The role of doubt in faith

[erich von abele]

Islamic theology seems to me to be rather rigidly wary of any positive role which doubt could play in faith. Or, to put it more strongly, it seems to me that Islamic theology presupposes that all doubt should be removed from faith.

If my impression about Islamic theology is correct, this strikes me as an erroneous understanding of what faith means: it seems to be a confusion of faith and gnosis.

I would like to think that Christian orthodoxy is more realistic about the inevitability of doubt in the life of faith, and that the following quote from the Spanish existentialist Miguel de Unamuno would be harmonious with, rather than inimical to, Christian orthodoxy:

"Faith without doubt is a dead faith."

However, the religious attitude of one devout Orthodox I know, a close personal friend, seems awfully close to what I think is the Islamic view -- namely, that a faith without doubt is the spiritual goal in this life, because doubt is pernicious.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

It seems that there was a slight fault in the email notification of Erich's recent message on Christianity and Islam.

The full text of his post can be found here:

http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4225/6297.html?1034260318

INXC, Matthew

[Justin]

Erich von abele,

I would agree with your friend, in Orthodox thought doubt is a bad thing and should be eliminated. Even the most "accepting" aspects of the Orthodox tradition point towards a future strong faith. For example, the man in the Gospel cries out "Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief" (Mk. 9:24). Unbelief is not seen here as an acceptable thing, but as something opposed to proper belief and faith. Faith comes first, the man does believe, yet there is also doubt, and the doubt is recognized as a deficiency, for which help is asked.

The Orthodox tradition just gets "tougher" on doubt from there. For example, James says: "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways." (James 1:5-8). Here's a few passages from the Church Fathers:



"Be not double-minded in thy prayers; for blessed is he who doubteth not." - Pseudo-Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to Hero, 7

"Thou shalt not be of doubtful mind as to whether a thing shall be or not." - Pseudo-Barnabas, Epistle of Barnabas, 19

"He says to me, 'Put away doubting from you and do not hesitate to ask of the Lord, saying to yourself, `How can I ask of the Lord and receive from Him, seeing I have sinned so much against Him? 'Do not thus reason with yourself, but with all your heart turn to the Lord and ask of Him without doubting, and you will know the multitude of His tender mercies; that He will never leave you, but fulfil the request of your soul. For He is not like men, who remember evils done against them; but He Himself remembers not evils, and has compassion on His own creature, Cleanse, therefore, your heart from all the vanities of this world, and from the words already mentioned, and ask of the Lord and you will receive all, and in none of your requests will you be denied which you make to the Lord without doubting. But if you doubt in your heart, you will receive none of your requests. For those who doubt regarding God are double-souled, and obtain not one of their requests. But those who are perfect in faith ask everything, trusting in the Lord; and they obtain, because they ask nothing doubting, and not being double-souled. For every double-souled man, even if he repent, will with difficulty be saved. Cleanse your heart, therefore, from all doubt, and put on faith, because it is strong, and trust God that you will obtain from Him all that you ask. And if at any time, after you have asked of the Lord, you are slower in obtaining your request [than you expected], do not doubt because you have not soon obtained the request of your soul; for invariably it is on account of some temptation or some sin of which you are ignorant that you are slower in obtaining your request. Wherefore do not cease to make the request of your soul, and you will obtain it. But if you grow weary and waver in your request, blame yourself, and not Him who does not give to you. Consider this doubting state of mind, for it is wicked and senseless, and turns many away entirely from the faith, even though they be very strong. For this doubting is the daughter of the devil, and acts exceedingly wickedly to the servants of God. Despise, then, doubting, and gain the mastery over it in everything; clothing yourself with faith, which is strong and powerful. For faith promises all things, perfects all things; but doubt having no thorough faith in itself, fails in every work which it undertakes. You see, then,' says he, 'that, faith is from above-from the Lord-and has great power; but doubt is an earthly spirit, coming from the devil, and has no power. Serve, then, that which has power, namely faith, and keep away from doubt, which has no power, and you will live to God. And all will live to God whose minds have been set on these things." - Shepherd of Hermas, Commandment 9


In Orthodox thought, as we participate in God's grace (transmitted through everything from fasting and vigilance to the eucharist and especially prayer) we come closer to a blessed assurance, and go further and further from doubts. The closer we grow to God, the more insignificant our doubts seem, and the less we worry about what "doubts" might remain. We learn to trust him in all things, and have no doubts because we know that he is in control. At this point (at that future point I mean, when our soul is cleansed by God's grace) in our spiritual walk, to have doubts would be to doubt God's ability to bring about his will, or would be to doubt tht God works all things for the good of the kingdom. Doubts, essentially, arise from worries about things we really don't need to worry about (since God himself is already in control). Doubts come from our will trying to maintain control over our lives or the world. Reading spiritual literature such as that dealing with the lives of people like Father Arseny and Saint Nektarios helps understanding this on a practical level, I think.

[Owen Jones]

Perhaps doubt is the opposite of belief. But perhaps certitude is the opposite of faith. Certitude is not the same as knowing what and why you believe. Certitude is a substitute for living by faith. Orthodoxy does not preach certitude in all things. It preaches that certain things are unknowable to us. WE do not know God in his Essence. We do not know His will for us in minute detail or in any absolute sense. He does not communicate to us all of the fine details. It's what freedom is all about. Faith and freedom go hand in hand. Nor has anyone returned from the grave to report to us what the real deal is. That's what occultism is based on -- the false notion that somehow we can contact the dead or other spirits -- i.e. summon them up -- in order to get the answers. That would make faith worthless.

[Richard McBride]

We are reminded by this thread, how blessed we are to have avoided those other, pointless, arguments over ‘my belief versus yours’. As has so often been the case on Monochos, this thread shows mature and learned concern over the beliefs of individuals by supporting those beliefs with their underlying theologies. Everyone benefits from the display of well rehearsed positions, since those who are in opposition receive the chance to test their own understanding through reading the messages, and even through encounter -- as is well attested by Erich and Margaret, and Justin, Seraphim, David, Sinjin and Moses (as well as others, who fail to leap into my poor memory).

