The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Is God in any way pleased with non-Christians

I was having a discussion with a friend of mine this week. We were talking about whether God can be in any way pleased with a non-Christians action. My position is that while it is true that non-Christians are capable of actions that appear "externally" good, because there heart is at emnity with God, God can be in no way pleased at all with them. My friend's position is that while non-Christians are at emnity with God, when they, for example, do a kind act to another person, God will be in some sense pleased or happy with them. I'm pretty certain (almost absolutely) that this isn't correct, but I'm planning on bringing this subject up again with my friend because it seems like such a core component of Christianity, so I wanted check and make sure I'm not missing something. The main verses I'm relying on to support my position are

the latter half or Romans 1, Romans 3:10-18, Romans 8:5-8, Hebrews 11:6.

I'm sure there are a lot of other places that speak on this subject too. The Romans 8 and Hebrews 11 passage are pretty clear in my opinion. I don't understand how a Christian could read those verses and still think non-Christians are capable of doing anything that pleases God in any way.

John

I'm with you, John. As the Scriptures say, "Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please Him."

In agreement here also. Especially since Isaiah 64 (NASB) says:

6 For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
And all of us wither like a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
7 There is no one who calls on Your name,
Who arouses himself to take hold of You;
For You have hidden Your face from us
And have delivered us into the power of our iniquities.

By the way, I think I like the NASB rendering of this passage better than the NKJV (which speaks of righteousness and rags in the plural). The NASB rendering seems to make a better parallel with our "rightesouness" as a cover verses Christ's righeousness as a cover.

Also, I like the last phrase of verse 7 better, in that it shows that God has delivered us to the power of our own iniquities, while the NKJV says, "For You have hidden Your face from us, and have consumed us because of our iniquities." Why this difference?

Thanks for pointing out those verses Marie. I'm writing an email to my friend I had the discussion with and I'm going to include that passage in there.

John

Praise God for His good providence! I found all this very helpful to a discussion on another board. Thanks you all.

Would you mind posting your friend's support from Scripture for his position, or is it basically sentiment and wishful(?) thinking?

Hi Michael,

I think you are referring to my friend, but I'm not 100% sure since your post is a reply to Marie. Anyway, assuming you are talking to me, the discussion in question was pretty informal. My friend did not offer any Scriptural support of her position at the time but only her opinion. But, it got me thinking about the Scriptural support of my position, and hence, my question.

By the way, welcome to The Highway.

John

This really depends on which view you look at it with:

If we are speaking of the accountability of the lost sinner to God, then NO, none of their actions are pleasing to God.

If we are speaking of God carrying out His eternal plan, then yes, they are accomplishing His purpose(s) and thus in this manner are pleasing to Him (but, not pleasing to the point of enjoying sin, etc.). But, note sinners are still responsible for their evil actions (Acts 2:23).

Joe,

That's an interesting point. I'll need to think about it for a while. I'm not sure I have a clear idea of quite what you mean by "in this manner are pleasing to him". I know it's in reference to "God carrying out His eternal plan". Let me push it to the extreme a little. Take a mass-murderer for example. Of course, every time he murders someone, he is carrying out God's eternal plan. So could you explain a little more in this situation what you mean by "pleasing to Him". I mean, are you saying that the sinner himself is actually pleasing to God, even though he is still sinning and is morally responsible for his actions, because he is accomplishing God's purposes?

John

I only have a moment, but I had an interesting Gospel-oriented conversation with one of my Catholic acquaintances at brunch.

Bascially, she believes Christ died for every single man and woman who's ever lived in order that we can be saved by works (although God shows great grace.)

And when I talked about Romans 3, Romans 5, Galatians ("Saved by grace through faith...), she just said she wasn't a theologian and then told me the extrabiblical story of "Abu and Adam" (basically a heathen who did good works led God's list of people who "deserved" heaven)

Didn't get to talk about particular redempotion as much as I wanted, since by that time she was leaving.

At least she says she realizes that if Christ dies for a person, that person is going to be saved.

Although, when I asked if she trusted in Christ crucified as her only hope for salvation, she gave an adamant "no!"

Be praying for her salvation! Her name is Jean.

What about the most significant murder in the world? Acts 2:23 is the best Biblical example here:


The plan of God before the foundation of world (Eph 1) was that His Son should die for His elect. This was pleasing to God—after all He initiated it (it was His eternal plan, allowed it to come forth, but more than allowing, it was His determinate counsel, etc.). In so much as God’s plan of redemption was carried out He was pleased. This reveals His sovereignty in all things, (“ye shall know that I am the LORD your God”), etc. There is a sense in which God is pleased in “all things” that happen, in that His sovereignty is being displayed, etc (Rom 9:17, 22-23), but He himself is not accountable for sin, etc. (yes, there is a mystery in all this...). Now, God was also displeased as well as He hates the actions of sinners—and the sinner themselves, etc. and He holds them morally responsible, etc.

Marie,

This poor soul is a living contradiction, as I'm sure you know. These two of her statements are really antithetical and/or she holds to universalism:


According to her, trusting Christ to have atoned for her sins isn't necessary for she "adamantly" denies that she is doing so. As with ALL unrepentant sinners, she is most pitiable and is in dire need of God's redeeming grace; a new heart of flesh wrought by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit.

In His Grace,

Joe,

I agree with you everything you said here, but I'm not sure the exact question I had in mind has been answered. That's probably because I haven't been explaining the question I want to ask very well. I'm not even sure I have it formulated in my own mind either. Maybe when I can get a better handle on a more precise way to phrase it, I'll come back and revisit this topic.

John