Category Archives: Atheism

We Cannot Put God into a Testtube

Posted on by
1

In a recent post, I argued that an atheist’s attempt to deny the existence of God by saying we cannot prove His existence scientifically was playing on our ignorance of science and their ignorance of knowledge. What I meant by this is that we know quite a bit of what we know, without the advantage of science. Science truly is limited in it’s ability to help us know and understand our world and God. After all, you cannot put God in a testtube.

Just the thought of putting God in a testtube is beyond any level of reason since the God who has revealed Himself to us through His Word is outside of nature itself. Theologians have known this for years because we have been willing to look to His word to know what we know about Him. How are we to take that which is unknowable outside of special revelation and test Him using aspects of His creation? In other words, how do we test something or someone that is completely “other” than creation with creation itself?

When we say that God is “other” what we mean by this is that He is NOT His creation. God is something “other” than His creation. Therefore when we do look to creation, as theologians and believers, we do see His fingerprints, but we do not see Him. True Christianity does not believe in pantheism, which is the belief that God is actually creation itself. The living and true God exists outside of creation and is “other” than it. We do not know what this “other” is, but we do know that God is “other” and not the chair that I sit upon as I write this.

This is why the Bible is so necessary for us to know the God who is. This completely “other” being that created all things, in His love and kindness, not only revealed Himself to us, but also stepped into the created world to become the God-Man, known as Jesus Christ. This is why the incarnation is such a miracle: that which was “other” became a part of creation in order to save those who rebelled against the Supreme Other behind creation. He did not just sit off at a distance and judge us as was His right to do. He came after those that belonged to Him in order to save them from their rebellion.

This knowledge that we have been given through His word is historical in nature, not scientific in nature. This is the means and method God has chosen to reveal Himself to us. While science is very helpful in our world, it is not the end all and be all of what we know. It is actually quite limited in its capabilities for understanding the world in which we live, and if you study scientists and their theories long enough, you will find that quite a few of them have their own set of “beliefs” as well, since science is so limited.

For another take on science and knowing God, read David Glass’s article: The Evidence for God.

You Cannot Prove God Exists Scientifically

Posted on by
Reply

One of the lines that you will often hear from atheists in their attacks on Christianity is that you cannot prove God scientifically. They make this claim in order to prove that there is no God, playing on our ignorance as believers about science.

You have to understand two things about what they are saying. First off, you cannot prove a negative. In other words you cannot prove that something does not exist scientifically because the method used to test something scientifically is to put forth a theory, test the theory, be able to see if the evidence in the theory is repeatable by others, and then develop new statements of thesis based upon what was learned.

Since proving something does not exist cannot be tested, then we cannot measure it scientifically. This is not to say that God does not exist, what it says is that the atheist who makes the claim, doesn’t understand science.

The other falsehood this is overlooked in the atheist’s claim that God doesn’t exist because you cannot prove Him scientifically is the assumption that we only know things to be true if we can prove them scientifically.

Their assumption is a very broad one because so many people put their faith in science for what we know to be true. Yet, you cannot prove a mother’s love for her children scientifically. You can prove it because you witness this love at a certain point in time, but that is not something that is repeatable over and over again.

In fact, we would be hard pressed to prove a lot of what we know scientifically.

The reality is that there are many ways we know things to be true that does not rest in the scientific realm. For instance, wisdom is not something that you can gain through science, and I’m merely speaking of general wisdom, not godly wisdom. General wisdom simply comes about by living life and going through various experiences that teach us what we know to be true and what we know to be false.

For instance, my mother told me when I was a teenager that it was always good to be home by 10 p.m. because nothing good ever happened after 10 p.m. I kind of thought she was being a kill joy until one night me and a guy were driving around in his car and we were attacked by some drunken thugs. The guy I was with was getting really upset as these drunken thugs smashed the windows out of his car. I was upset with him because he sat there and screamed about his car while they were hitting me with a pipe.

The next time my mother told me to be home by 10 p.m., because nothing ever good happened after 10 p.m., it suddenly dawned on me as to what she meant.

The point is that there are ways we know things to be true outside of science. While those in the scientific community may see the fingerprint of God in creation around them, it takes those with discerning hearts and minds to see His fingerprint for what it is. The rest are blind to those fingerprints.

The other reality we must admit when it comes to knowing about God is that He has not chosen to reveal Himself scientifically, but historically. He has revealed Himself to us in history and through His word.

This shows the true arrogance of the atheists because they refuse to believe in a God that will not submit Himself to their demands for scientific revelation. The truth of the matter is that God is God and He reveals Himself as He pleases, not at the whims of our modern-day skeptics.

He has also made it clear that where there is no belief, there is no knowledge. The atheists will never come to know God at all until he or she comes by faith to His word and accepts as given. Too many atheists won’t do that, because that requires them to believe in something far greater than they are, that has the right to judge them. This is the core reason most people don’t believe. They believe wrongly that if they don’t believe, God has no right to judge them. Since judgment is what they are trying to avoid, they remain in ignorance and the judgment is heaped upon them.

