Fire Insurance? (June 10 Show)

[steve]

I don't think I ever said that Christians are carnal because they serve with a hope in mind (I certainly have a hope in my mind).

What I said was that people are probably not true Christians who would not serve God in the absence of assurance of a life after this one. Those who would not do so are certainly less in love with God than were even Old Testament saints, who knew less than we do of how generous God is. Since I do not believe the Old Testament saints were even regenerated, I would expect even better things from a regenerated heart.

My love for my children exists in the context of a hope that they will make me happy and proud of them in the future. However, I would love and serve them even if I knew they would never reciprocate and would never please me. I kinda thought this concept would have been more self-evident.

[Paidion]

I'm 100% with Steve on this one!

Of course, Steve is saying that He would serve the God who exists, even if there were no personal rewards for him.

If we had been created by an evil, sadistic being who takes delight is seeing people suffer, then God doesn't exist. The word "God" doesn't apply to such a being, and if such a being were our creator, I'm sure no rational being would serve him, her, or it, except possibly out of fear. (There are people who, out of fear, appease demons with sacrifices and offerings in the hope that these demons will not harm them. This has been done throughout human history, sometimes with the thought that these demons are gods, or even the spirits of the dead.)

Actually, some people "serve" God out of fear ---- fear of eternal hell. It seems to me that such "service" is really service to self. The same would apply to those who serve God only in order to reap rewards, either in this life or the next.

On the other hand, Steve has truly shown that even many non-religious people have sacrificed their own lives out of love for another:

There actually are non-religious men, who having no view concerning an afterlife, would endure torture, imprisonment, and scorn for their country, for their children or for their lovers—because they love another more than they love themselves.

And that is the question each one of us must ask ourselves. Do we love God more than we do ourselves? Or do we "love" him only to escape hell, or to gain heaven and its lasting joys? I know I've often asked myself this question, and I don't feel at all confident, much to my shame, that I can answer it "Yes". I fear that in face of torture and death, I would give in because of desire for self-preservation and comfort. Yet, I pray that by God's enabling grace, I might be able to endure, if I am faced with such a test.

As for the life of a disciple being the best, my first wife, now deceased, used to say, "Even if all of Christianity were a delusion, even if there were no God, the life I now live is still much better than living a life of self-service.

[Jason]

Steve, you said that people who wouldn't serve God if there was no benefit are probably not Christians and I've given examples in scripture which refute that idea. Paul said if there was no resurrection (which is a future reward) then our/his sufferings are in vain, even quoting Ecclesiastes that one might as well "live it up." The fact that God resurrects his people makes me love him because that's a lovable characteristic. If there was no eternal life with God, it would make me think He doesn't want me around. If your father says he wants you to serve him and suffer under his hand, then in the end says he's going to kill you, you're not going to have warm feelings toward him. If the Bible taught that there was no eternal life with God then I'd have a hard time relating to Him in a loving way because fathers are supposed to want to be with their children.

[steve]

As I said, I would expect a regenerated heart to love God at least as much as the unregenerate hearts of Old Testament saints. I have never denied that there are great consolations in serving Christ—one of which is that a "better resurrection" awaits us. To observe such things is not to touch on my original point, which is that God should be (and has been) served by saints for His excellence and worthiness, even in the absence of such consolations.

To say that a God who did not offer His children eternal life would not be a good father presupposes what we already know about eternal life. However, if no one had ever heard of such a thing as eternal life, one would not be thinking of such as the litmus test of God being a loving father. We would be thinking more like David, who was overwhelmed by the mere fact that the God who created the heavens humbles Himself even to dignify man with His attention (Psalm 8). We would be impressed with the excellence of His creation and of the righteousness of His laws (Psalm 19). We would desire little else than to remain as long as possible in His tabernacle to behold "the beauty of the Lord" there (Psalm 27:4). I realize that these are things little known (or regarded) by many who are in the modern churches, but they are not such attitudes as are too lofty for man to possess. I find the Bible to present them as normative.

Paul indicated that he would be ill-rewarded for his pains in the ministry, if there were no resurrection. I believe he was resorting to hyperbole when he said, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" (If he was being literal, and really saying that we ought to become hedonists if there were no resurrection, then he was of a very inferior mind to that of the Old Testament saints). He made this statement in the context of discussing his own extraordinary sufferings as an apostle, facing death on a daily basis. He is saying that this seemingly wasteful casting off of his safety and comfort is more than justified by the fact that there is a better resurrection, and that one might easily choose a very different life—one of indulgence, rather than suffering—if this life were all there is. And this is true. One would more readily make such a choice—if they had no other incentives to live for God than that they are hoping for heaven.

