The eminent British physicist has issued this seemingly troubling pronouncement ex cathedra: Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe. Though some may find this disillusioning, others will easily (and gratefully) recognize the measure of truth in his conclusion:
Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. . . . It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.
Hawking is right: the god he describes does not exist. The true God did not simply set the cosmos in motion. He does not merely inhabit the gaps in our explanatory theories. Rather he upholds his creation, including the laws of physics, at every conceivable moment. Without his doing so, it would cease immediately to exist. A god who is subsequent to the law of gravity is definitely not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Thank God there is no such god as Hawking conceives of him.
September 2nd, 2010 | 10:52 am | #1
Except that unlike theologians, Hawking has a history of knowing what he is talking about.
September 2nd, 2010 | 11:04 am | #2
I hope he can explain this: He says, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,”
And, “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists why we exist.”
But for spontaneous creation to occur their needs to be a law of gravity. Now I am no physics expert, but isn’t a law of gravity fall under the category of “something” rather than “nothing’?
September 2nd, 2010 | 11:05 am | #3
In order for A to bring A+ into existence, A must exist. Even if A does not exist first in time, it has to exist first logically. Think for a second about the quoted statement, “The Universe can and will create itself from nothing.” In order for that to be true logically, the existence of the Universe has to be acknowledged as prior–prior, that is, to the existence of the Universe.
Spontaneous creation is illogical. But Hawking basically argued the same thing back in earlier work–that matter can produce its own existence (before existing). A can produce A+ without A itself existing.
I have read Hawking’s explanations of this, but didn’t understand them. Could anyone else take a stab at it?
September 2nd, 2010 | 11:20 am | #4
Chuck,
Fallacies don’t make for good and compelling arguments.
September 2nd, 2010 | 11:46 am | #5
*Chuck* You are mistaken if you think any human being knows why there is something rather than nothing, or how the universe came to be. Theories, pal, theories. The “mystery of existence.”
September 2nd, 2010 | 12:14 pm | #6
This sort of thinking is of a piece with Hawking’s conclusion in “A Brief History of Time”, that the Biblical God – omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent – cannot exist since he would have to act or recieve information faster than the speed of light. Of course, if God created the light, he is not bound by its speed.
A classic example of creating a “straw-god” who can be easily shown not to exist. The Living God is a bit harder to pin down than that.
September 2nd, 2010 | 12:28 pm | #7
Hawking’s god appears to be Gravity. But I was under the impression that the “Grand Unified Theory,” which seeks to explain the interactions between gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force and the strong force had yet to be worked out. Yet we are to believe that the law of gravity explains how the universe spontaneously created itself from nothing?
September 2nd, 2010 | 2:35 pm | #8
Even bright minds like Hawking’s can be disillusioned. Ahh, autonomous man, his own god, or no god at all, brought about by the powers of his own thinking and reason. How can one argue with that?
September 2nd, 2010 | 2:44 pm | #9
Craig has it right in #3. Hawking’s declaration violates the law of noncontradiction. In order to create itself, it first has to be. But if it hasn’t yet been created it cannot be. Out of nothing, nothing comes. If once there was nothing, there could only “be” nothing now.
However eminent a physicist he might be, his status as a philosopher is negligibly imminent.
September 2nd, 2010 | 3:40 pm | #10
It also violates the law of cause and effect, which is an important component of science. An effect cannot be its own cause, because an effect is contingent upon its cause, which must, logically, precede it.
September 2nd, 2010 | 4:17 pm | #11
If Hawking doesn’t repent, and maintains his current convictions that there is no God all the way to the day he dies, then Hawking will, sadly and unfortunately, end up in Hell.
September 2nd, 2010 | 7:10 pm | #12
“Spontaneous creation is illogical”
For the naturalist-atheist, the origin of the Universe is the same as the theologian’s origin of God; First Cause initiates itself.
September 2nd, 2010 | 8:48 pm | #13
Dear R. Hampton: But I would argue those aren’t exactly the same; in other words, the First Cause never initiates itself because it never needs initiation. There is no change, no contingency; God isn’t Self-caused (in the sense of efficient causation), but uncaused.
I don’t think we could get by with simply transferring that view to the universe. The universe changes, is contingent, and must therefore have a principle outside of itself to account for itself. For something to be uncaused would also mean it would have to be unchanging and eternal–since there would be no causation to produce the change.
“What need of a Creator?” as Hawking famously asked. Well, if we need an unchanging, eternal, uncaused Cause of the universe–traditionally that’s part of what we describe with the word God.
I know you are not agreeing with Hawking; I’m just saying that the naturalist-atheist position you are describing is not accurate in its reference to the nature of God.
September 2nd, 2010 | 9:02 pm | #14
Craig Payne,
Your argument can not be proved nor disproved because it is an opinion reasoned without empirical evidence. We don’t know that God is unchanged or eternal, perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. We assume these qualities to be true as a matter of faith. Thus neither the naturalist-atheist nor the theologian is able demonstrate – for or against – the self-initiation of First Cause.
Also of note: the Big Bang may be a cyclical process within an eternal universe, a theory proposed by Paul Steinhardt (the Albert Einstein Professor in Science and faculty member of both the Physics Department and Astrophysical Sciences at Princeton University.)
September 2nd, 2010 | 10:04 pm | #15
Why are people here trying to analyze what Hawking mean by that mere excerpt of his book? Why dont you guys wait until you read the book to see what he means before you think youre smarter than Stephen Hawking. lol
September 2nd, 2010 | 10:47 pm | #16
Dear R. Hampton: You wrote, “We don’t know that God is unchanged or eternal, perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. We assume these qualities to be true as a matter of faith.” I don’t really assume those properties to be true as such. What I do assume is that if an absolutely perfect Being exists, He would have those properties.