The Arrogance of Modernity in Full View

Posted on by
3

I’ve been dialoging with Wranger concerning my post on the death of Christopher Hitchens. It’s been a good debate but Wranger keeps coming back to his trump card, which is that we know so much more than those of the First Century. Here are his words:

My point is that any ten year old today, knows infinitely more about the natural order, and the universe, than anybody living in the First Century. If it’s arrogant to think that, then I’m arrogant.

This is one of the comments that seems like it’s a real trump card in the argument, because, we know so much more today than they did in the First Century. But alas, I beg to differ. I would say we know a lot less than they did in the First Century.

Wranger is arguing that the ten year old knows more about the natural order, but I bet most don’t know that Chicken McNuggets actually come from chickens. The 10 year olds  of today know nothing about real life because they have been so sheltered from it. They do not know how to raise chickens, kill chickens, clean chickens or cook them. They knew how to shear sheep, milk cows, make cheese, press grapes for wine, mill the wheat and everything that was involved with eating because they had to actually do it.

Our children today may know how to work a Gameboy or X-box, but when it comes to life and living, our children are helpless (excluding those who are raise on a farm). We think we are so smart because we have billions of facts right at our finger tips. But how much of it do we actually know? How many of us could actually rebuild our transmission if we needed to? How many of us could grow enough wheat in order to survive for the winter? How many of us would know the process and patience of making wine?

The people of the First Century knew what it meant to survive. They knew where food came from, how to grow it, process it, cook it and preserve it. While we may know facts about such things, and know that such things take place, could we actually do it?

They also knew about life as well. They knew where babies came from and the women had to band together in order to help one another deliver their children. There were no doctors to swoop in at the last moment and do all the work. There were no hospitals, so they really had to know what it took to have children.

They understood death as well. No morticians to come along and sanitize the process. They had to bury their own dead and did so quite often. They knew war, they knew real peace. They knew life at is basest form and knew how to survive. I wouldn’t give members of the Occupy Wall Street crowd 10 minutes in that culture. They have been taught “infinitely more about the natural order” and can’t seem to make a go of it in our culture today. The entire argument that we can learn nothing from previous cultures and men is a result of the arrogance of modernity. Those who have fallen for this arrogance look back on previous cultures and deduce they are nothing more than a bunch of backwood idiots because we are so far advance in our technology. I concede, we are much farther advanced technologically. But that doesn’t mean we are smart than the previous generations of men who lived on the earth. After all, the smarter man is not the one that uses fire, but the one who discovers fire.

The sad reality is that this arrogance is taught and cultivated in our schools today. Far too many fall for it. Simply because we have more information today doesn’t mean we know more, it doesn’t mean we are wiser, it doesn’t mean we are better off. If fact, given the number of people who have failed the test of godly wisdom, we are much worse off.

Wranger continued:

You still haven’t explained what it is about them, or what it is that they said, that makes you so eager to believe First Century Jews, rather than our overwhelming empirical scientific evidence.

That is simple to explain. What is it the First Century Jews knew? They may not have had empirical scientific evidence about DNA, but the ones I’m referring to knew something much greater than the mapping of the genome. They knew the One who created the genome. They knew the One who gave us science, and life, and breath, and the world in which we live. The knew the One that created us and put the stars, moon and sun in their place. They knew the One that gave the order we find in creation.

They also knew the Redeemer who came to deal ultimately with our greatest problem: sin and death. While we may be able to identify genes the lead to us sinning, we still cannot solve our sinful nature, our problems with death. We still face that judgment and science can do nothing to alleviate us of the problem. Just ask Christopher Hitchens.

Those men in the First Century who knew the Creator were also wise enough to tell us of the foolishness of mankind. The Apostle Paul wrote and warned us that those who sought knowledge, Greeks in his day, would find the truths of the gospel as complete foolishness. Listen to Paul’s words:

Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks[b] foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

The scientists and modern thinkers cans sit and ponder what fools we are who follow Christ all they want, but they offer us nothing to give us true and lasting hope. All of them still sin. All of them still die. All of them face judgment, yet, they want us to believe that they have the answers because they have mapped out the human genome? They want us to follow them into their theories of evolution just because they think they have evidence of evolution in genetics?

I tried to point out to Wranger that those who believe in evolution still do not have incontrovertible evidence for evolution. As I have said before, if there was evidence beyond a shadow of doubt, then we would celebrate the scientist who discovered the evidence with yearly parades. But in the end, all scientist can say is, “the evidence leads me to believe that evolution is a fact.” Which… is not science, but faith.

Even Stephen J. Gould, admitted that there was no evidence before he died when he presented his theory on punctuated equilibrium. In the introduction of his book, he stated that there wasn’t a shred of evidence, but that evolution was still a fact. He then went on to say that the missing link happened so quickly that there was no trace of it. In other words, he was coming back to what God has told us, that the created order was put together in six days… so quickly that there are no traces of it.