Unhappily, this is not always the case. I remember Father Justin refusing to speak to one agnostic fellow because, as he said, “All he wants to do is argue.” I point this out to mention again how blessed we are with these elevated discussions. But this is not to say that those who merely argue are not in great need. Their plight is revealed in their inability to arrive at a conclusion; they are doomed, it seems, to remain perched on their fence, suffering the ignominies of ‘double mindedness’, as Justin so correctly points out.

Since we are NOT in such a double minded bog at this time, I submit Father Nikitas Stithatos’ judgements on these matters, to be saved for a time when we ARE under attack by double mindedness. He says:

Divine Scripture is to be interpreted spiritually and the treasures it contains are revealed only through the Holy Spirit to the spiritual. Hence the unspiritual man cannot receive the revelation of these treasrues (cf. 1 Cor 2:14). The ceaseless flow of his own thoughts makes it impossible for him to understand or listen to anything said by someone else. For he lacks the Spirit of God, that searches the depths of God (cf. 1 Cor:10) and knows the things of God. He possesses only the material spirit of the world, full of jealousy and envy, of strife and discord; and for this reason he thinks it foolish to enquire into the sense and meaning of the written word. Unable to understand that everything in divine Scripture concerning things divine and human is to be interpreted spiritually, he mocks those who do interpret it in this way. Calling such people not ‘spiritual’, or ‘guided by the Spirit’, but ‘anagogical’, he twists and distorts their words and their divine intellections as much as he can, like the notorious Demas (cf. 2 Tim 4:10). The spiritual man does not behave in this manner; on the contrary, inspired by the Holy Spirit, he discerns all things, but he himself cannot be called to account by anyone. For he has the intellect of Christ, and that no one can teach (cf.1 Cor 2:15-16). The Philokalia; vol. four; pg.165

Well, if few of us have the “intellect of Christ”, neither are we under attack (at this time) by those, “full of jealousy, etc.” And since we are presently blessed with very careful thinking, I may intrude these thoughts without danger of hurting anyone’s feelings.

richard mcb

[erich von abele]

Justin, Owen, Richard:

Thanks for your responses. For now, I will focus on Justin's post (later I may get back to the other two).

I might have been unclear about a distinction, which I think is important in this issue:

1) the merits (or lack of merits) of doubt with respect to a life of faith;

and

2) the inevitability of doubt (varying from person to person, and within a single person varying over time).

Even if we agree that doubt is in fact pernicious (and Justin's quote of the Shepherd of Hermas makes no bones about doubt being purely, not just partially, Satanic), that does not mean that in this life a doubt-free faith is possible (at least not for the perhaps vast majority of believers). For this majority of believers, then, it seems to me of dubious merit to brand as purely Satanic the inevitable factor of doubt in the life of faith, when it may in fact be simply an aspect of being human. I don't, at any rate, consider the doubt in one's heart of hearts to be on the same plane as murderous and other evil thoughts.

However, that being said, I would have to take issue on the level of #1 above -- which is why I quoted Miguel de Unamuno: Faith without doubt is a dead faith.

Perhaps this is in part a semantic issue, and the sources quoted by Justin -- and Justin himself -- are thinking of a different "doubt" than Unamuno had in mind. In this spirit, I would suggest that in this life faith does not swallow up doubt, and that, indeed, the inevitability of doubt in this life is precisely why faith is necessary. That's why I find vaguely troubling the Orthodox posture in this regard, reminiscent of the Muslim one, whereby faith is raised to a kind of power over the uncertainties and misgivings and disturbing features of this life -- thus granting the believer an excessive degree of eschatological victory and even gnosis over this life, making the distinction and tension between this life and the next life almost irrelevant (except insofar as one perceives other humans who aren't privileged with this eschatophany as benighted, deluded, pitiful, or worse, as Satanic enemies).

[Justin]

erich von abele

Perhaps we are using the word "doubt" in different ways, but I think we just disagree on this issue. I would, leastwise, disagree with the idea that "faith without doubt is a dead faith." In the Orthodox mindest, "A pure heart and pure mind engender pure knowledge" (Saint Justin Popovich). Doubt is seen as a questioning of God's ability to bring about His will or do the best thing (as is despair). You cannot both have doubts and simultaneously have the proper kind of faith. If you have faith (E.g., "God will save us"), you cannot have doubts (E.g., "I'm not sure that God will save us"). Perhaps I am thinking of doubt differently though? I do admit to be rather slow in "getting" things. One note though, many times what people call a normal part of "being human" isn't actually compatible with the christocentric life. There are many things that "come naturally" to humans as part of their fallen lives that isn't acceptable--or even possible--as God's grace transforms us. Maybe it is true that it's normal for the natural man to doubt. Christians are not normal, though, they are partakers of the divine nature.

I cannot speak for the Muslim position, but it is indeed my understanding that the christocentric life raises us "above" this world. (This is a key principle, in fact, in the epistemology of a number of Fathers, if not all -- through God's grace, by faith, we are cleansed and raised above passionate, earthly vision [though material reality in itself is not to be despised or thought of as dirty]).

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Erich'

I've not been an Orthodox Christian very long, so I cannot say with any certainty anything about the Church Fathers, and their position on doubt.