“Thus neither the naturalist-atheist nor the theologian is able demonstrate – for or against – the self-initiation of First Cause.” Again, I think all I was trying to get to with the previous post is that if God is thought of with those properties, we probably wouldn’t think of Him as “self-initiated.”
You also wrote, “Also of note: the Big Bang may be a cyclical process within an eternal universe, a theory proposed by Paul Steinhardt (the Albert Einstein Professor in Science and faculty member of both the Physics Department and Astrophysical Sciences at Princeton University.)”
Even if we think of the universe this way (Aquinas, after all, did assume that the universe was eternal for the sake of his argument, even though he thought based on the Bible that it wasn’t), it wouldn’t change my argument. Anything that changes, even if only in time, requires a cause of its existence as such an entity. This holds true for a frog, an acorn, a wind current; I think it also holds true for a universe.
Dear CJ Hawk: No one here thinks he or she is “smarter than Stephen Hawking.” What some of us think, based on what Stephen Hawking actually said, is that he made a theological mistake. After all, theology isn’t his field.
September 2nd, 2010 | 11:26 pm | #17
CJ, I am sure Hawking will explain himself, but based off the interview it really doesn’t make a lot of sense.
September 3rd, 2010 | 4:06 am | #18
TUAD: It’s hard for me to desipher whether or not you’re for real. Do you you really believe, the silliness that you just stated, about Hawking possibly being in “Hell” if he doesn’t “repent”, or are you just being needlessly provocative?
September 3rd, 2010 | 10:42 am | #19
Me: “If Hawking doesn’t repent, and maintains his current convictions that there is no God all the way to the day he dies, then Hawking will, sadly and unfortunately, end up in Hell.”
Bret Lythgoe: “TUAD: It’s hard for me to desipher whether or not you’re for real. Do you you really believe, the silliness that you just stated, about Hawking possibly being in “Hell” if he doesn’t “repent”, or are you just being needlessly provocative?”
Bret, what are you? Are you a Christian? Are you a Catholic? What are you? An atheist? A secular liberal? Do you even know what the Gospel is? Your comment is indicative that you need the Evangel, just as much as Hawking does.
September 3rd, 2010 | 12:45 pm | #20
“What I do assume is that if an absolutely perfect Being exists, He would have those properties”
Exactly. And a naturalist-atheist like Hawking assumes that if God does not exist, the Universe can be it’s own First Cause and/or that it does not need one because it is eternal. The important commonality is that both are founded on unprovable assumptions.
September 3rd, 2010 | 2:53 pm | #21
Dear R. Hampton: Now are you trying to veer this thread off into arguments over God’s existence? :)
September 4th, 2010 | 2:23 am | #22
TUAD: I’m a christian, with some humility. I do not believe that any human, is capable of saying who is, or who isn’t, going to “Hell”, if there is a hell. I’m agnostic about hell’s existence, but I’m inclined to think that it’s our creation, rather than God’s.
I find it a little strange, when people seem to have this unwavering certitude, about others going to hell. The truth is, TUAD, you have no idea, and neither do I, or anyone else, who’s going to hell, if anyone. My suggestion to you, is to show a little more charity, to others.
September 4th, 2010 | 3:27 am | #23
Bret Lythgoe: “TUAD: I’m a christian, with some humility.”
I’m honestly uncertain about that.
“I do not believe that any human, is capable of saying who is, or who isn’t, going to “Hell”, if there is a hell.”
You seem awfully certain about that.
“I’m agnostic about hell’s existence, but I’m inclined to think that it’s our creation, rather than God’s.”
Why are you agnostic about hell’s existence? Why are you inclined to think that it’s man’s creation, rather than God’s?
“The truth is, TUAD, you have no idea, and neither do I, or anyone else, who’s going to hell, if anyone.“
If anyone? Are you a universalist? Do you know what universalism is? It’s a heresy.
BTW, I do have an “idea”, and plenty of others have “ideas” too about who’s going to Hell that are contingent upon certain events, “ideas” which are based upon Scripture’s clear teachings.
“My suggestion to you, is to show a little more charity, to others.”
My suggestion to you is read the following post 9 Marks Journal on Hell and read all the articles linked to in the article.
In particular, read the article by Greg Gilbert titled: Why Hell Is Integral to the Gospel.
September 4th, 2010 | 3:56 am | #24
TUAD: You seem to have a propensity to judge others behavior, and intentions. Perhaps you’re invading in God’s territory?
It’s my view, that we should hope, that, if there is a Hell, it remains forever unpopulated. Do you not share this hope? And, even if some do go there, it’s NOT for me, or you, or anyone else, to say who goes there.
If Christ saves everyone, is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, ans omniscient, then to argue that some, are forever lost, is a restriction on these traits.
September 4th, 2010 | 4:14 am | #25
“TUAD: You seem to have a propensity to judge others behavior, and intentions.”
Bret Lythgoe, you seem to have a propensity to project onto others your own attributes. It’s you who judges other people’s behaviors and intentions.
“It’s my view, that we should hope, that, if there is a Hell, it remains forever unpopulated.”
If there is a Hell? Why are you agnostic about hell’s existence? Why are you inclined to think that it’s man’s creation, rather than God’s?
“Do you not share this hope?”
This tells me that childish emotionalism drives your beliefs and convictions.
“And, even if some do go there, it’s NOT for me, or you, or anyone else, to say who goes there.”
You declare that with such unwavering certitude.
Anyways, do read the articles that I suggested to you previously.
September 4th, 2010 | 5:26 am | #26
TUAD: To argue that God cannot save everyone is a resriction on his power.
Why do you say it’s “sad” or “unfortunate” if Hawking winds up in Hell? Shouldn’t you be glad? After all, isn’t that exactly where he should be, according to your beliefs? Shouln’t you rejoice, in all God does, including sending them to Hell, if the need should arise?
