Fire Insurance? (June 10 Show)

[Jason]

Steve, sorry to take you to task twice in one week. I promise not to make a habit of it! On the June 10 program you were talking about eternal security and, of course, I agree with you on this subject. 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." I have to disagree with your assumption here. Speaking of his many sufferings, Paul said in 1Cr 15:19 "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most pitiable." Hebrews 11 talks about servents of God who carried out their duties because they hoped for a better resurrection.

So while it seems pious to say one would follow Christ (and suffer greatly for him) even though there were nothing to gain for it beyond this life, I have a hard time swallowing this concept. I do believe you when you say this about your own life though because you're an honest man. But my sentiments lay more with Paul's words to the Corinthians when speaking of his own perseverence, which he said was based on a future hope of resurrection.

[TK]

good question jason-- i tend to agree with your sentiment here.

it seems that Jesus himself urged his followers to obey Him BECAUSE of the promise of a future reward. while this may make some Christians feel a little squeamish, Jesus wasn't squeamish about it at all. i remember a little book by Bruce Wilkinson called "A Life God Rewards" helped me with this.

I have heard persons pray something along the lines of "Father, even if you didnt send your son and even if we were not redeemed you still deserve our praise and honor since You are God and I am not." I think I have heard Steve Brown of Key Life ministries pray something like this. I dont quite understand it totally, but I guess I do in a sense.

TK

[steve]

Hi Guys!

I'm definitely going to stick by my guns on this one. The Christian life (especially the life of an apostle) may be one of the most difficult (miserable) lives that one can live, but that should not dissuade someone from living it, even if there is no better life after this one—unless, of course, life is all about our avoidance of misery.

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.

In my book, God is more worthy of my love, loyalty and sacrifice than is any country or person. Like my children, God's worthiness of my love is not contingent upon anything good that He might do for me personally. He is intrinsically worthy of His creatures' fidelity. I am going to have to agree with Steve Brown on this point. God is worthy to be served, because He made us and owns us. If there were no rewards for our loyalty to Him, such loyalty would still be required, reasonable, and (to one who loves Him) desirable. Miserable? Sometimes, yes. But more than appropriate.

[darinhouston]

Romans 9:3 (NASB) For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh..

This did seem to be Paul's heart.

[Jason]

In my book, God is more worthy of my love, loyalty and sacrifice than is any country or person. Like my children, God's worthiness of my love is not contingent upon anything good that He might do for me personally. He is intrinsically worthy of His creatures' fidelity. I am going to have to agree with Steve Brown on this point. God is worthy to be served, because He made us and owns us. If there were no rewards for our loyalty to Him, such loyalty would still be required, reasonable, and (to one who loves Him) desirable. Miserable? Sometimes, yes. But more than appropriate.

Steve, I applaud your commitment and love for Christ. However, I still think your reasoning only works in hindsight. You love Christ because he first loved you and gave his life up for you. You love him because he's kind to the just and the unjust, even granting eternal life to those who deserve it the least. You love him because he provides for your needs insofar as you look to him. He also has a delightful personality and said he rewards those under his yoke.

But let us suppose God didn't love or care about you and had no concern for how you think of him. We know God isn't like that only because of revelation and hindsight. But we just got lucky in that God is loving instead of evil. But what if we weren't so lucky? Would it still be noble to love a God who created you, but doesn't care about you in the least? Maybe he created you because it's entertaining to watch people suffer. Your argument from intrinsic right doesn't work so well here. Again, it might be a lack of maturity on my part but I see that we love God because he is the type of God who is lovable. Your argument about dying for your children is a good one. I don't have a counter for that one.

[mattrose]

I am not sure my loyalty toward God would make sense if God were not Who God is. Or, perhaps it is more accurate to say, I am sure that my loyalty would cease if God were a sadist (as described above). If Steve is saying that he would feel compelled to be loyal to a sadistic God simply b/c said God had created him and owned him, I disagree with Steve as well. On the other hand, it may be that Steve is not making a statement about his theoretical loyalty to a theoretical God, but to His actual loyalty to the actual God. In other words, if Steve is saying that he would remain loyal to God, as He has revealed Himself (loving, caring, just, etc) EVEN IF this love, care & justice wasn't personally lavished on him AND EVEN IF there was no gift of eternal life... then I quite agree with Steve. It is less important, and I think SHOULD be less important, that we personally benefit from God's goodness and more important that we are loyal to a good God.

After all, it seems to be the case that many ancient Israelites had no belief in the afterlife. And they certainly had some bad stretches in the present life. But some or many of them still remained loyal to God. They believed it was enough of a reward, so to speak, to have a life well lived (for the Lord) and to pass on such a legacy to their children (they would, in this sense, 'live on' through their progeny).