It would appear to me that even as temptation is not necessary to salvation, neither is doubt a component of a stronger faith. What Justin shared is informative, yes; however, the most light to shed upon doubt comes from Scripture itself:

Therefore, do not throw away your confi-
dence , which has a great reward. For
you have need of endurance, so that when
you have done the will of God, you may
receive what was promised. For yet in a
very little while, He who is coming will
come and will not delay. But My righteous
one shall live by faith; and if he shrinks
back, My soul has no pleasure in him."
Heb.10:35-38

To have doubt as a Christian doesn't mean that I not a Christian, nor that it's essential to my life as a follower of Christ. Remember, it was doubt placed in the mind of Eve by the devil, " indeed,has God, said....". Like light and darkness, faith and doubt are not co-existant.

the unworthy servant

[Owen Jones]

Cerainly the Biblical witness contains evidence that doubt or unbelief is part of God's plan for us. It is unreal and unnatural not to have pangs of doubt. Relying on certitude is a false response to pangs of doubt or unbelief. Just doing the the outward stuff that the Church tells you to do is not the answer.

I think the true Orthodox answer is 1) patience and 2) a rekindling of deep feeling and desire. Sometimes this comes about through prayer and more spiritual discipline. Sometimes through deep grief and suffering and desperation. A faith that tries to avoid these things is an unreal faith. Unfortunately, many people have turned Christian Orthodoxy into a kind of club to beat others over the head with. This is particularly true of a type of young American convert who is alienated and does not really wish to overcome that alienation.

Finally, there is room for the devout skeptic who demands physical proof. Is Thomas not a saint???

The one unforgivable sin is open to controversy, but I believe it is the man who is in a position of spiritual authority over others who misuses that power and turns belief and piety into a straightjacket.

[Thomas Garland]

Thank you, Owen, for putting in a word for my name-saint!

But surely the supreme example of doubt is:

"My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

God allowed himself to taste our human proclivity for doubt and the terrors that it can bring. Surely we can only achieve true certainty when we are united with God in the Resurrection?

Until that moment, shedding doubt is a goal to aim for, as is perfect sinlessness, but unlikely to be achieved by us sinners. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. Perhaps Orthodox who seem excessively focused on certainty are only continuing the Church's general attitude to sin - "You mustn't sin (doubt). (afterthought - but the Church accepts in its economy that you are not perfect.)"

Thomas Garland

[Moses Anthony]

Is certitude a synonyn for absolute? If this is so, then I point you to the testimony of Scripture about God, i.e., He is the same yesterday, today and forever, with God there is no shadow of turning, He is not a man that He should lie, nor a son of man that He should repent. This is something else I fail to understand; how is it that we can believe in God in one breath, and in the next say there are no absolutes/certainties?

When I fruitlessly searched for a place for our family to live for two months (staying in a friends home), I was in despair. What got me through it was the line of a song, "When my heart is overwhelmed, please lead me to the Rock that is higher than I"(Psalm 61:2).
As long as I'm in this flesh; doubt, like disunity in the Church, is a problem faced daily. Yes, Thomas doubted, but did he continue to doubt after he'd placed his fingers in the print of the nails, and thrust his hands into Jesus' side. We are not condemned if we have doubts, we are condemned for our doubts if we continue in them after we "...have been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and have then fallen away,..."

Again: If we say there is a God, and we put faith/trust in Him, we are putting our faith in an absolute. And if you will, the foundation for all other absolutes! The Holy Spirit reveals, guides, teaches me all the things that Jesus said, which things are truth, about which He prayed, "...sanctify them in the truth , Thy Word is truth". Doubts are a problem to the spiritual life, only when they continue to be a stronghold opposing the truth in Jesus.

Finally; Yes I believe in absolutes, since I believe in God Almighty. He hears my thoughts, knows my doubts and fears and tells me " hush, be still", so I can know that I am in His hands and He has overcome the world.

Is this any clearer than my first post about doubts?

the unworthy servant

[Owen Jones]

You don't need to defend the Gospel, James. No one was defending doubt. But the point was made forcefully that Our Master doubted on the cross. Are we to say, hey, you who are supposed to be perfect showed us a very bad example at that point???

[Justin]

Well, the point was made, I don't know if it was "forcefully" made. I really have no idea whether the Church views that instance as real "doubt" or not. Anyone got anything from the Fathers or Saints on there interpretation?

[John Wehling]

From St John Chrysostom's commentary on St Matthew's Gospel, Homily 88:

"And for this reason, even after this He speaks, that they might learn that He was still alive, and that He Himself did this, and that they might become by this also more gentle, and He saith, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that unto His last breath they might see that He honors His Father, and is no adversary of God. Wherefore also He uttered a certain cry from the prophet, even to His last hour bearing witness to the Old Testament, and not simply a cry from the prophet, but also in Hebrew, so as to be plain and intelligible to them, and by all things He shows how He is of one mind with Him that begat Him."

[Owen Jones]

What is the difference between real doubt and unreal doubt? According to the passage from John Chrysostom, Christ's doubt it is typological doubt. Are we not allowed ever to have any typological doubt? I don't think anyone is defending doubt. My point would be that Holy Scripture embraces or includes or incorporates the reality of doubt in God's economy. A faith that is primarily focused on avoidance of any accusation of doubt might be considered an unreal faith. Perhaps you might call it an unexamined faith or a faith that is incapable of standing rough tests. I think that is the only point being raised here.

For me it gets back to an argument I make, which I could be all wrong about, but it seems to me that Orthodoxy makes no absolute guarantees about anything. It does not guarantee salvation. That is not to impugn God's promises. It impugns us. The fact of doubt is about us, not God. Faith is a living, dymanic thing. A struggle, a partnership, and so on. Salvation is not about absolutes. It's about doing what God wants us to do. That is always an approximation. Not an absolute. If it were about absolutes, no one could be saved.

oaj

[Justin]

I essentially agree with you, if I understand correctly. I think thomas summed up well what my position is in his last paragraph.

I'm still unsure what to think of the crucifixion passage. I see Chrysostom's commentary as meaning that he didn't have "doubt" in the same way that you and I had doubt; Chrysostom says that he says it exactly as something that "shows how He is of one mind with Him that begat Him." Certainly we wouldn't say that the Father experiences "doubt"!