September 4th, 2010 | 7:29 pm | #27
Hawking seems to be making a mistake, similar, to his predessor, Newton, with respect to God. Newton argued, that God was necessary, to keep gravity going, and keep the planets revolving around the sun. A sort of “god of the gaps”. Hawking seems to argue that the only God that could exist, is a “god of the gaps”, and since he thinks it’s unnecessary, there’s no god.
September 4th, 2010 | 8:21 pm | #28
“Why do you say it’s “sad” or “unfortunate” if Hawking winds up in Hell? Shouldn’t you be glad? After all, isn’t that exactly where he should be, according to your beliefs? Shouln’t you rejoice, in all God does, including sending them to Hell, if the need should arise?”
Dear Bret, In response to this question: Aquinas distinguishes between rejoicing at God’s perfect justice in judgment, which we should do, and rejoicing in the suffering or punishment of any particular person, which is itself sinful.
September 4th, 2010 | 8:43 pm | #29
Craig Payne: as you know, there’s been considerable theological development, that’s occurred since Aquinas’s time. In the twentieth century, the swiss theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar, has argued that, we may reasonably hope, that no one will occupy Hell. His book, “Dare we not hope that all men shall be saved”? talks about this.
The late Fr. Richard John Nehaus, has also argued that we should hope of Hell’s emptiness.
September 5th, 2010 | 2:12 am | #30
Bret Lythgoe,
Are you a member of the Roman Catholic Church, or at least in communion with the Pope?
September 5th, 2010 | 9:43 am | #31
Dear Bret: I am in general agreement with what you wrote; I don’t think your response directly addresses what I said. All I said was that, if people are in Hell, Christians are not to rejoice at their terrible fate. So no, we would not be “glad” at the fate of any person in Hell.
If people are in Hell, we can, however, rejoice in God’s perfection and righteous judgment; just as we will rejoice should we all find ourselves in Heaven. (And I agree that we can hope for that, unlikely as it seems.) God will work it out somehow.
September 5th, 2010 | 9:45 am | #32
By the way, both Dawkins and Hitchens have given Aquinas an unjust slam, by saying that he (Aquinas) says that Christians are to rejoice at the fate of people in Hell. In fact, as I’ve pointed out, Aquinas says exactly the opposite: that such rejoicing would be sinful.
September 5th, 2010 | 6:17 pm | #33
Craig Payne:Thanks for your intelligent response. You’re right about Aquinas. One must always view the fate of others as charitably as we can. Sadly, I doubt whether Dawkins, or Hitchens have read much of Aquinas, or understand that his empiricist approach to philosophy, paved the way, considerably, for modern science to arise.
September 5th, 2010 | 6:33 pm | #34
What really concerns me, are those who think that they know who will be occupying Hell. It’s for God to determine who, if anyone, will be. I know some atheists who are better human beings than religious people. It’s also a deversion, away from ourselves. Clearly, if someone is asserting that someone else is going to Hell, it’s my guess that they need to focus on themselves.
September 5th, 2010 | 6:52 pm | #35
Bret Lythgoe,
Are you a member of the Roman Catholic Church, or at least in a Church that is in communion with the Pope?
September 6th, 2010 | 9:20 am | #36
“I know some atheists who are better human beings than religious people.”
Bret, just to clarify, what does that statement have to do with whether or not one ends up in hell?
The Bible is crystal clear that those who reject Christ (not just God, but Christ specifically) we be condemned to hell. Whiel it doesn’t tell us what people, it does tell us what kinds of people, unrepentant sinners.
So whether it be the sweetest grandma on the planet, or Christopher Hitchens in his current state of mind, hell is the final home, Scripture tell us, of every unrepentant sinner “better human being” than I, or no.
Clearly Mr. Hawking, to this point, has and is remaining unrepentant.
As I recall, what TUAD said was that, unless Hawking repents, he too, we be condemned to hell.
What exactly is the problem? How can we possibly have real, genuine, Christ-like compassion for people without that point of view towards everyone that we meet?
September 6th, 2010 | 11:39 am | #37
Thanks for your good comment Daryl.
September 6th, 2010 | 12:46 pm | #38
Daryl: How about the Holy Spirit? You could accept God the Father and God the Son, but if you reject the Holy Spirit, wouldn’t that be an unforgivable sin too?
And, how do you get the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit out of the OT? What’s the salvation status of anyone in OT Israel?
September 6th, 2010 | 6:03 pm | #39
Mike M,
Actually you can get that from the OT, in types and shadows…but it doesn’t matter. We’re not called to have perfect understanding of the Trinity to be saved.
Hebrews makes it plain the the OT saints were looking forward to the same, one time only, sacrifice of Christ, for our sins, just as we now look back at that same sacrifice. So they were saved on precisely the same basis as we are, just the other direction.
I hear what you are saying about the Holy Spirit. It’s a good question.
I’d say this. Peter, in Acts 3, says that Jesus is the “only name in heaven on on earth, by which we must be saved” (giving the lie, incidentally, to those who talk about being saved by Christ without ever knowing about him, but that’s another thing entirely).
So no, we don’t need to know about either the Father or the Holy Spirit to be saved.
Having said that, when someone who already claims to be a believer rejects the Trinity (a la T.D. Jakes or the band Phillips,Craig and Dean), they show themselves to actually be unbelievers (as all branches of the church have always held).
I guess, though, that you are right, not knowing about the Holy Spirit (like the believers Apollos preached to in Acts) is one thing. Rejecting outright, the Holy Spirit as an individual member of the Trinity, is entirely another thing, which I think puts a person on the wrong end of God’s holiness.
