Can Unbelievers Please God...

[seer]

In any way? I'am thinking of texts like Romans 14:23 where Paul says that anything not done in faith is sin, or Heb.11:6 where it says that without faith it is impossible to please God.

[Berean Todd]

In any way? I'am thinking of texts like Romans 14:23 where Paul says that anything not done in faith is sin, or Heb.11:6 where it says that without faith it is impossible to please God.

No, they can not "please" Him. He can use them to bring about His purposes here on earth, but apart from faith in Christ none can please God.

[themuzicman]

The concept of "pleasing God" refers to not being in sin. Only when we receive grace through faith are we pleasing to God.

[Benster]

Not only can they please God. They frequently DO please God, and are rewarded with whatever God chooses to give them. God could not possibly care about whether or not you believe in him or not, or pray to him. He is far too busy to have the vanity and insecurity of a 4 year old child.

What he cares about, whatever it is, is a purpose much more important than being praised or loved. The bible may not tell you this truth about the real God, but that's because it is not the realword of God.

Besides, from a philosophical standpoint, if praying to God pleases Him, then He is reliant on us for His happiness. God is much more powerful than that.

[Underfire]

Think about this for a second. If a unbeliever acts in faith, don’t you think that’s pleasing to God? When a seeker becomes saved, that is an act of faith, their faith hasn’t solidified to the point where they live in and by faith but it is simply an act of faith. There are a number of times in the gospels where unsaved people became healed because of their faith.

[themuzicman]

Think about what you just said. You just said "If an unbeliever (someone without faith) acts in faith...."

Either you believe or you don't.

Can't happen.

[Underfire]

Well lets put it this way then. Is it possible for a beliver to displease God? Well if faith pleases God, and faith is something that you either have or dont have. Then we can say, those who have faith always please God and those who don't have faith never please God. An act of faith is different then a life of faith. You can at one moment in your life believe in the reality of God, and at some point down the line not belive anymore.

In a seekers path to the truth when they stumble upon what is right and start to live that way, that please God.

[Solly]

Not only can they please God. They frequently DO please God, and are rewarded with whatever God chooses to give them. God could not possibly care about whether or not you believe in him or not, or pray to him. He is far too busy to have the vanity and insecurity of a 4 year old child.

What he cares about, whatever it is, is a purpose much more important than being praised or loved. The bible may not tell you this truth about the real God, but that's because it is not the realword of God.

Besides, from a philosophical standpoint, if praying to God pleases Him, then He is reliant on us for His happiness. God is much more powerful than that.

And your authority for this knowledge about God is...?

When my child does something that pleases me, are you saying I am myself have the insecurities and vanity of a 4 yr old? 'Pleasing' God comes in the context of our relationship with him, He being the creator, we being the creature. Our pleasing him is not the pleasing of an adult who gives candy to a child, but of a child who for the first time does not parrot 'thank you' for the candy, but knowingly says it in return to an adult who has done that. It is the pleasing of a child who has washed up for the first time, however messily. We are pleased as parents, just as we are displeased when they trash their room.
'Faith' - not belief, not intellectual assent to the fact of God's existence - puts us into that relationship with God, via his son, in whom he is well pleased. He came because we were most displeasing, in our selfish sin; we have trashed our room, and won't admit it. Now God, as a longsuffering parent would, gives us an opportunity to think about and change our minds about our behaviour. the difference being, since the relationship is one of adoption, not biological, there is a time limit. God is going to refurnish the house, and unwanted occupants will be evicted.
Paul says that one of the signs of the unbeliever is that they are not grateful.
If you want to please God, you could start there.
if you want to.
After all, it's easy to believe he is only interested in matters of state, and not what the kids are upto in their rooms, he's far too busy, just another absent father...

[Durthorin]

No, they can not "please" Him. He can use them to bring about His purposes here on earth, but apart from faith in Christ none can please God.

Doesn't that destroy that entire free will concept?


Danu Bless, Dur

[themuzicman]

No. Free will simply means that one is able to choose from the options available to them.

[Berean Todd]

Doesn't that destroy that entire free will concept?


Danu Bless, Dur

How? If God is omnipotent and omniscient enough to use our freewill choices, to accomplish His will, how is it destroying free will? It's still our free choices that He is using.

[Solly]

I hear the squeal of a diverted thread...

[reasonabledoubt]

MM- your definition is pretty much the definition of compatibilism.

For traditional libertarian free will, man's will is the ruling faculty in his nature, independent from any influences outside of itself. The will is what's driving the force of human nature. The will makes the decisions autonomously.

Determinism doesn't mean you don't have a choice, it's just that those choices are not made autonomously. The choices are in the causal chain, just like you are. There's no isolated "will" that is outside the causal chain.

[Solly]

I have always said that RD on many an occasion, but the lib free willers have always challenged it, even though I got it from free will authors like Kane, Flint, Taylor, etc.

Lib Free Will means acausal will - We could have easily chosen B as A, it was an autonomous undetermined choice
nonLib Free Will means unhindered will - We choose A determinately (because of prior logical connections) and are not hindered in choosing A

[themuzicman]

However, compatiblism says that you freely choose what God has determined you will choose. That's the "Compatible" part. (Embracing the obvious contradiction.)

"Incompatiblism" either says that man doesn't have free will, or God doesn't have foreknowledge.

(Compatiblists and OVT don't disagree on what free will is, per se, except those who think robots have free will, but disagree on what man is able to do, and whether God has foreknowledge.)

Michael