But alas, even Stephen J. Gould succumbed to death. He is no longer here to defend his punctuated equilibrium and the scientific community has moved on in their quest to rid the world of a Creator.

Wranger continues

And as for choosing science and DNA over the magical claims of First Century Bronze Age desert Jews, I will quote Christopher Hitchens;

“I want to live my life taking the risk all the time that I don’t know anything like enough yet. That I haven’t understood enough, that I can’t know enough, that I’m always hungrily operating on the margins of a potentially great harvest of future knowledge and wisdom. I wouldn’t have it any other way…take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way.”

That was the second time he made sure to mention that the Jews lived in the Bronze Age. That is the arrogance coming through loud and clear. It is as if he is saying, “Christopher Hitchens is by far, superior in intellect, knowledge, etc., than those idiots of the First Century. What could the possibly know?”

He then quotes Hitchens, who is saying he really doesn’t know enough yet… but is placing his faith and trust in the knowledge that will be known someday. In fact, I would have to say that Hitchens was seeking salvation through the form of knowledge, kind of like the Greeks in Paul’s day, who, would meet in the in the Areaopagus in ore to hear some new thing. They really didn’t want anything that was consequential in their lives, just something new to tickle their ears.

Yet, all the knowledge that Hitchens knew and hoped to know did not save him from the worst of fates: death without the hope of salvation. He might have known many philosophies or even some genetics. He might have known multiple theories on evolution. But He lacked knowing the One that created the heavens and the earth. He didn’t know the One who made him. He didn’t know the One that could have redeemed him from sin and death.

While I may not know all the theories of evolution that are currently floating about, I would much rather know Him who saves us from this body of death. I may not know how genetics works, or much about the human genome, but I do know the Savior and, more importantly, He knows me.

Wranger, I cannot answer you on a lot of scientific facts. But you have seen my answer. I would rather be known by and know Christ than be well thought of in the world academia, or science. Those two offer a lot of facts to be known, but nothing that answers the greatest problem we all face: sin, death and judgment. Without being known by Him, in a way that leads to salvation, all the theories, genetic maps, ponderings of how the world work are worthless. In fact, one of those men from the Bronze Age that you so belittle said something along those lines:

Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ.

UPDATE: Via Neil’s Eternity Matters, Stand to Reason has an excellent piece on scientist who question evolution. Here is just a snippet:

You have no friends of religion here. These men are inside of the established scientific community, not outside of it. Yet each offers scientifically rigorous and compelling arguments against the idea that known natural processes are adequate to explain the biological complexity of our world.

Michael Behe is a cellular biologist with impeccable credentials. In his book Darwin’s Black Box, he shows that the irreducible complexity of life can’t be explained by Darwinian gradualism.

James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, a molecular biologist and a deeply committed evolutionist, made this candid remark in response to Behe’s work:

There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject–evolution–with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.  James Shapiro, “In the Details…What?,” National Review, September 19, 1996, pp. 62-65.

You can read the rest here. He also bring’s up Stephen J. Gould’s punctuated equilibrium as well, which truly demonstrates the problem that evolutionist are having in supporting their faith system. He summarizes the problem of the two camps by quoting Phillip Johnson:

Phillip Johnson has made a fair observation when he states, “If eminent experts say that evolution according to Gould is too confused to be worth bothering about, and others equally eminent say that evolution according to Dawkins rests on unsubstantiated assertions and counterfactual claims, the public can hardly be blamed for suspecting that grand-scale evolution may rest on something less impressive than rock-solid, unimpeachable fact.”

No More Debate — Reflections on the Death of Christopher Hitchens

Posted on by
24

Ed Stetzer over at the Christian Post has this to say on the death of Christopher Hitchens:

Now Hitchens has died, and with him his ability to engage in public debate. Hitchens never shied away from debating anyone in public, especially a Christian contender. In the coming days, many will hold a sort of virtual debate online, weighing the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments. Hitchens wrote many books, so there is plenty of material to analyze. But for Hitchens, personally, the debate is over. All of the questions Hitchens wrestled with on earth have been confronted with infinite certitude, the kind that only the presence of God can provide.

This is so true whenever one of these atheists die. The debate is over. There is no more discussion. The truth of Christianity has finally come crashing into his life, with his death. That is the thing about death, it is God’s statement to all of mankind that what took place in the garden so many years ago still has an affect and a reality on all mankind, even those who deny HIS existence.

God told Adam that the day he ate of the tree, he would surely die. He did die spiritually at that moment, and physically later on. The sin that Adam committed has been passed to all mankind, even those who deny God’s existence. Death is the reminder of this truth. Because all sin, all have died. There is no escaping this fundamental and universal truth.

While they may try to deny His existence, the atheists still faces death, like we all do. His childish denial of God will not remove the reality of death, and it cannot remove the darker reality that every atheists faces: the judgement that follows. Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment. Atheists can scream that they do not believe such truths, but their protests are merely confirmations of the reality that they know God does exist.