September 7th, 2010 | 12:15 pm | #40
Daryl, let me see if I understand you: All jews, all hindus, all muslims, all atheists, all agnostics, all believers in everything except your brand of christianity, will be in Hell, unless they repent. Is THIS your position?
Newsflash, the bible is atually more ambiguous than you’re letting on. It’s not clear if Hell is a permenant destination, or something temporary. And these passages could be interpreted metaphorically.
September 7th, 2010 | 12:24 pm | #41
Bret,
No. It’s not my position. It is the clear, unambiguous position of the Bible. The inspired and inerrant words of God.
I find it odd and quite sad that you seem to only just have run into a Christian who believes that.
The position is not ours to debate and twist, but only to believe.
Repent Bret. Flee the wrath to come. It is a certainty.
September 7th, 2010 | 12:43 pm | #42
“Repent Bret.”
Good, appropriate counsel from Daryl.
We are witnessing how immature emotionalism warps and distorts clear thinking, ultimately producing a very unsound and aberrant theology.
September 7th, 2010 | 12:48 pm | #43
Daryl, I suppose we’ve hit an impasse. I find it quite sad that you have such a low opinion of God’s omnipotence. To make our being saved entirely contingent upon “accepting” every word of the bible literally, means God is unfree, in this respect at least.
I’m not sure where you’ve learned your biblical exegesis, but it seems flawed to me, if it entails that you read it too literally.
I also believe that God loves his creation too much, to send most human beings, who ever lived, to Hell, which is your position.
Out of curiosity, do you believe that Hell is a physical destination, with fire and other tortures?
September 7th, 2010 | 12:52 pm | #44
This is NOT immatue emotionalism, TUAD. It’s about whether God TRULY saves all, due to his omnipotence, or whether he’s restricted by finite human choices.
My guess is you find comfort in believing that you’re saved, without any effort on your part. Kind of like how a child would believe, in all frankness.
September 7th, 2010 | 1:00 pm | #45
Bret,
A couple of things:
It’s not a low view of God’s omnipotence. It’s not like someone wrote a book about God, that God now has to fulfill. God had the book written to tell us what He has done and what He will do.
Very different things, with nothing to do with His omnipotence.
I’ve not made being saved contingent on believing every word in Scripture. But Scripture is plain on this: the is only one way to be saved, and that is to repent and believe on Jesus Christ and His once for all sacrifice on behalf of His people.
About “most”, I don’t know. You could be right. You probably are. But God will do what He will do, to the praise of His glory, not to the approval of my sensibilities.
As far as hell being a physical place, yes, I think Scripture is plain that hell is a place of unending physical and spiritual torment.
Whether the fire is a metaphor or not, I don’t know. But metaphor always argues from the lesser to the greater.
That is, Jesus is not a door, He is much much more than a door.
So whatever hell actually looks and feels like, it will be worse than a lake of fire (and all the other descriptions given in Scripture), not less.
What you’ve done, Bret, is elevate God’s love above all things. Scripture never does that. God’s love doesn’t alter His holiness one whit.
Go read Romans 9, where Paul talks about vessels made for destruction and vessels made for glory.
It’s His world, He can do what He wants, and He’s told us what He intends.
It’s easy to let our ideas of right and good and wrong and bad, alter how we view Scripture.
I get that.
What’s necessary is that we let Scripture alter how we view right and wrong, good and bad.
September 7th, 2010 | 1:02 pm | #46
Bret,
You line to TUAD, caught my eye…
“My guess is you find comfort in believing that you’re saved, without any effort on your part. Kind of like how a child would believe, in all frankness.”
You could not sum up what Scripture says about salvation and better if you tried.
September 7th, 2010 | 1:17 pm | #47
Daryl, God expects more out of us, frankly, than mere acceptance. The fact that you apparantly believe, that, for example, Ted Bundy, if he accepted christianity, would go to heaven, but a jew, who has contributed great things to humanity, is going to hell, just show how warped, and, yes, depreved, your belief system is.
By the way, is hell a physical place or not. Very simple question. you seem to be dodging it, however.
September 7th, 2010 | 1:23 pm | #48
i apologize, I only read your latest comments. you did address hell. thank you.
Your notion of hell being physical, with all its torments, is depraved. Even those who believe in hell, consider it a seperation from God, and don’t believe the simplistic nonsense that hell is a physical place. I think your view is completely unsupported by any theology that I know of, and is immensely cruel, and delusional.
September 7th, 2010 | 1:29 pm | #49
Daryl, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to elevate God’s love too much GOD IS LOVE.
It simply contradicts God’s love to believe that most people will suffer eternal toment, of the physical and spiritual kind.
your view of God is a simplistic strawgod, who is infinitely kinder, and more loving than you give him credit for.
My point is not to be harsh, but, I’m greatful for your honesty, and I feel that I owe you the same honesty. to believe that God would send anyone, for enternal torment is depraved, and blasphemas.
September 7th, 2010 | 1:31 pm | #50
Bret,
Thanks for your response.
Again, everything that you are saying makes sense from normal human “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” world view.
But that is not what God has told us in His word.
Clearly you are unfamiliar with the most basic of Christian theology. It would be worth your while, I think, for you to look into it, simply because with every sentence where you say something like “this…is a horrible thing to believe” or ” I can’t believe you believe…”, in each of those sentences you go on to sum up at least a part of true Biblical teaching.
You can’t get there on your own Bret. You can’t merit heaven. You can’t avoid hell, by working hard and being “good”. No one can.
Yes, if Ted Bundy repented, then he is my brother and will be waiting for me on the other side, with Jesus.
And yes, if you spend your life doing only good things for other people, and yet refuse to repent and believe on Christ, alone, for your salvation, then you will spend eternity in hell.
Repent Bret. Repent while you still can.