[erich von abele]

Owen:

You seem to grasp this issue very well. However, as an outsider looking in on the various Christianities, I only wish your sound and considerate viewpoint about doubt were officially and boldly codified in Christianity, not simply peppered here and there between the lines, requiring sometimes adroit exegesis to find it.

That said, however, it is nevertheless fairly evident that the respect for doubt is more easily found in orthodox Christianity (small "o" to include the 3 main branches -- Catholic, Lutheran and Orthodox) than it is in Islam. But just this exchange generated so far on this thread among Christians shows the problem: so far, you're the only one who shows any respect for doubt as a part of imperfect life, while the others sound very much like Muslims in their need (and almost palpable anxiety) for a doubt-free life of faith, leading to naive expressions of a supposedly successful repression of one part of their imperfect humanity.

[John Wehling]

St Athansius the Great, Four Discourses
against the Arians, 3.56.

"And that the words ‘Why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ are His, according to the foregoing explanations (though He suffered nothing, for the Word was impossible), is notwithstanding declared by the Evangelists; since the Lord became man, and these things are done and said as from a man, that He might Himself lighten these very sufferings of the flesh, and free it from them . Whence neither can the Lord be forsaken by the Father, who is ever in the Father, both before He spoke, and when He uttered this cry. Nor is it lawful to say that the Lord was in terror, at whom the keepers of hell’s gates shuddered and set open hell, and the graves did gape, and many bodies of the saints arose and appeared to their own people . Therefore be every heretic dumb, nor dare to ascribe terror to the Lord whom death, as a serpent, flees, at whom demons tremble, and the sea is in alarm; for whom the heavens are rent and all the powers are shaken. For behold when He says, ‘Why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ the Father shewed that He was ever and even then in Him; for the earth knowing its Lord who spoke, straightway trembled, and the vail was rent, and the sun was hidden, and the rocks were torn asunder, and the graves, as I have said, did gape, and the dead in them arose; and, what is wonderful, they who were then present and had before denied Him, then seeing these signs, confessed that ‘truly He was the Son of God .’ "

[Huw Richardson]

Hi Erich - I'm not sure I understand your note: you say "respect for doubt as a part of imperfect life". Those who experience doubt are to be loved, prayer for and reconciled to God...

I think forgiveness, love and prayer are all very much a part of respect for doubt, but accepting it as "just a part of life" isn't. The imperfections of humanity are there for us to grow out of, not stay in. God calls us to "be perfect" as He is. But saying we will all miss the mark of that perfection isn't the same thing as saying "Go ahead, miss the mark, you don't need to even try..." We all stumble in our faith - but we get up and try again to walk. Stumble, Walk. At no point should one stop walking just because one may stumble again.

Yours,

Huw

I just found this quote at a friend's website which I think is useful to this wonderful conversation.

Dostoevsky on Doubt



A woman confesses to the Elder Zossima that she is struggling with doubts regarding her faith, she is having trouble because she cannot prove her religion to herself and she begs the elder to teach her how to convince herself. The Elder responds:



" ...there's no proving it, though you can be convinced of it. By the experience of active love. Strive to love your neighbor actively and indefatigably. In as far as you advance in love you will grow surer of the reality of God and of the immortality of your soul. If you attain to perfect self-forgetfulness in the love of your neighbor, then you believe without doubt, and no doubt can possibly enter your soul. This has been tried. This is certain. "

[John Wehling]

St John Damascene, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.18

"Further, of the statements made and written about Christ the Saviour after the manner of men, whether they deal with sayings or actions, there are six modes. For some of them were done or said naturally in accordance with the incarnation....

Others are of the nature of ascription....

Others again are said in the manner of association and relation , as, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me ? and He hath made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin , and being made a curse for us ; also, Then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him . For neither as God nor as man was He ever forsaken by the Father, nor did He become sin or a curse, nor did He require to be made subject to the Father. For as God He is equal to the Father and not opposed to Him nor subjected to Him; and as God, He was never at any time disobedient to His Begetter to make it necessary for Him to make Him subject . Appropriating, then, our person and ranking Himself with us, He used these words. For we are bound in the fetters of sin and the curse as faithless and disobedient, and therefore forsaken."

[Owen Jones]

John,

How do you interpret the passage by St. Athanasius? Also, what is meant by doubt? It is doubting the existence of God? Or does one mean simply a kind of existential doubt, a kind of inner trouble? Or a confusion as to what God's will is for us at that moment? AS I said, I don't think anyone is defending doubt. But it seems to be something of a different order than the conventional sins such as lust, greed, etc. Christ of course was tempted more than anyone ever, since he was offered the opportunity to use his power to rule the world for a good purpose. The Gospel embraces temptation just as it embraces doubt. It's not advocating it. IT's telling a story about it.

I think we've been through this discussion already regarding temptation -- the fact that faith and temptation go hand in hand. Perhaps that is what is being also said about doubt???

But then people always surprise me. I have a realistic painting of Our Master at the end of his fast in the desert, contemplating a plate of figs. The artist consulted medical experts to try to render as accurately as possible what a body would look like deprived of food for that period of time. I showed it to a lady who was a devout believer and she was offended by it. Said she couldn't look at it. Said she couldn't bear to think of Christ looking like that. Perhaps she had a plastic, blonde adonis statue of Jesus in mind.

So perhaps all we are saying, and all Holy Scripture is saying is, look at doubt in the face. Be honest about it. Deal with it.

I got fired from teaching a Sunday school class because I spent five minutes describing a crucifixion. These were young teens who think nothing of watching glorified violence in Schwartzenneger movies. But one kid complained to her mom and I got fired. I'm not complaining about my treatment but the treatment that the poor young lady got. She obviously had a morbid fixation. Turns out she almost was killed in a traffic accident and probably had never been given a plausible theological explanation for her misfortune, let alone been comforted pastorally.

Doubt is a pastoral issue as all theological issues are, at root. So what is the point in saying, don't doubt! IT's bad! That's not a pastoral treatment of it.