Romans 1:32 shows that those who are haters of God, practice such wickedness even though they (know) the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. In other words, the fear of judgment that all men are given by God, no longer restrains those who reject God outright and they end up in all levels of debauchery, approving of such acts and encouraging others in those acts. In God’s grace toward all mankind, He gives us a fear of the judgment to come. But those who deny His very existence have suppressed the truth to such a point that they are given over to their sin and this fear no longer acts as a restraining influence in their lives. In their rebellion, they embrace the sin that will condemn them all the more and encourage others to do likewise.

I believe this is one reason the Bible points out that atheists are fools when it comes to the things of God (Psalm 14:1ff). They have suppressed even the smallest amounts of truth that they have been given and it builds up the righteous judgment that is to come upon them after their death. They act and live without the least bit of restraint and prudence in their lives concerning God. This is truly foolish.

Paul goes on in Romans 2 to show that all mankind has been given a conscience that leads them to judge others (yes, all do it.) This judgment of theirs, proves the conscience that they have been given and shows that they know of God, even though they deny Him.

Hitchens lived his life denying the existence of God. Even though his belief system was based on a lie, it is the very belief system that now condemns him as he faces judgment. His arguments are done. He will not utter a single word as he faces this judgement and the God of all creation will judge justly. What that judgment will be is not hard to imagine. But the arguments are over. He knows the reality of God. He can no longer sit in denial of these truths. Sadly, we can offer no hope for those who hoped he would find mercy. Some atheists may contests my arguments here and judgmental. But to do so, would be to prove my point. The atheists knows judgment awaits them and the outcome is not good.

Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

NEWSFLASH: True Christians Don’t Leave the Faith

Posted on by
6

In the discussions on atheists and their attempts to recruit more atheists, it was stated that many atheists were Christians at one time and then … they found their brains and left the faith. Or at least, that is the implied argument. This is the tactic used by the neo-atheists. They not only want to be outspoken in their atheism, but they also oppose Christianity and paint those in it as being less intelligent than your average yard dog.

But that is not the point of this post. The point is that these atheists claim they were at one time Christians, and now they are not. We must not fall for this line of thinking. Even if they were baptized and made professions of faith, and went through all the motions of being a believer, if they left the faith, they are not believers and never were.

Here is what Scripture says about those who leave the faith: 1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

This verse, along with Hebrews 6:4-6, shows us that those who leave the faith have no real hope, and were never really a part of the true believers in the faith. A true believer is one that perseveres to the end of his days. He/She may wander from the faith for a time, but the moment that they renounce the faith is the moment we know that they were not true believers. To renounce the faith and declare yourself an atheist is to become apostate, for which Hebrews says there is no hope.

Let us not be overtaken by the atheist arguments that they were believers and then left the faith for whatever reason. If they were of the faith, they would never have left it in the first place, and they certainly would not have renounced the faith as many atheists do. This is what the Apostle John is telling us in his letter. Those who leave were never truly believers. They were not of the light, but loved darkness more than the light (John 3:19-21).

But What About Their Earnest Prayers?

Some ask this question as well. What about those who were earnest in their prayers and actions, and then leave the faith. We can only say that while those prayers and actions seemed to us to be earnest, God knows the truth of their hearts. Tares always look like wheat and it is up to the Father to separate out the tares from the wheat. Regardless of what it looks like to us, there was no real saving faith in those who leave Christianity. They were never really believers and because of their fruit of apostasy, we can know that they were not believers.

But What About Those Who Were Really Seeking God?

They were not. Remember Romans 3:10ff, There is none who seeks after God. The point is that the atheist may give testimonies of being believers at one point, then coming to some depraved epiphany and leave the faith. They say these things to puff themselves up and to show themselves superior to those who are true believers. Let them. For God hates the proud and is looking for those with true humble hearts before Him. The proud, arrogant atheist has no claim of righteousness and will be judge because of it. Let us not be fooled by their claims and trust in what the Scripture says about them: Psalm 14:1, The fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God.’ While they may claim to have testimonies of being believers and then leaving the faith, they never were true believers.

NEWSFLASH: Atheist Reads Bible, Remains Atheist!

Posted on by
8

The Atheists are on the move again, trying to recruit more atheists to validate their position of unbelief out in Orange County, California.

According to the Christian Post, they have taken out ads like the one here, showing other atheists that they are not alone in their unbelief. The real newsflash is that there is nothing new about unbelief. It is only by God’s grace that anyone believes in the Bible and the gospel of Christ. So some atheists claiming that they are right because there are more and more unbelievers every day really proves nothing on their part.

In the ad, young Evan is all happy now that he is out of the closet. I guess atheists feel like they have had to remain in the closet because of their unbelief, but the only people who put them there is themselves. The true Christian knows and understands that there are a lot of atheists, even in our churches. We get it. As I already said, it takes God’s grace in the life of a person for them to believe in Christ and be saved. Just because young Evan read the Bible and didn’t believe proves nothing at all. It is like the guy who went to church once, so he thinks he is a Christian, or he went and because he read the Bible, now has all understanding and wisdom he needs to make a wise decision.