September 7th, 2010 | 1:37 pm | #51
By the way, i believe in Christ’s resurrection. i don’t believe that God cruelly sends people to hell. So, is it my doubts about hell, that i need to repent of, Daryl?
September 7th, 2010 | 1:46 pm | #52
Bret,
You have said rather clearly that being a good person will get someone to heaven, while repentance and faith in Christ will not. (Your good Jew/Ted Bundy example)
You’ve said much more than that you don’t believe God sends people to He.
By the way, I don’t believe God cruelly sends people to hell either. I believe that God sends deserving sinners, who hate Him (all of us humans) to a justly deserved hell, unless we repent and cast our whole hope of salvation on what Christ has done for us, without our help. Only then will we be saved.
You’ve said a whole lot that indicates that you don’t believe any of this.
Believing that Christ’s resurrection happened (the Roman soldiers and the Jewish leaders believed THAT) will save no one, without repentance and faith.
September 7th, 2010 | 1:48 pm | #53
Daryl I’m well versed in christian theology, thank you.
It’s not a matter of one earning one’s way to heaven. I’m not saying that. What I am saying, is that God’s gift of salvation, is just that, a gift, with no strings attached. In a way, you DO believe that you “earn” salvation, ironically, by asserting that you must “accept” the resurrection, and the bible. One earns salvation, by accepting it.
Ironically, I’m closer to what the spirit of the gospel is: that due to God’s love for humanity, he saved humanity, with no strings attached.
Do you believe that those who have, through no fault of their own, never heard of the gospel,end up in Hell? Or is it the one’s who have had the oppurtunity to hear it, but have explicitly rejected it, who only go to hell? An important distinction, don’t you think?
September 7th, 2010 | 1:52 pm | #54
Bret,
Sigh. Again, while you claim to be well versed in Christian Theology, you write a whole post that says the opposite.
There is no such thing, as you would know if you understood Christian theology, as “no fault of their own”.
The Bible is clear “The is no one who does good, no one who seeks for God. They have together become altogether worthless.”
We aren’t condemned for rejecting Christ. We are condemned for our sin.
Repent…
September 7th, 2010 | 1:53 pm | #55
Repenting of what, Daryl? does not belief that one must repent, in order to go to heaven, presuppose that we’re earning something, and we have to compensate for our behavior?
I think you’re commited to the notion, that one can accept all of the gospel, and kill, rape, steal, etc.? And if a person has accepted the gospel, and still does these things, why repent,? He’s going to heaven anyway. right?
September 7th, 2010 | 1:55 pm | #56
Daryl, it’s a very simple question. do you believe that all the people, who lived prior to Christ, will go to hell?
September 7th, 2010 | 2:02 pm | #57
Bret,
No I don’t. Those, as the writer to the Hebrews plainly teaches, who looked forward to the coming Christ, the salvation the God would send, were saved.
They are/were saved on exactly the same basis as any believer since Christ came, is saved. It’s just that they are looking forward to what we are looking back on.
But, in each case, without looking to that sacrifice for sin as our/their only hope, they will be and are, lost forever.
Yes, all your good Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Bahai, Mormons, Atheists you name it, will go to hell for eternity, despite any good they may have done, unless they repent and turn to Christ as their only salvation.
This is Bible 101.
This question, and the previous post again demonstrate that you have no understanding of Christian teaching.
Which is fine. Just go learn it somewhere, and stop claiming to understand it.
Good heavens, I know little kids who would laugh at you for saying what you say and then claiming to know the Bible.
You don’t understand repentance or the power of God to change a life. You just don’t.
September 7th, 2010 | 2:03 pm | #58
Daryl, with all due respect, we have different notions of what Christ’s gospel is all about. You claim to read the bible accurately, but my guess is even you pick and choose, based on your limited understanding of what criteria one should use to determine whether a particular passage is literal or metaphorical.
I believe that we don’t deserve salvation, it’s God’s gift to all of humanity.
September 7th, 2010 | 2:07 pm | #59
Bret.
Repenting is acknowledging that what God says about you and your sin, is true. Acknowledging that you are lost without His salvation. And turning from sin to God.
Turn to Him Bret. Repent of your sin. Repent of your willingness to believe that somehow you don’t deserve eternal hell. And repent of believing that you can do anything to save yourself.
Throw yourself on His mercy and trust in the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, which paid for the sins of all those who would believe.
He who has promised is faithful, and He has promised that anyone who turns to Him, He will, in no way, cast out.
And then get to a Bible-believing church (it’s sad, but that descriptor needs to be added to “church”) and learn all you can about this Jesus and what He has done.
September 7th, 2010 | 2:08 pm | #60
First of all, Daryl, just because I disagree with you, doe NOT mean i have no understanding of christain theology. for you to say this, is evidence that your understanding is very limited. I find it amusing, that someone, like yourself, who’s probably not read any of Aquinas’s Summa theologiae, for example, is lecturing me.
But I guess it makes your life easier, to believe in black and white, simplistic notions, such as 95% of people going to suffer eternal torture.
September 7th, 2010 | 2:10 pm | #61
You left off Catholics, in your who goes to hell without passing go list, Daryl, are they going to hell too?
September 7th, 2010 | 2:10 pm | #62
“I believe that we don’t deserve salvation, it’s God’s gift to all of humanity.”
If, by that, you believe that all will be saved, then you don’t believe the Bible.
And if, after you’ve said that, you still don’t believe that Ted Bundy can be saved, then you believe that you can earn your way (just as Ted hasn’t).
What you need to get is that your sin and my sin are not different, in any significant way, than that of Ted Bundy or and of a long list of brutal dictators that history can throw at you.
Salvation because your human, and God saves all humans, isn’t Biblical.