[Owen Jones]

Sounds like it's time for you to make a commitment, Erich. It's tough to judge something from a perspective that is extrinsic to it (Veogelin). Besides, the proof of the pudding is in the eating of it.

[Owen Jones]

Chrysostom is saying that Christ is not expressing doubt on the cross as an excuse for us to indulge in our doubts. He's saying that Christ is quoting Scripture on the Cross as a means of fulfilling prophecy. By echoing the dilemma of the prophets, he is saying that he is one with the prophets, and one with us.

[John Wehling]

Greetings all,

I don't have time to keep researching this verse, but I will post one more source here, fyi. It is from St Cyril of Alexandria's "On the Unity of Christ" (SVS Press, 1995). St Cyril devotes what amounts to several pages (pp.102-107) to comment on the passage under discussion (Mt 27:46/Mk 15:34) and the issues concerning the Word's human nature that surround this passage and others. It is obviously too lenghty to type out, but I will quote a snippet here.

"...the nature of man was made rich and blameless in him so that it sould now cry out in boldness: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mt 27:46). Understand that in becoming man, the Only Begotten spoke these words as one of us and on behalf of all our nature. It was as if he were saying this: 'The first man has transgressed. He slipped into disobedience, and neglected the commandmnet he received, and he was brought into a state of wilfulness by the wiles of the devil; and then it was entirely right that he became subject to corruption and fell under judgment. But you Lord have made me a second beginning for all on the earth, and I am called the Second Adam. In me you see the nature of man made clean, its falts corrected, made holy and pure. Now give me the good things of your kindness, undo the abandonement, rebuke corruption and set a limit on your anger. I have conquered Satan himself who ruled of old, for he found in me absolutely nothing of what was his.' In my opinion this is the sense of the Savior's words. He did not invoke the Father's graciousness upon himslef, but rather upon us." (pp.105-106)

[erich von abele]

John:

Re: your quote (from St Athansius the Great, Four Discourses against the Arians, 3.56.)

"And that the words ‘Why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ are His, according to the foregoing explanations (though He suffered nothing, for the Word was impossible)..."

That should be "impassible" (unable to suffer). Would someone here explain to me how this exposition by Athanasius is not an example of docetism?

Secondly, I remember my comparative religions professor explaining that the "Why hast thou forsaken me" ejaculation of Jesus most likely was -- because it is a verbatim quote from Isaiah -- meant by Jesus not as a prayer of agony but as a pointed reference to the meaning of his crucifixion in terms of Isaiah's Suffering Servant symbolism. Thus, if this is so, the issue of whether Jesus was "impassible God" or not is not really relevant to determining that he did not in fact utter this out of existential agony. In other words: if Jesus was a docetically "impassible God" then he could not have had existential agony; but on the other hand, if Jesus was not a docetically "impassible God", that would not rule out that he could have meant the "forsaken me" in a calculated kerygmatic way.

[John Wehling]

Owen,

You ask:


How do you interpret the passage by St. Athanasius?

Well, the reason I looked up all these passages was to try and get a handle on this whole issue of the nature of the experience of Christ’s human nature. I’m not sure I am there yet. Taken together, though, and specifically in relation to the question at hand—did Christ doubt?--I think that the fathers I quoted would be in agreement that He did not. He underwent all that He did for us, and St Cyril emphasizes that He stated these words, “why have You forsaken me?”, as an example to us of how to hold up in times of struggle (pp.102ff of “On the Unity…”; I didn’t quote this portion). He obviously was not terrorized, as St Athanasius says, and I think we can safely assume that this would include any flinching in the face of suffering and death.

The problem is, of course, that this makes the passion of Christ look to us like play acting, like He is merely playing a role, and this cannot be. He does suffer as man, but He does it as the Logos. In other words, His goal was to save human nature, to redeem it and heal it. It was not just to be able to sympathize with our plight, which is how I think many people today see the incarnation. Maybe this is the result of the prevalent psychological thrust of our culture, I don’t know. You know that in the West there are the classical approaches to the atonement, objective (penal satisfaction, substitutionary, etc.) and subjective (Abelard’s “moral example”). Perhaps this modern preoccupation with Christ feeling what it’s like to be in our shoes is another take on the subjective approach.

In other words, I think that there is a common misunderstanding today that Christ had to be “just like us” to save us, meaning not only that He took our human nature but that He experienced “humanness” just like we do. We want to think that He understands everything that we are going through because He has experienced it Himself. And yet St Maximus—if I understand him right--says that Christ NEVER deliberated with regards to sin. So the temptations of Christ were temptations in that the devil hurled them at Him to try and cause Him to sin, but they were not temptations in the sense that Christ struggled and wrestled and considered giving in to them. (Matthew, where are you when we need you?!)

The thing is, the Word incarnate was perfect man, man as we are supposed to be, not as we are in our fallen condition. Therefore, I think it follows that He did not doubt. But I stand to be corrected.


AS I said, I don't think anyone is defending doubt.

No offense toward Erich, but I think he is defending doubt. I think we can wrestle with doubt, confront our doubts, try to maintain faith in the face of doubt, but I don’t think we can say that it is a necessary part of being human. Fallen humans, yes, but that is not our true nature.


But it seems to be something of a different order than the conventional sins such as lust, greed, etc…. Doubt is a pastoral issue as all theological issues are, at root. So what is the point in saying, don't doubt! IT's bad! That's not a pastoral treatment of it.

I agree, at least from my own experience. Doubt seems to me to be less of a sin than it is a result or effect of sin, like corruption, death, etc. It brings into bold relief our distance from God.

Peace,
John

[John Wehling]

Erich,


That should be "impassible" (unable to suffer)

Thank you. I clipped and pasted that from an internet source without proofing it first.


Would someone here explain to me how this exposition by Athanasius is not an example of docetism?