[mikew]

If Steve is saying that he would feel compelled to be loyal to a sadistic God simply b/c said God had created him and owned him, I disagree with Steve as well. On the other hand, it may be that Steve is not making a statement about his theoretical loyalty to a theoretical God, but to His actual loyalty to the actual God.

Well said.

The change of nature, in coming to a place of faith, means that our new nature leads us to trust God. We may apply free will in our defense of God but our will works out of our new nature.

After all, it seems to be the case that many ancient Israelites had no belief in the afterlife. And they certainly had some bad stretches in the present life. But some or many of them still remained loyal to God. They believed it was enough of a reward, so to speak, to have a life well lived (for the Lord) and to pass on such a legacy to their children (they would, in this sense, 'live on' through their progeny).

An interesting questions arise here. Jesus spoke of about a conclusion namely that by the scripture's mention of God as god of the living via the passage "God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, that a resurrection was a necessary implication. Also, since the time of the fall of Adam, aren't there indications that many cultures have expected and anticipated a resurrection or an afterlife?

If we are trying to look into ancient (pre-Christ) records on Israel, we don't usually see the general beliefs of the people. Instead we find the records of prophets who rebuked the people for their unbelief and disobedience. It was finally in Daniel that the best reference to a reward and resurrection were shown (Dan 12:2,13)

[Suzana]

This is really interesting – when I heard yesterday’s show, I had the same verse spring to mind as Jason – I was actually contemplating calling in to the show today (as it happens I didn’t even get to hear it, so it’s just as well considering there was already a discussion here)!

So my thoughts yesterday were: Notwithstanding what Paul said, I asked myself if I would still wish to follow Christ without reward of an after-life, and came to the conclusion that I would. This would be based on the fact of God being good and loving, and the enemy totally evil and bent on hate and destruction as he is - and thus it would be a matter of principle – akin to those in the resistance movements during WW2 for example.

I also wondered about the Israelites – it seems like all the promises of God to them were rewards of a good and long life in their own land here and now, with no mention of heaven. And yet Job was certainly willing to stay loyal to God, with everything good in this life seemingly taken away from him. (Perhaps it was, as Matt said, a matter of having a good legacy to pass on to their children).

But then there is Abraham who was looking forward to something more, other than this life according to Hebrews 11 (unless I am misunderstanding ‘desire a better country, that is a heavenly one’). So where did this belief come from? (That’s not a rhetorical question, I’m wondering if I’ve missed something in the OT, or whether it was something understood without being written anywhere).

Anyway I think that still leaves us with a question of why Paul said what he did "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most pitiable."

Perhaps the point Paul is making is not that it would be pitiable to serve God without the promise of heaven, but specifically to do with Jesus being the Messiah – because He proved this by the Resurrection, and since He promised this to His followers as well, if it proved to be a false promise, then following Jesus would be based on a lie, and this is what would make them most pitiable. (?)

1 Corinthians 15:12-19 (KJV)12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

[mikew]

But then there is Abraham who was looking forward to something more, other than this life according to Hebrews 11 (unless I am misunderstanding ‘desire a better country, that is a heavenly one’). So where did this belief come from? (That’s not a rhetorical question, I’m wondering if I’ve missed something in the OT, or whether it was something understood without being written anywhere).

From the time of Adam's fall, mankind has been outside of the garden of Eden looking in at the flaming sword and wondering how could he reach that Tree of Life. Of course, our view of the garden only comes through the written record. Yet this is the common history of all mankind.
The expectations for eternal life are obvious from the account. Adam, in the garden, was perfect and had life with no end. But then by eating of the forbidden fruit, he now had the top three problems. He was an outsider to paradise. He was imperfect. He was dead (or dying or going to die).
It should be identifiable in ancient history about those cultures who have expected an afterlife that would restore them to eternal life if they achieved that perfection, the lost perfection of Adam. And, of course, if you had to die at some point, then there would have to be a resurrection to get that life back.

Anyway I think that still leaves us with a question of why Paul said what he did "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most pitiable."

Paul was only offering this statement for the purpose of his argument. His argument was about the importance of the resurrection. If his audience wasn't even viewing the resurrection as real, then it hardly would be important to address the theoretical idea of being faithful to God if there was no eternal life to follow.

[Homer]

Jason, et al,

And Paul went on to say:

1 Corinthians 15:32 (New King James Version)
32. If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!”

When Paul asked rhetorically "what advantage is it to me?", the expected answer would seem to be "none, so live it up while you can". Of course Paul's point was that there is a resurrection, so it does not make sense to live for pleasure.