September 7th, 2010 | 2:11 pm | #63
No, Daryl, it’s salvation because God chooses to be infinitely merciful.
September 7th, 2010 | 2:12 pm | #64
Bret,
I left of Catholics because this blog has run around that one too many times already.
I’ll even throw in Baptists if it makes you happy. Anyone, of any religious persuasion, who does not believe what Scripture teaches about salvation and sin, is lost.
It’s just that some churches are less of a help in that regard than others.
I’ll leave the Catholic thing at that.
September 7th, 2010 | 2:13 pm | #65
Bret,
Is God not just and holy as well?
September 7th, 2010 | 2:16 pm | #66
Am I to infer that Catholics, in your view, are going to Hell, but you just don’t have the courage to say so?
September 7th, 2010 | 2:23 pm | #67
Courage? No, timing.
Not everything needs to be said all the time, especially when being goaded by someone who is clearly not interested in what Scripture actually teaches, but in who else someone will consign to the flames.
I’m not answering beyond that, although I have, on this blog and other, answered your question plainly.
You, Bret, are in need of repentance, whether the Catholics are or no. What you believe is not Christian, and all of your complaints are directed at Grade ‘A’ Simple Christianity 101.
No doubt you’ll challenge my courage here. Maybe you’re right. But I can live with that smudge on my character.
God won’t live with smudges on His. And that’s you bigger problem.
September 7th, 2010 | 2:33 pm | #68
I think the answer, that you provided, is an obvious “yes”.
If catholics are really going to hell, if they don’t repent, aren’t you being irresponsible, for not explicitly saying so? Or is it that muslims, mormons, jews,etc., are easier targets?
If your’e right, that catholics really are going to hell, how could it be a smudge on your character?
whether or not you’re courageous, is not for me to decide, you may be courageous.
But one thing you certainly are, is presumptuous, and arrogant. for you to claim, that i need repentance, is amazing. Obviously, we all need to repent, bt that’s not what you meant.
since you’re so big on scripture, perhaps you may want to re-read where Jesus points out the importance of seeing the log in one’s OWN eye, as opposed to others. Jesus was pretty big on that.
September 7th, 2010 | 2:41 pm | #69
Arrogant? Probably I am.
But you’ve stated what you believe, it’s not Scriptural, and so repentance is your only hope.
Clearly you don’t like that. I’m not surprised.
Tell me then. On what grounds does one escape the wrath of God?
You mentioned that Ted Bundy shouldn’t be so easily saved.
Why?
September 7th, 2010 | 2:58 pm | #70
Because God is the author of the moral order, Daryl, and He expects us to conform with it, but our salvation is not contingent on it. i believe that we should repent, but that only makes sense, if what we do DOES matter.
I’m not saying that we can go to heaven in the same state that we’re in now. Obviously, God saves everyone, but they must go through a rigorous punishment/cleansing phase, so that they can dwell with God.
You seem to have this notion that god’s “wrath” is like a human being’s. It’s not. It’s metaphorical.
i do admire your honesty, and my guess is that you’re a decent person. But you’ve accepted a most indecent notion of God and his kingdom. God has nothing to prove to us. You seem to imply that God will be angry, or some sort of mysterious “justice” will go unfullfilled, if God accepts everyone, into heaven. No, He accepts everyone, because His love knows no boundries.
By the way, QUOTE for me, the scripture that says one will go to hell if one does not accept Jesus christ as his personal savior.
September 7th, 2010 | 2:59 pm | #71
Also, Daryl, have you read the Bible in its original hebrew, and greek, for the old and new testements, respectively?
September 7th, 2010 | 3:02 pm | #72
Acts 4:12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”
John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.
September 7th, 2010 | 3:19 pm | #73
Thanks, Daryl. But One is STILL saved through Christ, even if one hasn’t explicitly accepted it, and there’s nothing in what I’m saying that contradicts that quote.
It’s YOUR particular interpretation that stipulates that one must explicitly accept it, or go to Hell.
Hell can also be a temporary place where sinful people go to get clean before going to heaven.
And no SANE person would knowingly reject God. If they do, then they could go to get educated in the place translated as “hell” until the truth is revealed to them.
Similarly, if someone has a psychosis, you would not accept their claims, as in their best interests, until they’re well.
Anyone who rejects Christ, is “unwell”, and not in his right mind. Anyone who TRULY knew who Christ is, would not reject him. Maybe they’re under the Delusion that He does not exist.
September 7th, 2010 | 3:20 pm | #74
Me: “We are witnessing how immature emotionalism warps and distorts clear thinking, ultimately producing a very unsound and aberrant theology.”
Bret Lythgoe: “This is NOT immatue emotionalism, TUAD.”
Unfortunately, it is.
“It’s about whether God TRULY saves all, due to his omnipotence, or whether he’s restricted by finite human choices.”
False dilemma.
“My guess is you find comfort in believing that you’re saved, without any effort on your part. Kind of like how a child would believe, in all frankness.”
I think you meant it as an insult. But given what Jesus Himself said, I’ll take it as an unintended compliment.
Mark 10:15 (New King James Version) “Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”
Luke 18:17 (New King James Version) “Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”
——-
Bret, are you a member of the Roman Catholic Church, or at least a member of a Church that is in communion with the Pope? Have you been baptized, catechized, and confirmed as a Roman Catholic?
September 7th, 2010 | 3:23 pm | #75
Bret,
Sorry, but that doesn’t work.
Add Romans 10:14 to John 3:36
“How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?”
It’s plain as plain Bret.
I’m done.
September 7th, 2010 | 3:32 pm | #76
Actually, I wasn’t even thinking of Jesus’s statement, about children. I was pointing to your unintelligent interpretation of christianity.