Like Paidion, I don't know how well I would hold up under torture (I have never been heroic). I, too, trust in the grace of God alone for my perseverance under such circumstances. However, even if I were to "break" under torture, this would not be an admission that a man ought not to serve God, regardless what the next life may hold.

[Jason]

Thanks for the discussion, Steve. Regarding the OT saints, I'm not sure we can say they didn't believe in a God who rewards his servents, even with eternal life. There are enough scriptures to give them sufficient hope, although the idea of a physical resurrection may have been foreign to them. Nevertheless, we can't make an argument from what the ancient saints MAY have believed about the afterlife. I think those saints hoped for it, though with much less assurance than those of us who've benefitted from the NT.

I might still want to serve God even if he didn't want to be with me, but I couldn't do so with very much fervor and probably only a modicum of appreciation for providing some very brief sustenance. But if he told me that he loves me and all these hardships would result in getting to spend eternity with him, that's a different story! I'm not ashamed to say that I am in it for the reward because the reward is God himself. If the reward for my troubles were pain and then extinction, I'm not sure I'd be very motivated. If you tell me you'd be different then I'll take your word for it. But I don't think we were created to be masochists, nor is the concept pious to my mind.

[Michelle]

I might still want to serve God even if he didn't want to be with me, but I couldn't do so with very much fervor and probably only a modicum of appreciation for providing some very brief sustenance. But if he told me that he loves me and all these hardships would result in getting to spend eternity with him, that's a different story! I'm not ashamed to say that I am in it for the reward because the reward is God himself. If the reward for my troubles were pain and then extinction, I'm not sure I'd be very motivated. If you tell me you'd be different then I'll take your word for it. But I don't think we were created to be masochists, nor is the concept pious to my mind.

I think you are saying something very different from what the people Steve is talking about are saying. You are looking to the giver of rewards and, rightly, I think, realizing that He is the ultimate reward. I think the people Steve is talking about are looking toward the reward and taking their eyes off God.

I think a comparison, albeit a poor one, can be made with what sometimes occurs in the workplace. I've noticed that some people really do their jobs with enthusiasm, perhaps because they love what they do, and perhaps because they buy into the mindset and mission of the organization. Others, who work right along side these enthusiasts, only work for the paycheck which comes every other Friday. You can pick them out easily. They skate in just on time, or a few minutes late, they are no good for the last half hour because they're watching the clock so they can beat it to the parking lot as soon as possible, if they can't sneak out earlier. If asked to do something extra, they'll refer to the job description to see if they are required to - if not, they'll refuse.

If my analogy is even close to the mark, I think you can identify those Christians who are looking toward the reward (just like those who only work for the paycheck) instead of serving the Rewarder by the way they search the scriptures, or call into Steve's shows or other similar shows, with questions about how close they can get to sin without crossing the line. It seems to me they are more concerned with losing the reward than offending the Lord.

I've sometimes been involved in this conversation when there's news of a huge lottery jackpot: "What would you do if you won millions of dollars? Would you keep working?" Some people say they'd not even bother to give notice, but would be out the door in a flash. Other people, those who might actually like what they do, sometimes say they would keep working because it's not for the money that they do what they do, but because they love it. I think those people who Steve was talking about have the same attitude as the first group, those who would bolt. They, again, are looking to the reward and without it, they wouldn't hang around. I think these just might be the people in Matthew 7:21-23 who think they've done things in Jesus' name, but haven't really.

Anyway, I'm with you, Jason. God IS my reward and to spend eternity with Him makes me actually very, very glad when I think about it.

[Homer]

Paidion wrote:

And that is the question each one of us must ask ourselves. Do we love God more than we do ourselves? Or do we "love" him only to escape hell, or to gain heaven and its lasting joys? I know I've often asked myself this question, and I don't feel at all confident, much to my shame, that I can answer it "Yes". I fear that in face of torture and death, I would give in because of desire for self-preservation and comfort. Yet, I pray that by God's enabling grace, I might be able to endure, if I am faced with such a test.

I have long thought of the point Paidion brought up: what would I do if faced with execution because of Christ? And I have thought my response would be "Go ahead and cut my head off, I will not deny Him". But Paidion's point is well taken. It is easy to talk piously when dealing with the hypothetical. Peter boasted that He would not deny Jesus, but when crunch time came, he caved in. He wasn't quite the man he thought he was.

