesus for my Calvinistic conversion of a year ago, but I think the ghosts of Fundamentalism lurking in the background are still a bane to my soul. Looking forward to your esteemed opinions.
...Ken

Ken,

You may benefit from studying the doctrine concerning the degrees of faith. There can be both true faith and yet sinful unbelief in the same believer. Here is a snippet from Thomas Watson on the matter:

We must distinguish between weakness of faith—and no faith. A
weak faith is true. The bruised reed is but weak—yet it is such as
Christ will not break. Though your faith is weak, be not discouraged.

(1.) A weak faith may receive a strong Christ. A weak hand
can tie the knot in marriage, as well as a strong one. A weak eye
might have seen the brazen serpent. The woman in the gospel did but
touch Christ's garment, and received virtue from him. It was the
touch of faith.

(2.) The promise is not made to strong faith—but to true
faith. The promise does not say—whoever has a giant-faith, which
can remove mountains, which can stop the mouths of lions—shall be
saved. But the promise is made to whoever believes, be his faith ever
so small. Though Christ sometimes chides a weak faith—yet that it
may not be discouraged, he makes it a promise. "Blessed are the poor
in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:3.

(3.) A weak faith may be fruitful. Weakest things multiply most;
the vine is a weak plant—but it is fruitful. Weak Christians may have
strong affections. How strong is the first love, which is after the first
planting of faith!

(4.) Weak faith may be growing. Seeds spring up by degrees;
first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear. Therefore,
be not discouraged. God, who would have us receive those who are
weak in faith, will not himself refuse them. Rom 14:1. A weak believer
is a member of Christ; and though Christ will cut off rotten members
from his body, he will not cut off weak members.

 

[Jack K]

Regarding Genesis 15:6, I am not sure that the comment "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness" is part of the chronological telling of what happened. That is, I'm not sure it was in that moment that Abram first practiced saving faith and was justified by it. That may be the case, but it also may be that Abram had come to faith sometime earlier (or possibly even later), and the narrator chose this moment to interject the fact that Abram was a man of faith who was justified that way and, as a part of his life of faith, believed this particular promise about Christ. Paul seems to treat Genesis 15:6 as a comment on Abraham's full gospel-believing life.

So, I don't think you need to pick apart the order of events in chapter 15 and try to figure out what quality of faith came before or after the questions Abram had. You might end up trying to solve "problems" with the text that aren't really there.

That said, the comments already made here about how weak faith can grow to become stronger faith, but nevertheless weak faith is still true faith when it is faith in Christ, are very helpful. As the Abraham account in Genesis progresses, we see his faith gradually grow stronger and his doubts become less frequent, but still his growth in faith sometimes suffers setbacks and doubts continue to pop up now and then. For example, Abraham's laughing response years later in chapter 17 sounds even more doubting and faithless than his question in chapter 15. The gospel-believing life is like that. Faith is real even though for us it can be unsteady.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Why does God now (timeline: Gen.15) ordain a so visible presentation of covenant-creation as the ceremony that is the substance of Gen.15:7-21?

We may start an apprehension of the reason first by going to the NT commentary on the event, Heb.6:17-18, “Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.”

The reason has to do with assurance, with greater-far and stronger comfort, than Abraham (and we) would otherwise have with regard to God’s promise. The promise of God is related to two unchangeable things: 1) his counsel for its basis; and 2) his oath to confirm the promise. Gen.15:7-21 is about: God signaling to his people confirmation of his Word of promise through the formality of a covenant-ceremony.

I'm not wiser than God. You’re not greater than Abram. The NT holds him up as the paragon of faith, and tells us his children to look up to him. He’s the one who received this sign, needing it so he would be strong in his faith, Rom.4:20.

V7 doesn’t just pick up momentarily continuing the conversation begun with Abram, v1. Nor is v8 a slight relapse from v6, or tinge of unbelief, such as threatened the saint in vv2-3. As Jack.K has already stated, here is a new scene set before us, a new day as v12 plainly shows (the former vision coming at night when the stars were out for viewing) with the sun going down upon a day’s preparation. I interpret Abram's words are part of the ceremony. They are a formal reply to God's formal statement just before. The reply is not of the same verbal tenor as vv2-3. It does not partake of the doubt, but of the faith shown in v6. “How will I know,” is a word of expectation for a sign, which the saint anticipates God is about to give.

Think of the questions we hear in a wedding ceremony. “Who gives this woman?” “Do you take… Do you promise?” We know what is about to be said; we know the answer before it is given. We are familiar with formal questions like Abram’s.

Remember also: FAITH is instrumental to salvation, it is not the thing that saves; but Christ, the object of faith, he saves the believer. He installs faith in us, and strengthens and keeps it alive. We believe, and that IN HIM; thus are we saved. Your faith may be small, weak, afflicted; it may be more robust (but even Abraham had his moments), yet Christ sees that he can and will do more for your faith whatever it presently has, to raise it to some further degree through your exercise in it. By the formal covenant, God encouraged his church to hope in spite of all obstacles, even the latest challenges.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I'm sure that question can be answered in a really nitty-gritty way, but I will just stick to the simplicity of my experience.

