Can non-Christians at all please God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MysticMissMisty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MysticMissMisty

Guest
Salvete, omnes!

We are told in Hebrews that, without faith, it is “impossible” to please God. The author of this book goes on to state that this is because it even requires faith to believe in Him in the first place. The author then goes on to give examples of the Old Testament saints who trusted God and were counted righteous.

To me, this text implies that non-Christians, whether of another religion, monotheist or pagan, or whether atheist, even if they are these religions our of ignorance and even if they try to live what they understand to e righteous lives, still can in no way please God. After all, one might argue that this passage states that they must believe in God and, arguably, God as defined by Sacred Scripture as the God if Israel with all His attributes.

Yet, we are taught byt he Catholic Church that such men may be counted worthy of entering Heaven. IF such men cannot please God, how can they even have a chance of entering Heaven? Furthermore, I know that, for me, even if a non-Christian (particularly one who is such ignorantly) does a good work either for himself or for someone else, I am indeed pleased by such acts because they benefti both the other person and the soul of the one doing them. Is it, then, wrong to say that God Himself is pleased by such acts, even ifthe person is not a Christian? I will concede, indeed, that He is surely not entirely/perfectly/completely pleased, since He would be entirely/perfectly/completely pleased, of course, if the person were to give him/herself entirely and completely in perfect faith to the work of God. However, is it wrong to say that God might, at some level, be pleased with the good works of a person who is not a Christian, particularly by virtue of some ignorance, or, rather, would such an assertion run counter to passages like the one I cited above?

Paul, indeed, seems not to qualify the statement that, without faith, it is impossible to please God and, indeed, the word “impossible” here is pretty restrictive, I must say.

So, how can we square this teaching of Paul in the Hebrews passage with God apparently at least being somewhat pleased even with the actions of non-Christians? Or, is it even possible to square these two notions? Must we, rather, accept that God is only pleased with Christians who have faith in Him and that He is in no way pleased with anyone else, no matter what they do, because they do not believe in Him as God and, thus, in the ways that He teaches, at least in a direct way as Christians do? Forgive my ignoranc, as I am still learning, but, does the Church hold that non-Christians can possibly get to Heaven as an infallible dogmatic teaching? If not, of course, as I understand it, this can be up for debate. Still, I admit, I have a difficult time believing that God is not at all pleased when a non-Christian, especially one ignorantly, does a good work. How could this logically be possible? If God is not pleased with such, how can we take pleasure in such? Is it right, for example, for me to take pleasure in even a non-Christian doing a good work in genuineness to another person for the reasons I stated above?

Does, perhaps, “without faith” here not imply simply the lack of faith but also the presence of doubt in a person’s mind? So, someone who lacks faith may still please God, but someone who harbors doubt cannot please Him? In other words, someone, for instance, who unreasonably doubts that God exists, but still does His works, cannot please Him? To be honest, I’m even having a hard time wrapping my mind around this concept.

Is Paul perhaps speaking here of one who actively desires to please God versus one who in a less active (more “passive”) way pleases God but what he does even though he has no conscious desire to please God as God, i.e., as He truly is as revealed to us by Sacred Scripture/Tradition? Again, not quire sure I can wrap my mind around this interpretation either.

Bottom line question: What, exactly, does Paul mean here, especially in relation to non-Christians and how are we to square it with Catholic teaching relating to this subject?
 
(Sorry. Edit time ran out.)

I was also just thinking that perhaps the sense of “faith” here is more that of “trust”. So, without “trust” (in God), it is impossible to please Him since we must “trust” that he exists. Also, perhaps an understanding of Him as portrayed in Scripture is understood in this passage so that, if we are given evidence from Sacred Scripture and elsewhere to reasonably trust in Him, and yet still don’t, then we cannot please him. The passage may be referring to those who have been given sufficient evidence/knowledge, not necessarily to everyone, though an argument might be more strongly made if Paul had said “without faith, it is impossible for us to please God”, whereas, without the “for us”, the statement may be interpreted more broadly.

Again, what does everyone think on this matter, both in regard to the issue raised in this post and in my original post?

Gratias.

EDIT: Hmm, I jusd discovered that the word for “please” in the Greek of this passage is ευαρεστεω (“euaresteo”) which is very often translated not just as “pleased” but as “well-pleased”, taking into account the presence of the particle ευ (“eu”) which has the adverbial force of “well” (as in “good”). However, in our passage in question, virtually every translation I’ve looked at, Catholic and Protestant, only renders the term “please” without an “well-” attached to it. Even Jerome’s rendering does not take the “eu” into account. So, I’m not really sure why this is. Indeed, taking it int account may, in fct, solve our dilemma. Would we not argue here that there is a difference between simply “pleasing” and “well-pleasing”, in the sense that God may be “pleased” with anyone depending on what he/she does, but He is “well-pleased” with the Christian who trusts Him in faith? He may be “pleased” with anyone but he is “truly” (“well”?) pleased with the sincere Christian. Is this a reasonable understanding of this passage? of the distinction bewtween “plased” and “well-pleased”? Indeed, the word “well-pleased” in other passages has, up until now, rather confused me, because I always wondered why the texts didn’t simply say “pleased”; I always wondered what exactly the “well-” was doing there. Is it valid to take the “well” here and elsewhere as “very much” or is it perhaps meaning something other than that? Is there some Hebrew idiom I’m perhaps misinterpreting by understanding “well-pleased” in this way?
 
I was just looking at some other translations and I did discover that they add to the term “please”. The so-called “Amplified Bible” (a Protestant translation, as I understand it) has “to please and be satisfactory to” God – an understand which I had also contemplated before writing this post. “Young’s Literal Translation” (als Protestant, I believe) indeed renders “to please well”, indeed bringing out the “eu”.

Are either of these translations valid? Is the distinction that I am making between simply “aresteo” and “EUaresteo” is a correct one? Do you guys think that the “eu” should be brought out here or that the word “euaresteo” simply has the less keen force of"to please"? Have there been any other theological/philosophical Church writings, ancient or modern, touching on any aspects of our present topic?

EDIT: Hmm, strangely enough, I’m not finding a separate Verb αρεστεω (“aresteo”, minues ευ/“eu”) in LSJ, though I do find αρεστος (“arestos”) – “pleasing”, “acceptable”. Not sure why we apparently don’t have a simple Verb attested, though this could make the argument of"eu" having a special force beyond simply “please” (or, I suppose, technically “be pleasing to”) a weaker one. What do folks think?
 
Is perhaps “euaresteo” a Greek translation of some Hebrew word or idiomatic expression that is, in fct, closer to the notion of “[complete] satisfaction” or “[true] contentment”?
 
If you believe in the power of love, do deeds lovingly (loving deeds) but have never heard the name of the lord spoken by men, that is one thing. but if you that same person are instructed as to the lord’s example of love and then reject that as love, that is another thing entirely. really, the sign of the cross teaches everything. it is difficult to imagine someone who truly loves also rejecting the lord’s example as the ultimate act of love.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top