I wonder if Evan sat under any good teaching, or did he just read it on his own, with his darkened mind unable to grasp that which is spiritual? I imagine the latter. 2 Corinthians 4:3-6 shows us that Evan’s mind is darkened. It takes an act of God for the enlightenment needed for him to understand the word of God. The problem is, the atheists think that because they have read the Bible once or twice, they are now experts on Christianity. They are not. It takes years of study, WITH an enlightened mind to understand Christianity in any way that truly matters. Evan probably read the Scripture with the typical condemning view that most atheists read Scripture. They come to the first three words of the Bible, In the beginning, God… and scoff (three words in Hebrew). As if the God of all the universe is going to honor reading the Scripture in such a manner.

What does the Scripture say about wisdom? Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction. From the outset, the atheists is already doomed because he does not believe in the God who is. He doesn’t entertain the thought that He might truly exist. He reads from a stand point of unbelief and continues down that road. God is in no way bound to show grace to anyone, much less the scoffer.

The assumption many make in Christian circles it that because we have free wills to exercise as we please, then all we need to do is get the atheists to read the Bible and he will decide to choose God for himself. The atheists believe this too and they have exercised their free will in the realm of unbelief.

But unbelief is the rule, not the exception to the rule. Faith in Christ is by grace and grace alone. When someone believes in Christ it is because God has moved in their hearts and minds to work belief in us (Ephesians 2:8-10). It is all God’s hand, not ours. He gets all the glory and we get to be saved.

This is why I don’t believe in free will. The Bible never addresses free will. It tells us of the bondage of sin, and the corruptness of the heart, and how we are slaves to sin until we are saved, then we become slaves to righteousness. The point is that it is our hearts that guide and direct us, not some concept of free will. God must give us a new heart in order to believe the Bible and the gospel. When we read of someone like Evan, there should be no surprise at all. His hearts is bound by sin. Of course he didn’t trust in Christ to be saved. That is what we should expect.

It is when the Holy Spirit moves in someone who does read the Bible, like me, and He gives us eyes to see, ears to hear and a new heart to believe, that we should be surprised. Why? Because the God of all the universe has redeemed us from the mass of humanity that all deserve damnation and hell. It is all grace. He chooses who is and is not saved. It is His decision, not ours.

However, this does not remove the responsibility that we have. Even though we do not have the ability to believe without God moving in us, we are still responsible to do so. Yet, in our bondage, we would choose what is most natural to us, we would choose darkness. As Jesus tells us: 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.

Poor Evan. He needs the Spirit working in his life. Let’s pray to that end. Maybe God will show him grace, and work faith in his heart so that he comes to believe in the Bible he read. As for the atheists spending money to shore up their position of unbelief, let them. They are only living out the unbelief they were born into.

J.C. Ryle Confronts False Teacher Rob Bell

Posted on by
13

Imagine that. The words of Bishop J.C. Ryle, penned back in the 1800s, condemns false prophet Rob Bell from the grave. For those of you who are not up on Rob Bell, he is the latest liberal pastor to come forth and espouse such nonsense as the fact that people do not really need Jesus to get into heaven. In his book, Love Wins, he puts forth the premise that all people will eventually get into heaven after they die because love wins. This basically means the God is truly cruel in making His Son go to the cross, die the most shameful death ever, for no reason at all. I always think it odd that when guys like Bell try to emphasize the love of God, at the expense of His other attributes, they always end up making God out to be even more cruel than they imagine. Remember, in their minds, they think it cruel that God would send anyone to hell.

The reality is that men like Bell fail to understand mankind’s sinful nature. Paul shows us in Romans (8:7-8) that we are at enmity with God in our natural state. This means our flesh is at war with God. We are rebellious to the core against our Creator and He has every right to do with us as He pleases. We ALL deserve hell for we ALL have rebelled against Him. Out of His love, He does choose to save some from everlasting punishment through His Son Jesus Christ. Those who believe in Christ for salvation are saved, and do not perish (John 3:16). Those who do not believe in Him for salvation stand condemned already (John 3:18).

Bell, and others like him, go on to make the case that those in hell, if they repent, knock on the door, etc., will be graciously accepted into God’s holy presence. This is not what Scripture puts forth for two reasons. First, they will not ever repent. Remember the flesh is at war with God. Romans 3:10-20 also shows us that no one seeks after God. No one! Not on this side of death and especially on the other side of death.

God must seek us first before we will believe in Him. He must change our hearts and convert us for us to become members of the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:5), for we are spiritually dead in our trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1-3).

Secondly, we see from Scripture that they cannot pass between heaven and hell. Jesus tells us (notice that they are the words of Christ) in the story of the Rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) that there is a great gulf fixed between heaven and hell preventing those on one side crossing over to the other side. Going between the two is not possible even if one in heaven wanted to take a day trip into hell. This is one of the deeper truths of Scripture. Jesus is telling us that when we reach our final destiny, it truly is a final destiny. This is how He created heaven and hell (Matthew 25:41, Colossians 1:15-18).