Well, Docetism held that Christ only seemed to be man, but that He was not. St Athanasius says that the Logos was truly man, assuming our flesh and human nature in order to heal it and save it from sin, corruption, and death. To say that the Word suffered nothing because He was impassible means that He suffered nothing in His divine nature. Truly He suffered as man, and we can say that the Word suffered because He took our human nature which was capable of suffering and made it His own. Because it was His, he suffered. But He did not suffer in His divine nature as God.

Clear as mud?

Peace,
John

[Thomas Garland]

Then surely Christ did suffer doubt, terror, etc - in his human nature, but not in his divine nature? I'm not sure I said or implied anything different in my original contribution!

If Christ was True God and True Man, does not this necessarily imply that - as True Man - he was subject to the weaknesses of that nature? But as True God, he triumphantly transfigured those weaknesses in the Resurrection?

with love,

Thomas

[erich von abele]

John, Thomas:


"I don’t think we can say that it is a necessary part of being human. Fallen humans, yes, but that is not our true nature." (John)

My point however pertains to the fact that our fallen nature is our nature during all history before the Second Coming, notwithstanding the proximity to our true, perfect nature which a certain tiny minority of believers allegedly attain in history before the Second Coming.


"If Christ was True God and True Man, does not this necessarily imply that - as True Man - he was subject to the weaknesses of that nature?" (Thomas)

Not if, as "True Man", he was human in its "true" nature, which is already defined as free of all "fallen" limitations and weaknesses. However, Adam and Eve were in their "true" nature, too, when they committed the colossal mistake that started the whole mess in the first place. So it appears that even true human nature has potential, stupendously serious, defects.

[Moses Anthony]

Owen,

I do not have your post before me which you made, early on the 11th; however, at this point in the discussion about doubt, UNCLE!!!

tus

[Erik Smith]

Dear Erich, Owen, Justin, Huw, Richard, and everyone.

I have just read through this whole thread, and its archives, from the beginning to the end. There is one request that just jumps out at me after all this discussion:

Could each person here define "doubt" as they're talking about it in this thread? When each of you addresses the question of "Is it okay for Christians to doubt?", what is the "doubt" you're referring to?

It seems that this is a very important clarification, since I think people are interpreting the term in different ways.

Erik

[Clark]

Recently, someone in this thread wrote (reflecting a larger discussion):


Then surely Christ did suffer doubt, terror, etc - in his human nature, but not in his divine nature.

Wait a minute here: what about the incarnation? Christ wasn't two abstract natures running around side by side. This is a heresy that was attacked in the early history of the church. Christ was one person: two natures in one person. One. What one nature experienced, the other did too, because those natures existed in one, single, divine-human individual.

If Christ ever doubted, then it was Christ who doubted. Not the 'man-Christ' doubting while the 'God-Christ' remained free from doubt. There is just one Christ who, if he doubted, doubted as the God-man in his wholeness.

[erich von abele]

Clark:

I agree with your corrective, that it comports with the orthodox Christology: The question then becomes: How can God doubt?

In the way Christians answer this question, I maintain, can be discerned whether or not they are crypto-docetists or not...

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

It seems to me that where one stands on the issue of doubt reflects how prepared one is to take responsibility for one's own spiritual development (and here the Protestant traditions score highly) as against surrendering conscience entirely or largely to a set of dogmas (the RC way). Since understanding is derived from some form of exegesis coupled with practical experience, tempered by individual gifts, of how the life of faith is lived the result is likely to be a fairly bumpy inner road, on which one is almost bound to find temporal fluctuations along a continuum between enlightenment and a slough of despond.

[Clark]

Erich, you asked:


"The question then becomes: How can God doubt?"

To which I would only respond: How can God become a man? How can God die? How can God feel sorrow and weep? How can God be born? How can God, who is greater than all the universe, be held in a woman's hands?

There was an incarnation, or there wasn't. One or the other. You can't have both.

[erich von abele]

Clark

When the Incarnation is presented as an impenetrable mystery (in the Western sense of mystery), that is one thing. However, there seems to be a dissonance between its mysteriousness and paradoxicality on the one hand, and the dogmatic articulations of philosophical anthropology in the light of Christology. The very fact that the Church underwent centuries of intellectual turmoil resulting in a series of councils on this subject shows -- if we are not to reduce all that ferment to the unnecessary activities of "troublemakers" (heretics) against which the councils were mere reactions -- that the Christians of the first five centuries were not content with merely stating "Christ was both Man and God, it's a mystery, and that's that". In fact, they wrestled with the complex connotations and implications of this part of their faith. Perhaps this intellectual ferment represents a troubled searching after clarity and understanding just as holy and God-given as the humble acceptance of doctrine. (Or perhaps all intellectual ferment, searching, doubt, exploration -- that doesn't inexorably lead to orthodox doctrine, of course -- is Satanic...)

[Stephen Keeler]

Erich wrote:


"if we are not to reduce all that ferment to the unnecessary activities of "troublemakers" (heretics) against which the councils were mere reactions ..."

I'm less inclined to discount the reactionary impulse that may in all likelihood have prompted the councils. I think of how many meetings I have had to attend in various corporate settings, and how difficult it often is to achieve consensus, or at least to recognize what we do not want to do.

So I extrapolate that to fourth century Roman Empire. A new guy from York, of all places, is now Chairman, Pres. and CEO. Says he's one of us, he's not too happy about dissension, and is willing to foot the bill for a company-wide meeting of EX VPs and VPs. Wants to get us all on the same page, and maybe wants to know what that page is. And, the food and lodging is on him.

Hey, there's that guy from Spain, good in committee, put him in charge. Draft the agenda. This guy Arius, check him out. Speaks a lot, says Christ isn't the same as God the Father. Let's take a straw poll, find out what everyone's been teaching. Alexandria, what have your people been praying and preaching over the years? Antioch, Rome, Milan, Jerusalem, how about you? Oh, you all say that your prayers have Christ as the same as God the Father? Fine, then that's the way it is, we've got work to do, quarterly reports, stakeholders interested, yadda yadda. Arius, get on board or find another train my man, here's the memo. Everyone agreed? Great, let's go out for a few kebobs and ouzo.

