Does God condemn skepticism?

[atheist jon]

If I was God, I would judge people on their actions. If I created skeptical people then it seems a bit unreasonable to condemn them for being skeptical really. I would certainly place those who don't believe but led good lives, above those believers that led bad lives. But apparently that ain't the way it works.

[Josh]

Jon,

I don't think any Christian is advocating that God condemns people for being skeptical. If that's the case, then I'm in trouble.

God condemns sin, and only stubborn, unreasonable skepticism would be a sin.

But whether a person has done good things or not, everyone has sinned in some grievous ways. Good deeds don't erase bad deeds done. At the end of the day do you really want a system that weighs your deeds in the balance? Because if that's how it is, I guarantee you I'd still be in a deficit. Thank God for his grace through Jesus.

That said, we will all be judged in some way for our actions, whether good or bad:

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad." 2 Cor. 5:10

Though we enter into God's presence through Jesus' merit, our deeds and choices do have consequences of reward or loss in the life to come.

I don't think any good deed done by anyone (atheists included) is ever ignored by God (Matthew 10:42).

[stevekimes]

I agree 100 percent, Josh. Very cool position, and very much not mainstream Christianity.

[Josh]

Mar 20, 2012 20:25:46 GMT -8 stevekimes said:

I agree 100 percent, Josh. Very cool position, and very much not mainstream Christianity.

Just curious which part you think isn't "mainstream"?

[atheist jon]

Josh, without entering a discussion about the validity of the concept of sin, or even the definition of what's a sin and what isn't, are you suggesting that a firm non-belief in God is not considered to be a sin?

Secondly, what is unreasonable skepticism? This implies that reasonable skepticism exists and is acceptable. I would have thought the very last thing any religion would encourage is the employment of reasonable skepticism. I mean, you are only one short step away from using skeptical reasoning, and then all religions would really be in trouble!

[Josh]

Jon, great questions. I'm away at the beach so I don't think I'll have time for a good answer until I get back, but I separated out this part of the discussion from the previous topic because I think it deserves it's own thread.

[christopher]

Hmm, It's very interesting to think of skepticism/unbelief as sin. But I guess I can see why someone may think that given the way the gospel is usually put forth in our culture.

The Bible actually seems to commend a healthy dose of skepticism. The Bereans in chapter 17 for example are said to be noble for their skepticism. We're told to "test all things, hold fast to what is good" in 1 Thess 5.

It's only those who suppress the truth that are said to be in sin (Romans 1, 2 Thess 2). Unbelief, can only be sin if there is an opportunity for belief.

[Josh]

I agree, Chris. But, as a counterpoint, what about how Romans 1:20-23 (which you cited) seems to leave no room for reasonable doubt about the existence and nature of God?

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

I have some thoughts on this, but I'm curious what others think.

[shirley]

Although it is obvious to me that "20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." I know plenty who have become skeptics because of "18...all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness," [NKJV says unrighteousness] and participate or encourage the unrighteous things in vs. 28-30, though these leaders will call it the opposite.
I think Paul is saying that these people, who know the obvious, are obscuring the obvious. Therefore the ones who are being condemned are the leaders, not the skeptics the leaders have made.

[christopher]

Mar 31, 2012 9:48:59 GMT -8 Josh said:

I agree, Chris. But, as a counterpoint, what about how Romans 1:20-23 (which you cited) seems to leave no room for reasonable doubt about the existence and nature of God?

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

I have some thoughts on this, but I'm curious what others think.

You can add Psalm 19 and Acts 17 to that mix as well.

I never intended to say that there wasn't some light given to all men or that anyone is without excuse. My point was only that it's not unbelief/skepticism that is the sin (skepticism is actually a virtue in many cases), but that suppressing the truth they have been given is the transgression.

John writes:

And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God. (John 3:19-20)

But I don't think we can stop there, it's not as simple as that.

Jesus said:

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. (Matt 23:13)

How can someone be "not allowed" to enter the kingdom when all you need to do is believe and obey the Lord? It seems like the individual has the all the power to enter or not enter.

Elsewhere, Paul said:

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness.17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort,18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some. (2 Tim 15-18).

Apparently someone can have their "light" hijacked by clever deception. We all know that there is a plethora of clever sounding philosophy in this day and age and I can see how many of us (perhaps all of us to some degree or another) get sucked into something that is counter to the truth.

To atheistJon's point, I could agree that an unbeliever that keeps the moral law of their heart (i.e. does good) is closer to the kingdom that a professing believer who does evil.

For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? (Romans 2:25-27)

Replace "circumcision" with "believing" and you get the principle. Likewise Jesus' parable of the two sons:

But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, Son, go, work today in my vineyard. 29 He answered and said, I will not, but afterward he regretted it and went. 30 Then he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir, but he did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father? They said to Him, The first.32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him. (Matt 21:28-30)

[Josh]

Jon, why do you think Christianity is in danger if one were to apply skeptical reasoning toward it?