This story is instructive because it shows us that the rich man doesn’t desire heaven. Those in hell do not desire heaven. They merely want relief from their anguish. There is no desire to repent and trust in Christ, even after judgment. They remain in their sin and the very sin that kept them from ever trusting in Christ on this side of death, keeps them from trusting in Christ on that side of death. So the entire premise of Bell’s book is wrong. This is what happens when you emphasize human free will over and against what Scripture tells us. We can say that we are free to choose Christ, but not capable to choose Christ because out of the abundance of the heart, we speak and do as our heart desires. Since our hearts are rotten to the core to begin with, we will never freely choose Christ on our own accord. We need the new birth to take place in order for us to even see our need for Christ. That doesn’t happen in hell. (Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed for me to die once, but after this the judgment). There are no second chances. Bell, in his sinful, fallen attempt to make God out to be so gracious and loving, ends up making God out to be cruel and wicked for causing Christ to die needlessly.

Ryle, in his fantastic book Practical Religion, writes:

“Every reasonable conception that we can form of a future state is directly against these teachers (those who teach universalism). Fancy a heaven which should contain all mankind! Fancy a heaven in which holy and unholy, pure and impure, good and bad, would be all gathered together in one confused mass! What point of union would there be in such company? What common bond of harmony and brotherhood? What common delight in a common service? What concord, what harmony, what peace, what oneness of spirit could exist? Surely the mind revolts from the idea of a heaven in which there would be no distinction between the righteous and the wicked,–between Pharaoh and Moses, between Abraham and the Sodomites, between Paul and Nero, between Peter and Judas Iscariot, between the man who dies in the act of murder or drunkenness, and men like Baxter, George Herbert, Wilberforce, and M’Cheyne! Surely an eternity in such a miserably confused crowd would be worse than annihilation itself! Surely such a heaven would be no better than hell!”

What he is saying is that heaven really won’t be heaven if the likes of Peter and Adolf Hitler are there together. Where is the bond of fellowship? Where is the unity? One followed and died for Christ, the other despised Christ and wanted to become his own god. Peter sought to build up the church, Adolf sought to destroy it and replace it with his own religion. Peter was humbled time and time again for God’s glory, Adolf exalted himself over and over, even in his death, he refused to be humbled by God, and his sinful pride won out.

Ryle continues:

“The interests of all holiness and morality are directly against these teachers. If all men and women alike are God’s children, whatever is the difference between them in their lives,– and all alike going to heaven, however different they may be from one another here in the world, — where is the use of laboring after holiness at all? What motive remains for living soberly, righteously, and godly? What does it matter how men conduct themselves, if all go to heaven, and nobody goes to hell? Surely the heathen poets and philosophers of Greece and Rome could tell us something better and wiser than this! Surely a doctrine which is subversive of holiness and morality, and takes away all motives to exertion, carries on the face of it the stamp of its origin. It is of earth, and not of heaven. It is of the devil, and not of God.”

This last point is why this doctrine keeps coming back. What Bell is proposing is nothing new at all. The error was there in the Garden of Eden when the serpent said, “Did God really say…“Satan was challenging Adam and Eve with this premise: “does it really matter whether or not you obey God?” The answer is absolutely yes it matters. Our very conscious tell us this. How we live matters. For Adam and Eve, their righteousness was at stake in the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They lost that righteousness and we did too. So now the difference comes in belief. If we trust in Christ for salvation, then we have His righteousness and are accepted into His fellowship and His heaven. If we refuse to believe, then we get to keep our own rotten righteousness and spend eternity in hell with it.

Bell brings us absolutely nothing new in his book Love Wins. He just recycles the same old lies of Satan. For that, Bell’s writings need to be condemned and he needs to get out of the ministry, return to the secular world and sell Blue Bell Ice Cream for a living. He would do mankind a much greater good than he is currently doing with his drivel.

BTW, I wonder if Rob Bell ever realize how much his universalist doctrine must anger the new atheist. Think about it. The new atheist is spending all his time and energy trying to say that there is no God, and that we are intellectual idiots for believing that there is a God. Then along comes Rob Bell and tells them: “Hey, it doesn’t matter that you don’t believe in God. You are going to end up in heaven any way.” The very point of the atheist is the fact that he wants nothing to do with God, and here Rob is telling them, “too bad, so sad. You’re going to heaven regardless of your beliefs!” I’m sure Bell is writing in such a manner so that he can “reach” the atheist. But he has to get past the point of angering them, and… looking like an stupid fool, for bringing down the condemnation of those of us who stand for the truth.

For more on Rob Bell, check out my earlier post here, and Neil’s post on Rob Bell’s take on John 3:16 here along with another post entitled Interesting Facebook Chat About Rob Bell. For more J.C. Ryle Quotes, go here.

God Didn’t Create the Universe — Or Did He?

Posted on by
2

This is what Stephen Hawking recently proclaimed. The man who is claiming that the universe just popped up out of nothing, says there was no God behind that popping. It was just set in motion by itself. In other words, the nothingness that was, decided to become something, even though it was nothing to begin with and had no will to decide to become something, it did in fact decide to become something even though it was nothing, and here we are.