A tad simplistic, perhaps, but the organic aspect of getting together should not be discounted.

[erich von abele]

Keeler

I understand your argument. If it's true, one would have to then ask:

1) does the corporate management aspect completely account for all the orthodox Christological investigations and articulations, or only to a great extent?

2) If only to a great extent, did the remainder represent a significant reason, too?

3) If not, then are we to assume that the heretics were thoroughly scurrilous and Satanic, and that their sincere questioning and propositions are to be rendered utterly outside the pale of the Christian's intellectual adventure of trying to understand faith?

[Owen Jones]

It was typically the Orthodox who were the troublemakers. The heretics were usually the dominant faction and the Emperor frequently sided with them in order to maintain peace. The Arians dominated, the Donatists dominated, the Monothelites dominated, and the iconoclasts (Protestants) dominated, all for considerable periods of time.

[Clark]

Erich wrote:


"...the Christians of the first five centuries were not content with merely stating "Christ was both Man and God, it's a mystery, and that's that". In fact, they wrestled with the complex connotations and implications of this part of their faith."

Paradoxically, this was my exact point. It is simple and short sighted to say that since God is both divine and human, his two natures have distinct personal manifestations. To say that Jesus could doubt as a man but not as God, is to not think things through; to be the kind of "it's a mystery and that's that" thinker you mention. It might sound nice for a few minutes. But it's wrong.

The questions I posed earlier, as a response to your comments, were:


"How can God become a man? How can God die? How can God feel sorrow and weep? How can God be born? How can God, who is greater than all the universe, be held in a woman's hands?"

These are the exact, detailed and deep questions that the councils asked. They are the proof that they didn't simply accept an "it's a mystery so hush" approach to belief.

And they're the questions you have to ask when you start dealing with things like doubt. First, you have to figure out what "doubt" is, which, as Mr. Smith pointed out in a post just before one of mine, it doesn't seem that anybody here as succinctly done. Second, you have to figure out how this doubt relates to Jesus, who was not "A God and a man", but was both God and man in one single person; the God-man. Whatever you talk about Jesus experiencing or not-experiencing, you have to talk about with relation to him as his whole person, divine and human.

You can't slice up Jesus to fit your theology.

[Moses Anthony]

I really am trying to limit my responses; however, to the person(s) who have mentioned the problem of interpretation of terms, and asked what each member of this discussion meant by the word doubt, :This is my answer.

As long as I can remember doubt has meant one thing, and one thing only, not believing the veracity of something I've been told. With us here in this disscusson -unless I've missed something- doubt means not believing the veracity of God. Please note: There's no difference in God's truthfulness, or that of His word(Isaiah 55:10,11; Numbers 23:19). The sands of time and the wilderness covers the bones of nearly a million Israelites who did not believe/doubted God would bring them into the "promised land" (Hebrews , chaps. 3&4).

The next time I post something about doubt you will know where I'm coming from. I pray this is the information you wanted.

tus

[erich von abele]

Clark


Whatever you talk about Jesus experiencing or not-experiencing, you have to talk about with relation to him as his whole person, divine and human. You can't slice up Jesus to fit your theology.

But even avoiding "slicing" or separating the human from the divine, one cannot escape the logical problem: what cannot be attributed to God cannot be attributed to Jesus, since he is God by virtue of being the God-Man.

So if doubt (or relative ignorance, or growth in awareness and knowledge, sin, or even mortality, for that matter) cannot be attributed to God, then it cannot be attributed to the God-Man.

The problem that follows on the heels of this one should be brutely clear: Being man seems to intrinsically entail qualities that cannot be attributed to God. These non-Godly qualities have to be dealt with, either by

1) re-defining a "true" human nature that no humans except Jesus have (at least not in this life); or by

2) denying Jesus in fact had these qualities.

These two can be combined: in fact, combining them is the principal way orthodoxy I think tries to maneuver out of its tendency towards Docetism. Mortality, of course, is a big problem, which is solved by Docetism by saying Jesus only "seemed" to be suffering a mortal death, and only seemed to be dying, when really he didn't die. In some sense, it is arguable that orthodoxy's account of Jesus's death--insofar as his utter victory over death is such a foregone conclusion--has Docetist tendencies.

[Clark]

Erich, I'm enjoying reading your posts.

However, you seem to be failing to grasp the true radicality of the incarnation. God is man. You accuse the Orthodox of having docetic tendencies, but it's you yourself who is making such excruciatingly docetic comments as "what cannot be attributed to God cannot be attributed to Jesus, since he is God by virtue of being the God-Man." This is simply not true: for if it were, then Christ is not really man at all, since he couldn't experience the full state of being human. And, as before, you cannot slice apart Christ into two persons, one experiencing things as God and the other as man. Nestorius tried this, and wasn't too popular in the councils for it. And if you're uncomfortable with Jesus experiencing things that aren't intrinsically relevant to the godhead, simply because he has a divine nature, then you really can't be comfortable with any part of Christ's incarnate life at all. You'd be as pure a docetist as they come.

In the incarnation, God is a man. He isn't "like" a man or "as" a man. This is the ultimate anti-docetism. If you find Orthodoxy to have a "tendency toward docetism", you haven't understood the incarnation as it's proclaimed in the Orthodox church.

[erich von abele]

Clark

So is it human nature to be liable to sin? Were not Adam and Eve created as the way God intended good humans to be created? And did they not sin? So what is the point of officially removing Jesus from the only human nature we know, from Adam to the present -- a human nature liable to sin? The only reason I can think of is that to say Jesus was in fact liable to sin was an affront to the early Christians, because they couldn't bear to make him completely human.