I went through some years of very difficult providence in quite a few ways, and I allowed doubt to take root, and I did it in the pursuit of critical thinking and reason. All the pillars of Christianity, I embraced wholeheartedly, but I kept questioning God about certain situations in my life.

From my experience looking back now, I would strongly, and I mean strongly recommend to stomp out any seeds of doubt and unbelief that may arise. They contribute nothing good to you, to God's glory, and to the Church. You will be robbed of peace, of joy, and contentment in God. Your spiritual life will become quenched when living in doubt.

Not doubting God, but wholeheartedly believing everything he has written, is such a beautiful, freeing, and peaceful way to live. It brings life to your faith, and it is good for God's glory and his Church.

May you always be blessed with strong faith.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

Is doubt unbelief? Yes. John Colqhoun in his treatise on saving faith helpfully points out,

"There is no doubting in the nature of saving faith . - Much doubting, indeed , is in the believer ; but there is none in his faith .Doubting can no more be said to be in the nature of true faith , because, through the prevalence of unbelief, it is often found in the believer ; than cold can be said to be in the nature of fire, because , by reason of the ashes with which it is covered , its heat is sometimes imperceptible ;or, than darkness can be said to be in the nature of the sun, because it is sometimes eclipsed . If the ashes be removed, the heat of the fire, will be perceived : if the interposing body be removed , the brightness of the sun will appear. So, remove unbelief, distrust, and every other incumbrance, in the heart of the believer, from his faith , and his assurance of faith will be full."

Source: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Faith itself cannot include doubts, but the believing soul often will have doubts because there is a mixture of corruption remaining in it that accompanies their faith and fights against it.

David Carment made an interesting remark in this regard, "But I will hazard an assertion which may seem strange to some: that doubts and fears are the natural concomitants of saving faith. The sun is the source of light, yet its influences are also the cause of clouds and fogs which at times obscure its rays. Thus faith, which is aptly termed the eye of the soul, and which enlightens the soul, has the effect of remotely producing darkness and hiding comfort from the soul. Were there no impure soil from which these things naturally arise, faith could only produce light, joy and comfort. Unshaken faith might suit a perfect saint, but it does not agree with the state of an imperfect believer who, the more he sees of the fulness of the Godhead in Christ, sees for his humiliation more of a hell of sin in himself, and of course must often fear that he will come short at last."

Source: https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/publica...in-and-effects-a-sermon-by-david-carment-403/

Where true saving faith is formed in the soul by the Holy Spirit, that soul is inseparably united to Christ for ever in a bond that cannot be broken, and the poor believer's faith, though it may be tried and shaken and diminished at times, will in the end prevail over unbelief through the power of Christ by His Holy Spirit perfecting that which He has begun in His people.

 

[0isez]

Ken,

You may benefit from studying the doctrine concerning the degrees of faith. There can be both true faith and yet sinful unbelief in the same believer. Here is a snippet from Thomas Watson on the matter:

Alexander,
I believe you, among the others who replied to my question, perceived my true confusion; the degrees, nuances and differences between doubt, unbelief, dis-belief and other notions about God given faith. What it is and isn't has been explained to my satisfaction by Watson and I am grateful for you taking the time and answering my questions... In Him...Ken

 

[0isez]

Regarding Genesis 15:6, I am not sure that the comment "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness" is part of the chronological telling of what happened. That is, I'm not sure it was in that moment that Abram first practiced saving faith and was justified by it. That may be the case, but it also may be that Abram had come to faith sometime earlier (or possibly even later), and the narrator chose this moment to interject the fact that Abram was a man of faith who was justified that way and, as a part of his life of faith, believed this particular promise about Christ. Paul seems to treat Genesis 15:6 as a comment on Abraham's full gospel-believing life.

Regarding Genesis 15:6, I am not sure that the comment "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness" is part of the chronological telling of what happened. That is, I'm not sure it was in that moment that Abram first practiced saving faith and was justified by it. That may be the case, but it also may be that Abram had come to faith sometime earlier (or possibly even later), and the narrator chose this moment to interject the fact that Abram was a man of faith who was justified that way and, as a part of his life of faith, believed this particular promise about Christ. Paul seems to treat Genesis 15:6 as a comment on Abraham's full gospel-believing life.

So, I don't think you need to pick apart the order of events in chapter 15 and try to figure out what quality of faith came before or after the questions Abram had. You might end up trying to solve "problems" with the text that aren't really there.

That said, the comments already made here about how weak faith can grow to become stronger faith, but nevertheless weak faith is still true faith when it is faith in Christ, are very helpful. As the Abraham account in Genesis progresses, we see his faith gradually grow stronger and his doubts become less frequent, but still his growth in faith sometimes suffers setbacks and doubts continue to pop up now and then. For example, Abraham's laughing response years later in chapter 17 sounds even more doubting and faithless than his question in chapter 15. The gospel-believing life is like that. Faith is real even though for us it can be unsteady.