Here is what Hawking said in the Times article:

In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “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.”

He added: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

To men like Stephen Hawking, this makes more sense than a God creating everything out of nothing. I find that Hawkins has a great more deal of faith than I do, because I cannot believe in his silly theories. David Robertson, of the Solas Centre, does and excellent job of refuting Hawkins latest claims that God did not create the universe.

This video is 11 minutes long, but well worth it. Robertson shows the silliness of Hawking’s theories, because they are unprovable, which makes his theories ridiculous.

Saturday Round Up — Sports, Atheists and Top Ten Vices for Health

Posted on by
1

Yes, just a few things of interest today.

Atheist De-baptize Themselves.

Good luck with that. These bozos are going through the process of un-doing their baptisms they received as children. I guess they feel a need to let everyone know that they are not Christians. Don’t worry atheists, we were on the up and up already. No one was mistaking you for believers.

Ten Vices That Are Good For You

From CNN.com comes a list of 10 vices that are good for you. I’m not sure some of the would be considered vices, such as eating dark chocolate, but it’s their list. This list includes sleeping, morning coffee, healthy sex (which only comes between a man and women who are lawfully married), drinking a glass of wine, etc. Like I said, in the proper context, none of these things are truly vices… except maybe the massage. But I’m open to debate on that one.

Houston Astros Will Return to the World Series by 2015

This, of course, is from the department of “we hope you don’t remember this prediction when 2015 rolls around.” But Richard Justice of the Houston Chronicle is saying with the recent draft picks and signees the Astros have made, that we should expect the team to return to the World Series by 2015. For those of us who are Astros fans, this is as about as hopeful as it gets. We’re not chanting, “wait till next year!” We’re chanting, “Wait for 5 years!” How is that for you?

As we wait, more and more of us are slowly becoming Rangers fans. By the time 2015 rolls around, the Rangers will have won a series or two.

Here is some of what Justice writes:

If you’re keeping count, the Astros have spent close to $20 million to bring 95 new players into their system the last two years.

This year, they’ve spent $10.7 million on 43 new guys, and who’s to say some of them aren’t as good as Lance Berkman, Roy Oswalt, etc.?

These aren’t your 2007 Astros. That was the year the club failed to sign three of its top six draft picks, leading, in part, to the front office overhaul in which Drayton McLane hired GM Ed Wade, who hired scouting director Bobby Heck, who doesn’t mess around.

Wade has succeeded in doing something his predecessors had a tough time with. That is, he has convinced McLane that the one and only way to build a successful big league franchise is by doing the right things in player development.

Once more, the Astros have done that. There are no guarantees with these young guys. If one of them turns out to be an All-Star and two more become contributors on playoff teams, it will have been a terrific draft.

But the first step is writing the big checks, and the Astros again did they. They shelled out $7.2 million to sign their 35 2010 draft picks. That’s a big jump from the $5.5 million they paid for 36 draft picks in 2009, most of that increase coming from picking higher.

They signed 35 of 52 picks in all, including 16 of the top 18. Let’s hope there are a half-dozen future All-Stars in that group.

Texas Ranks Best State to Recruit Running Backs for 2011

Bleacher Report does a great job putting together lists that compare various aspects of college sports. One such list gives us the top states for potential 2011 recruits at the running back position with the state at number 1. The State of Texas will offer up four running backs ranked as 5-star players, five running backs at 4-star players, and 15 running back with 3-star ratings. That is a bevy of backs and if they all stay in Texas schools, the collective offensive output should increase over the next few years. Given that offenses at schools like A&M, t.u., Texas Tech, etc., have all improved over the years, the years, the Texas schools would be unstoppable.

Thomas Sowell ON Bean Counters and the Baloney Put Forth as Racism

Sowell writes

The bean-counters have struck again– this time in the sports pages. Two New York Times sport writers have discovered that baseball coaches from minority groups are found more often coaching at first base than at third base. Moreover, third-base coaches become managers more often than first-base coaches.

This may seem to be just another passing piece of silliness. But it is part of a more general bean-counting mentality that turns statistical differences into grievances. The time is long overdue to throw this race card out of the deck and start seeing it for the gross fallacy that it is.

At the heart of such statistics is the implicit assumption that different races, sexes and other subdivisions of the human species would be proportionately represented in institutions, occupations and income brackets if there was not something strange or sinister going on.

I love it when Sowell addresses the issue of racism, because he puts it into perspective. He continues:

In countries around the world, all sorts of groups differ from each other in all sorts of ways, from rates of alcoholism to infant mortality, education and virtually everything that can be measured, as well as in some things that cannot be quantified. If black and white Americans were the same, they would be the only two groups on this planet who are the same.

One of the things that got us started on heavy-handed government regulation of the housing market were statistics showing that blacks were turned down for mortgage loans more often than whites. The bean-counters in the media went ballistic. It had to be racism, to hear them tell it.

