Comments on: Our God is a God who saves?

By: SmartLX

SmartLX — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:25:13 +0000

Hey, what the heck. Proselytising annoys me more when it’s done in ways which will never work. The waste of time and effort really gets to me. When they try to be appropriate and effective, and avoid sophistry, I respect the attempt as I respond to it.

By: hayesy

hayesy — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:45:36 +0000

hahaha
“This exhortation to evangelise proudly brought to you by AsktheAtheist.com”

By: SmartLX

SmartLX — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:44:00 +0000

Yeah, fair enough, “opportunity” was bad wording for a hypothetical omnipotent being.

Another way to look at it is that there’s a lot of preaching going on, and God’s spoilt for choice of proselytisers through which to work. With so much competition, why be God’s dodgy option? Make an effort, people. Think it through.

By: hayesy

hayesy — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:49:27 +0000

I was wondering what my atheist readers would make of this post. Your response was really interesting, thanks
I think you make a good point. I believe God saves through the preaching (or proclamation by other means) of the gospel. But that doesn’t mean the preaching of the gospel can’t be done badly – sometimes so badly that the effective message is the opposite of the intended message.
I don’t think God needs an opportunity to save someone – He is powerful enough to save anyone through even the worst of sermons.

By: SmartLX

SmartLX — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:31:02 +0000

If God exists, maybe he saves people directly and maybe he doesn’t. But WAY too many people think he’s going to save through them, with minimal effort on their part.
The two sites I write for engage in atheist apologetics when prompted, but in general they’re just expressions of atheist viewpoints. We argue, we discuss, we dissect, we speculate. Anything which comes in, pro or anti, we carefully pull apart.
Every now and again someone ignores all this and posts a full-blown sermon. Never mind arguing a point, it’s a hit parade of well-worn appeals: God loves you, I was like you but now I’ve seen the light, ask for forgiveness before it’s too late, etc. (So far it’s always been from Christians and Jews, though sometimes obscure sects like the Yahushuamites who think Joshua was the real Messiah.) It’s the kind of spiel which, short of even invoking Pascal’s Wager, ignores any possibility that there might not be a god.
Consider the audience. The sites are called Ask the Atheist and Ask the Atheists (similarity by pure coincidence). Devout believers visiting the sites don’t need preaching to; they’re there to see things from another perspective, and good on them. Firm atheists are usually there to find responses to theist arguments which are new to them, so they’re beyond simple preaching. Those in the middle, those less assured believers and agnostics with doubts and burning questions, would only be there if they’d heard all the usual stuff already and wanted to chew on something unfamiliar. So on which of these groups would a standard sermon have any effect?
Here’s my point. The idea that God saves people through preaching leads a lot of Christians to think that any preaching in any circumstance is productive. They effectively go through the motions and leave the work to God, as I’ve observed. It can in fact be counter-productive, because misplaced sermons like I’ve described come across as parroted platitudes with no regard for listeners or readers. It doesn’t paint a nice picture of evangelism or belief as a whole.

Again, maybe God (exists and) does save through preaching. But the preaching would have to be in a time and place and of a standard that gives Him that opportunity. That should be the important part of the message.