We are not likely to face execution for Christ. But what of the more ordinary temptations of the flesh we face? How sure are we that there would be no difference in our response if we knew there would be no eternal consequence one way or another? No resurrection and judgement? I do not think we can be so sure.

[Paidion]

There seems to be a difference between being unsure of whether we would choose self-service to escape excruciating pain, and whether we would choose self-service if denied inexpressible joy. We know what it is to experience pain, but we don't know what the joys of heaven are (It has never entered into the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love Him).

Peter firmly declared that he would never deny Christ, and then soon afterward denied Him. That illustrates a human weakness. But what about those who firmly declare that they would not serve Christ if there were no eternal reward? Surely that is a much more serious problem. I think Steve is right to question the discipleship of those who take such a stance.

[Homer]

In Jason's first post on this topic he wrote:

However, you said a person should ask themselves if they'd follow Jesus even if there was no Heaven or Hell, which I take to mean "no afterlife."

Where in the scriptures do we ever read of Jesus or the Apostle's asking a question of this type? Jesus said the following:

Luke 9:23-26 (New King James Version)

23. Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. 24. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it. 25. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and is himself destroyed or lost? 26. For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when He comes in His own glory, and in His Father’s, and of the holy angels.

Is He not saying that, even under persecution and death, stick with Me because it will, in the end, be in your self interest to do so? He seems to plainly appeal to their self interest.

And Paul wrote to Timothy:

1 Timothy 4:16 (New King James Version)
16. Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.

Is Paul not saying that it is in Timothy's self interest to continue in the faith?

It is my impression that the scriptures are full of exhortations to self interest. Even Moses, when giving law to the people, told them that the laws were for their own good.

I think "Fire Insurance" is a misnomer for this topic. People buy fire insurance for what they think is unlikely to happen. "Fire Insurance" would thus apply to people who had little or no belief that the gospel is true, and there is an afterlife. They would become a "Christian" to cover the risk.Or it could apply to one who was after assurance (false, that is) that they would be saved if they got baptized, joined the church, or whatever they thought would gain them that final reward, while having no intention of following Jesus. I do not think it properly applies to someone who follows Jesus, who believes the promise of future reward, but is unsure of what their response to the gospel would have been in some hypothetical situation. And with no promise of a blessed hereafter, would it have been called the gospel (good news)? I don't think so.

Paidion wrote:

But what about those who firmly declare that they would not serve Christ if there were no eternal reward? Surely that is a much more serious problem. I think Steve is right to question the discipleship of those who take such a stance.

I don't know of anyone here who has taken that position. But a cursory reading of Paul might give the impression that he said as much.

My concern is that a burden of guilt should not be placed upon people that Jesus never laid upon anyone, leastwise that I can recall.

When speaking hypothetically, who among us can say for certain that we would have chosen to follow Jesus if we knew from the start that there was nothing in it for us to do so?

God bless you all, The Contrarian

[steve]

Since every recorded evangelistic sermon in Acts managed to get people saved without promising them anything beyond this life, I think it is fair to assume that early evangelists believed that, when the Holy Spirit is properly working on the heart of the unconverted, He is convicting them of their need to submit to Christ as unto a King, and to do so for no other reason than that this is what is owed to God and is the only right response to the declaration that God has made Jesus both Lord and Messiah.

If the converts were told about life after death, it must only have been after they had made the surrender and been converted (if we are to trust the record). We turn things around. We dangle incentives before the unconverted which appeal to their self-interest, and, voila! we magically fill our churches with unconverted opportunists whose commitment to self-interest has not been challenged, but rather has been affirmed, by our presentation of "the gospel." And then we are astonished at the mystery of why Christianity in our culture is so scandalously carnal!

All the scriptures that tell us that God rewards Christian faithfulness—whether in this life or in the next—do show that God is not above giving incentives (apparently only to those who are already disciples, as in the cases Homer quotes) that appeal to our concerns for future blessing. However, none of them touch upon the point I made on the air and that I have been reasserting in this thread.

Suppose the following promise was made to a married man: "Brother, if you treat your wife right, she will make your life a heaven on earth" (this is strictly hypothetical, since I know this is not necessarily true). If believed, this promise would give the brother additional incentive to treat his wife well. However, would anyone think that this man was thinking like a married man if he would not determine to treat his wife well in the absence of such a promise? His own integrity should be the reason for his loving his wife properly. The addition of the promise only adds the element of excitement to an existing duty.