Speaking of children, i guess it’s your view that ALL the nonchristian children (which, in your view would be, muslim ones, hindu ones, Catholic ones, Mormon ones, buddist ones, etc.) , who die before reaching adulthooh, will suffer eternal physical torture.
Perhaps YOU need to re-read Jesus’s statement that those who would hurt his little ones, it’s better that a milestone be tied to their necks and they be drowned into the depths of the sea. And is it not hurtful than to say that these little ones will suffer torture…FOREVER!
September 7th, 2010 | 3:32 pm | #77
“I’m done.”
Thanks Daryl for engaging Bret Lythgoe for as long and as kindly as you have.
September 7th, 2010 | 3:33 pm | #78
Daryl, I take it, that you have NOT read the bible in its original hebrew and greek? And if not, how can you, with a straight face claim to be interpreting the bible correctly?
September 7th, 2010 | 3:35 pm | #79
Let the record show, that both TUAD and Daryl believe catholics will go to hell, and suffer eternal physical torture.
September 7th, 2010 | 3:35 pm | #80
Thank God for Purgatory. :)
September 7th, 2010 | 3:37 pm | #81
Perhaps you could respond to my point about children TUAD, or should we infer that you believe such mindless cruelty?
September 7th, 2010 | 3:37 pm | #82
Good point, Craig!
September 7th, 2010 | 3:43 pm | #83
“Actually, I wasn’t even thinking of Jesus’s statement, about children.”
That’s exactly your problem, Bret. You’re NOT thinking. Instead, you’re emoting. And your infantile emotionalism misguides you.
“Perhaps YOU need to re-read Jesus’s statement that those who would hurt his little ones, it’s better that a milestone be tied to their necks and they be drowned into the depths of the sea.”
It’s millstone, not “milestone.”
And the victims of Catholic pedophile priests and the families of those victims of Catholic pedophile priests oftentimes cite that verse.
Bret, is the Catholic pedophile clergy crisis an embarrassment to Catholics?
September 7th, 2010 | 3:47 pm | #84
TUAD: You need a logic lesson, badly. the Catholic scandal, was a terrible example of priest NOT living up to catholic moral teaching.
The pope, and every othe catholic religious leader has completely denounced this completely reprehensible behavior.
Perhaps you could answer my question, about all those small children, who are not christians, going to hell, for their eternal physical torture?
September 7th, 2010 | 3:51 pm | #85
Bret,
Perhaps you could answer my question: “Are you a member of the Roman Catholic Church, or at least a member of a Church that is in communion with the Pope?”
Bret, is the Catholic pedophile clergy crisis such an embarrassment to Catholics that you don’t want to answer the question?
September 7th, 2010 | 3:52 pm | #86
TUAD: I’m glad we’re having this discussion. You seem to be demonstrating, much to the amusement of many, your profound innorance, lack of education, and intolerence. I really do feel sorry for you.
did you manage to graduate from high school?
September 7th, 2010 | 3:55 pm | #87
TUAD: It’s an embarrassment, as it should be to THOSE WHO COMMITTED THE CRIMES. For you to assume that it should be an embarrassment to anyone else, is, well, to do what you do best, commit logical fallacies.
September 7th, 2010 | 4:07 pm | #88
“I really do feel sorry for you.”
Bret, I don’t think you do. Look at your next statement:
“did you manage to graduate from high school?”
You’re angry. You’re lashing out like a proud, self-righteous Pharisee. Daryl, has done you a favor, a favor that you should acknowledge, but his favor is instead sending you into a screeching rage. His favor to you, which I hope you don’t reject and was said multiple times, is this:
“Repent Bret. Flee the wrath to come.
Repent Bret.
Repent…
Repent while you still can.
Turn to Him Bret. Repent of your sin.”
September 7th, 2010 | 4:08 pm | #89
TUAD: maybe you could answer whether you’ve read the bible in its original hebrew and greek? and what translation are you relying on. Granted your scholarship know no bounds, but even you have to rely on a translation, now and then?
September 7th, 2010 | 4:11 pm | #90
TUAD: actually, that’s the most charitable interpretation I can come up with. The other, is that you’re intentionally trying to imply that the catholic church supports pedophilia. you’ve stooped to a new low on that one.
September 7th, 2010 | 4:14 pm | #91
Bret, are you a member of the Roman Catholic Church, or at least a member of a Church that is in communion with the Pope? Have you been baptized, catechized, and confirmed as a Roman Catholic?
September 7th, 2010 | 4:14 pm | #92
Your call to repent is an example of your arrogance.
We all should repent, on a regular basis. But not for the reason you think.
for you to assume, that BILLIONS of God’s creatures, will go to hell, is an insult to God. He made you better than that.
September 7th, 2010 | 4:17 pm | #93
Frankly, what i am, or am not, is none of your business. But, hey, what does it matter, I’m going to hell, anyway, because i don’t accept your fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the bible.
September 7th, 2010 | 4:20 pm | #94
If your goal is for me to go to heaven, (all the repent Bret, in bold letters!), then perhaps you could extend your charity, and tell me which bible translation, you’re relying on, so I can use one just like it?
September 7th, 2010 | 4:25 pm | #95
You sound like a liberal Catholic, Bret.
A combination of infantile, immature emotionalism and Catholicism. Yuck.
September 7th, 2010 | 4:29 pm | #96
So you don’t want to share with me your particular biblical translation? And I thought you wanted my soul to be saved.
You have shown yourself, and I don’t use these terms lightly, to be a an anticatholic bigot.
September 7th, 2010 | 4:36 pm | #97
Why single out “liberal” catholics, TUAD? Clearly you seem to be an equal oppurtunity hater: conservative, moderate, liberal, they’re all evil in your eyes.
Silly me, though. i thought you were wanting souls to be saved? where’s that “magical”translation of yours, that’s going to keep me out of hell?