[Owen Jones]

My simplistic understanding is that because Christ was fully human, and because when tempted he did not sin, this demonstrates to me that it is possible for me not to sin. It also takes away my excuses for my sins, such as, "I'm only human." However, I do not have within me the power to not sin. I must be deified in order to have, not just the power not to sin, but the altered or transformed nature that makes me like Christ. Christ calls upon the Holy Spirit to assist me in becoming like Christ. This is not like taking a drug or a dose of medicine, but rather a process toward perfection that the Church, in its wisdom, has described is divinization or deification. It is achieved through obedience to the commandments, and not by some trickery, or magical incantation, or by offering God some kind of bribe.

The idea that the perfect life is desirable and achievable seems to me to be at the core of the Christian message.

Now, there is clearly a legal aspect to this as well, as Scripture makes clear. I'm out on bail, so to speak, because of Christ's atoning sacrifice. I've been given my freedom from incarceration to sin, but I now have to use that freedom wisely. (That, I believe, is what justification is all about in the Orthodox tradition. It purchases our freedom -- in this life -- so that our free will can now be exercised. But if I don't maintain my best behavior, the parole officer is going to come looking for me.

This is the dogmatic treatment of it, but we can surely see how this works on the practical, experiential level. If we do not pray, meditate on the psalms, participate sincerely in the liturgy, apply ourselves to spiritual readings, confess our sins, give alms to the poor, give to charity, and love others, then our natural desires will creep back in and dominate our thoughts and we will have no choice but to act them out, in violation of God's commandments.

[erich von abele]

Okay then -- you've taken the tack I described in #1 a few posts up: re-defining what is "true" human nature. (Though I added the proviso that the re-definition is a human nature unachieved by any humans we know, this proviso is secondary: what is primary is the re-definition, such that the superhuman aura of Jesus becomes what we really are: i.e., all humans are actually sub-human (fallen) in comparison with Jesus, the true exemplar of what being human is. At any rate, this tack seems to work with the problem of sin as you explained it.)

However, what about another quality of human nature: the growth of awareness in a progressive transition from ignorance to knowledge. Did the God-Man go through this growth? If he did not, or if you fudge how he did so, then how fully human was he? (I believe it was Theodore of Mopsuestia who implied that Jesus became Christ through growing into it, or even by "learning" it (learning of course in every sense of the word, including spiritual); however, I don't have the Greek word he used. I'm also not sure if he was condemned for saying that.)

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Erich and others,

This has proven an interesting thread thus far, if at times the theological method expressed has made it sound like an internet extension of Göttingen.

I am short, at the moment, on time to write here; but a few brief thoughts to ponder:

(1) To suggest that a 'natural liability' or ability to sin is inherent in human nature, is not at all the same thing as to say that human nature naturally sins. In the latter conception, sinning would thus be an inherent part of being human; and this is certainly not Christian. But the former conception is simply a logical extension of free will: man is able to sin because He has a freedom of will and self-determination. Speaking purely on the level of logical 'reasoning', God (and especially the Word incarnate as man) is also 'able' to sin, since God is ultimately free; though it is the obvious teaching of the Church that God as the essence of good 'cannot' sin, inasmuch as He always expresses the good that He is. (Let me be emphatic regarding the obvious, lest a little internet fight begin: God doesn't sin.) But to say that Christ, in being incarnate as man, is thus, as man, 'able' to sin, is entirely theologically accurate. When the Fathers say that Christ 'could not sin', they say so as an expression of His perfect obedience to righteousness; but it is the very fact that He was obedient -- which itself requires the ability to be disobedient -- that makes His human life so exceptional. Paul noted emphatically that Christ was a man as we are. If He was not, then His incarnation was useless.

(2) Regarding man as 'human' versus 'sub-human': it is central to Orthodox theology that God is the man. He is the perfection of human nature, since that nature is ultimately meant to exist in union with God -- such union as is essential in Christ and granted to men by adoption in deification. We needn't really treat the address of lived human existence as 'sub-human' as if this were some 'response' given to address certain theological problems: it has been the central understanding of the Church from the beginning.

INXC, Matthew

[John Wehling]

Erich said:


(I believe it was Theodore of Mopsuestia who implied that Jesus became Christ through growing into it, or even by "learning" it (learning of course in every sense of the word, including spiritual); however, I don't have the Greek word he used. I'm also not sure if he was condemned for saying that.)

Theodore of Mopsuestia was condemned for his Nestorian-leaning Christology at Ephesus and Chalcedon, the third and fourth Ecumenical Councils.

Also Erich, I would add that there is a tendency in modern (read non-Orthodox, Western, etc.) Christologies to view the human nature in Christ from "beneath", meaning that one begins with an understanding of human nature that has been shaped by our own experience in this world--in other words, fallen human existence--and then attributes these characteristics to Christ. If you begin this way then of course you will determine that Christ doubted, flinched at suffering, etc. Salvation in this scheme can, of course, be defined in a plethora of ways, but all of them share, I believe, a core conviction that Christ is the one who relates to man, or is the God-who-sympathizes with man. Moltmann's "Crucified God" is one example, all manner of liberation theologies are others, but even in some more conservative circles this emphasis remains. All share, though, distinctively modern and liberal presuppositions about man, knowledge and its limits, etc.

This approach, I believe, is wholly foriegn to Orthodox Christology. Here the vision of salvation is deification, union of man with God, and this is only accomplished in Christ's hypostatic union of the divine and human natures in Himself. At the moment of the incarnation the human nature of man is deified in Christ, yet He goes through "our" life in order to recapitulate all of it, to redeem it, and to conquer sin, death, and the devil. The divine nature remains impassible throughout His earthly existence, while the human nature is able to suffer, etc. These sufferings are Christ's because He is the Logos, the Son of God, who has made His human nature His own, but they do not touch the divine nature. This is why it is more accurate to say that God--or one of the Trinity--suffered in the flesh than to say simply "God suffered," which is ambiguous.

Peace,
John