What they didn’t tell you was that whites were turned down more often than Asians. What they also didn’t tell you was that black-owned banks also turned down blacks more often than whites. Nor did they tell you that credit scores differed from group to group. Instead, the media, the politicians and the regulators grabbed some statistics and ran with them.

The bean-counters are everywhere, pushing the idea that differences show injustices committed by society. As long as we keep buying it, they will keep selling it– and the polarization they create will sell this country down the river.

Read the entire article here.

Finally…

Only 14 more days until the Texas Aggies start their football season and their march to the return to supremacy!!!

Quick Round Up

Posted on by
2

Since Neil has been so busy, here is a quick round up!

Drudge Reports: Blow to O, Mo says No!

In other words, Missouri has told BHO “No!” when it comes to Obamacare. this is really good news. They had a popular vote on this issue and 70 percent of the people said “no.” This really is in his face.

“The citizens of the Show-Me State don’t want Washington involved in their health care decisions,” said Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, one of the sponsors of the legislation that put Proposition C on the August ballot. She credited a grass-roots campaign involving Tea Party and patriot groups with building support for the anti-Washington proposition.

Walter Williams weighs in on racial profiling.

Is an individual’s race or sex useful for guessing about other unseen characteristics? Suppose gambling becomes legal for an Olympic event such as the 100-meter sprint. I wouldn’t place a bet on an Asian or white runner. Why? Blacks who trace their ancestry to West Africa, including black Americans, hold more than 95 percent of the top times in sprinting. That’s not to say an Asian or white can never win but I know the correlations and I’m playing the odds. If women were permitted to be in the sprint event with men, I’d still put my money on a black male. Does that make me a sexist as well as a racist?

What about when a black hails a taxicab and the driver passes him up and picks up a white passenger down the street? Is that racism? Many people assume that it is but it might not be any different from a physician using race and sex as an estimator for some other characteristic. Ten years ago, a black D.C. commissioner warned cabbies, most of whom are black, against picking up dangerous-looking passengers. She described dangerous-looking as a “young black guy … with shirttail hanging down longer than his coat, baggy pants, unlaced tennis shoes.” She also warned cabbies to stay away from low-income black neighborhoods. Cabbies themselves have developed other profiling criteria.

There is no sense of justice or decency that a law-abiding black person should suffer the indignity being passed up. At the same time, a taxicab driver has a right to earn a living without being robbed, assaulted and possibly murdered. One of the methods to avoid victimization is to refuse to pick up certain passengers in certain neighborhoods or passengers thought to be destined for certain neighborhoods. Again, a black person is justifiably angered when refused service but that anger should be directed toward the criminals who prey on cabbies.

Not every choice based on race represents racism and if you think so, you risk misidentifying and confusing human behavior. The Rev. Jesse Jackson once said, “There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery — then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

Texas A&M May Still Go to the SEC in 2013

I found this over at the 12th Man website. Here’s hoping.

I just received an e-mail from a very trusted source who told me that A&M will be joining the SEC in 2013. This would be tremendous news if true. A progressive move like this from the administration would really shock me. The move to the SEC would change the recruiting dynamic in the state. It would allow A&M to offer Texans an in-state option to compete in the best conference in the country. If texas does not follow (which I do not expect them to do), then it would also separate the two schools in different conferences for the first time in their histories. I hope this information proves to be correct, because road trips to Baton Rouge, Gainesville, Starkville, and Tuscaloosa beat the hell out of Lubbock and Stillwater.

Best Pelosi Rendition

I had to throw some humor in there.

Agnostics Take On Atheists

Finally, there is commentary over at the Aquila Report by Al Mohler on the New Agnostics, who are as fervent about “non knowing” as the new atheists are about “knowing for certain there isn’t” a God. It is almost humorous to see the agnostics distancing themselves from the New Atheists. Mohler writes:

Huxley defined agnosticism in terms of his principle that no one should claim objective knowledge “unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.” In Huxley’s view, this principle of thought rules out any form of theism. At the same time, it supposedly renders atheism unnecessary. In the view of Huxley, atheism actually conceded too much to theism, for it seemed to allow that some adequate evidence for or against the existence of God might be brought forward.
Rosenbaum takes this argument a step forward. Atheists, he insists, actually “display a credulous and childlike faith, [and] worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence — the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence.”
Thus, Rosenbaum wants “a distinct identity for agnosticism, to hold it apart from the certitudes of both theism and atheism.” This is not a small project.
“Let’s get one thing straight,” he insists: “Agnosticism is not some kind of weak-tea atheism. Agnosticism is not atheism or theism. It is radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty, opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism and theism offer.”
At this point Rosenbaum’s argument gets really interesting. He accuses the New Atheists of intolerance and their own form of heresy-hunting, and ridicules them for their untenable faith that all the big questions can be answered with satisfaction by science. The New Atheists, he laments, “seemed to have stopped thinking since their early grade-school science fair triumphs.”

But don’t get too excited. The New Agnostics don’t like Theists either.