Hello Jack,
Thanks for your reply to my question and as always you gave me something to think about. This time I want to address a fact about me that, when I read, I read like I do any type of novel, in chronological order. This is true for anything including the bible. But you bring up a point that chronologically may not be the way to read the versus I've included in my question in Genesis 15.
All I know is chronological reading. How did you know the writings in Genesis 15 4:8 may not have been chronological and how could you tell?
Does seminary teach another way to go about reading?
Much respect...Ken

 

[py3ak]

Hello Jack,
Thanks for your reply to my question and as always you gave me something to think about. This time I want to address a fact about me that, when I read, I read like I do any type of novel, in chronological order. This is true for anything including the bible. But you bring up a point that chronologically may not be the way to read the versus I've included in my question in Genesis 15.
All I know is chronological reading. How did you know the writings in Genesis 15 4:8 may not have been chronological and how could you tell?
Does seminary teach another way to go about reading?
Much respect...Ken

I am not Jack, by any stretch, but I'll take a stab at this question all the same.

First, not all novels are read in strictly chronological order. Many contain flashbacks, for instance, or verbal reports of something that had happened previously. Another example is in The Lord of the Rings where there are alternating sections with Merry/Pippin and Frodo/Sam. When you start another section, you're moving back in time to see the same time period from the point of view of a different character.

Second, the Biblical text contains many instances of things being told out of strictly chronological order. A Harmony of the Gospels, for instance, will tell you that the order of events is not exactly the same in all tellings, meaning that at least one is not in strictly chronological order.

Third, there are several kinds of statements that are frequently not chronological:

• Summary statements often anticipate what is then unfolded in detail afterwards (e.g., Judges 20:29-48).
• Editorial comments and background information are by their very nature not part of the chronology, but shed light on something from a different perspective. E.g., in Ruth 2:1, Naomi's having a relative named Boaz through Elimelech did not occur after she and Ruth arrived in Bethlehem. It was already the case, but that fact is introduced in Ruth 2:1, even though it breaks up the chronological sequence of Naomi and Ruth arriving at barley harvest, and Ruth going out to glean.
• Sometimes there are statements that look forward to a time that is future from the perspective of the events in the text but past from the perspective of the author and readers (Judges 18:30).

More examples and kinds of chronological disruptions could be found, but I think those are probably enough to show that assuming v.6 temporally follows v.5 is not always correct.

 

[Theoretical]

I think Luke's first chapter provides a good illustration of the differences in doubt among believers.

1:18 - Zechariah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years"

1:34 - "How will this be, since I am a virgin?"

There's a tone difference in here, as Zechariah is saying "we've tried already" (which is similar to Mary's though obviously different in context) but is also demanding certainty. It's a skeptical tone.

Mary, in contrast, is only asking how this will happen since it's clear the angel's not talking about just marrying Joseph and simply having a child the normal way and not whether it will happen. In other words, verse 38 was already on her heart even before she spoke it and heard from the angel. "And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant[f] of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her."

A faithful response from Zechariah, might have read like, Zechariah said to the angel, "How will this happen? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years. Yet I will trust in the Lord." Italics are changed/added to what the alternate response could have been. In this case, faith would have been trusting the Lord to provide that He actually would open Elizabeth's womb.

Taking doubts and frustrations to God (as seen in the Psalms) in opposition to grumbling internally or to others is also a faithful way to address those doubts.

 

[0isez]

I am not Jack, by any stretch, but I'll take a stab at this question all the same.

First, not all novels are read in strictly chronological order. Many contain flashbacks, for instance, or verbal reports of something that had happened previously. Another example is in The Lord of the Rings where there are alternating sections with Merry/Pippin and Frodo/Sam. When you start another section, you're moving back in time to see the same time period from the point of view of a different character.

Second, the Biblical text contains many instances of things being told out of strictly chronological order. A Harmony of the Gospels, for instance, will tell you that the order of events is not exactly the same in all tellings, meaning that at least one is not in strictly chronological order.

Third, there are several kinds of statements that are frequently not chronological:

• Summary statements often anticipate what is then unfolded in detail afterwards (e.g., Judges 20:29-48).
• Editorial comments and background information are by their very nature not part of the chronology, but shed light on something from a different perspective. E.g., in Ruth 2:1, Naomi's having a relative named Boaz through Elimelech did not occur after she and Ruth arrived in Bethlehem. It was already the case, but that fact is introduced in Ruth 2:1, even though it breaks up the chronological sequence of Naomi and Ruth arriving at barley harvest, and Ruth going out to glean.
• Sometimes there are statements that look forward to a time that is future from the perspective of the events in the text but past from the perspective of the author and readers (Judges 18:30).

More examples and kinds of chronological disruptions could be found, but I think those are probably enough to show that assuming v.6 temporally follows v.5 is not always correct.

Hello Ruben,
Sorry for the mis-naming no offense intended.
Your explanation and examples were enough to make me realize that my question could have been answered by me eventually if I thought it through.
In Him...Ken

 

[py3ak]

Hello Ruben,
Sorry for the mis-naming no offense intended.
Your explanation and examples were enough to make me realize that my question could have been answered by me eventually if I thought it through.
In Him...Ken

No mis-naming, and no offense taken!