September 7th, 2010 | 4:49 pm | #98
Why single out “liberal” catholics, TUAD?
Do you feel singled out, Bret?
September 7th, 2010 | 6:05 pm | #99
Bret,
I want you to be encouraged. TUAD is a Calvinist, so he believes that prior to anyone ever existing-yea, eternity past-God decided that He would create you. In that decision was also the decision of whether or not you would be elected to Heaven or elected to Hell. So, you might be one of the elect. If you aren’t, then it doesn’t matter which translation you read, where you go church, what you believe, or even if you’ve repented. You’re going to Heaven or Hell and neither is your choice. You may want Heaven, but that is not evidence of being elected. You may want Hell, but that may be because you don’t know you’re one of the elect yet. It’s hard to say. Yu may go to Heaven and never meet TUAD because he himself wasn’t one of the elect. He just happened to have the right beliefs about election.
So, be of good cheer. Your fate has been sealed. There’s nothing you can do. Enjoy the ride.
September 7th, 2010 | 6:27 pm | #100
Unless Bret Lythgoe denies being a Roman Catholic, it’s safe to assume that he’s a baptized, catechized member of the Roman Catholic Church (or perhaps in a Church that’s in communion with the Pope).
Roman Catholic Bret Lythgoe writes: “It’s my view, that we should hope, that, if there is a Hell, it remains forever unpopulated.”
If there is a Hell?? Why would you say “if there is a Hell”?
As a Roman Catholic, you are engaging in private interpretation when you say “if there is a Hell”. You’re not a faithful Roman Catholic when you do that.
You’re a liberal Roman Catholic.
September 7th, 2010 | 6:35 pm | #101
I hope Hell is empty. It’s a theological HOPE, not a dogma. I hope no one goes to Hell, but I have good reason to believe some will. As a Calvinist, TUAD, you actually have reason to believe that Hell will be empty because it could be the case that God elected all people to Heaven.
September 7th, 2010 | 6:59 pm | #102
TUAD is a Calvinist, so he believes that prior to anyone ever existing-yea, eternity past-God decided that He would create you. In that decision was also the decision of whether or not you would be elected to Heaven or elected to Hell.
Only if TUAD is supralapsarian. Infralapsarians don’t consider it the same decision or even part of the same logical decree in the logical order of God’s reasoning. Most Calvinists are infralapsarians, so I certainly wouldn’t assume that’s TUAD’s view just from the fact that TUAD is a Calvinist.
September 7th, 2010 | 7:04 pm | #103
Orthodoxj: thanks for the information. that does explain a lot, about TUAD. And you’re absolutely right, that we can have that theological hope, that Hell is forever empty.
you make a good point, that as a Calvinist, TUAD could hope that God elected all for heaven!
Actually, read Hans Urs Von Balthasar, a well respected (by pope John Paul the second, and Pope Benedict), theologian, who argued, in a book, available from Ignatius press (a wonderful bookseller, by the way) that it’s reasonable to hope that Hell is empty. It’s called “Dare we not hope that all men are saved”? I dare you to read it, TUAD.
September 7th, 2010 | 7:22 pm | #104
In case anyone cares, I am a supercalifragilisticexpialidocianist. We are known for our special devotion to Mary, and also for feeding birds with very cheap birdseed.
September 8th, 2010 | 3:00 am | #105
Bret Lythgoe: “It’s my view, that we should hope, that, if there is a Hell, it remains forever unpopulated.”
If there is a Hell? If there is a Hell? As a baptized and catechized Roman Catholic, you are required to fully support and believe whatever the Magisterium teaches in the Catechism. To do otherwise is to be an unfaithful and bad liberal Catholic engaging in private interpretation or private judgment. If the Magisterium says “x”, then you must also say “x”, and not say “if x”.
So then let’s see what the Roman Catholic Church’s Catechism teaches about Hell:
“The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” (Par. 1035)
So Bret Lythgoe, the “teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity.” You are a bad liberal Catholic for engaging in private judgment, disputing the Magisterium’s Divine Teaching when you write “if there is a Hell.”
Shame on you.
September 8th, 2010 | 3:15 am | #106
Shame on you, Bret Lythgoe. Bad liberal Catholic.
You wrote: I do not believe that any human, is capable of saying who is, or who isn’t, going to “Hell”, if there is a hell. I’m agnostic about hell’s existence, but I’m inclined to think that it’s our creation, rather than God’s.”
You say you’re agnostic about Hell’s existence. But look at what the Roman Catholic Catechism teaches:
“The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity.”
“I’m inclined to think that it’s our creation, rather than God’s.”
So you’re inclined to think that Hell is the Roman Catholic Church’s creation rather than God’s?
Bret Lythgoe, you’re a bad liberal Catholic engaging in private interpretation. Tsk, tsk.
September 10th, 2010 | 6:24 pm | #107
Bret Lythgoe: “I do not believe that any human, is capable of saying who is, or who isn’t, going to “Hell”, if there is a hell.”
Well today, I have just read a Catholic declaring that a Reform Protestant, TurretinFan, is going to Hell.
John Francis wrote:
“Incidentally, there is nothing wrong in itself with the proper authority burning heretics. [Proper Authority = Roman Catholic Church] It just isn’t prudent to do so today for a number of reasons. So fear not you’re physically safe now, but when you die, you [TurretinFan] will surely burn for all eternity.”
From: Here.
September 11th, 2010 | 11:14 am | #108
Dear TUAD: What you wrote does not address Bret Lythgoe’s assertion. You simply found a Catholic who agrees with you: that is, that we humans can judge who will and will not be in Hell.
It is better, wouldn’t you agree, simply for us to proclaim Christ to the best of our abilities and leave such judgment up to God.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact