No More Debate — Reflections on the Death of Christopher Hitchens

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.

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “No More Debate — Reflections on the Death of Christopher Hitchens

  1. “This is so true whenever one of these atheists die. The debate is over. There is no more discussion.”

    Of course not. They’re dead and gone. For them, there’s no more anything.

    “but their protests are merely confirmations of the reality that they know God does exist.”

    No they aren’t.

    But if it makes you feel better to think that, go right ahead.

    Like

  2. Hello Not.
    Why do you bother? You know the drill. I will appeal to authority, you will deny that authority, claiming your opinion is your authority and my authority is mere opinion and we have come no closer to agreement at all. If there were no God, then atheists wouldn’t be bending over backwards to prove He is not there. But the authority of God’s word declares that they know there is a God, therefore, they dispute the claim even more so. And if there is no more existence for Hitchens, then why are you bothered by my claims in saying that there is?

    As for evidence, we have that evidence in that God became flesh and dwelt among us. The testimony of historical evidence is on our side. The testimony of God not existing, since one cannot prove a negative, is not on your side. God has spoke, through His Son and in His word. Your denial of that truth doesn’t discredit the validity of that truth at all. What you must prove is that the resurrection of Christ didn’t take place. Then, you might have a case.

    Like

  3. Great article!!! So sad to know that he had hardened his heart to such a point that he is in hell but our LORD put all sorts of people into his life to speak truth to him. He would have been miserable in heaven for he hates JESUS CHRIST so GOD is merciful to him in a way that we do not understand by allowing him to go to hell.

    Like

  4. Hi Lucy,
    It is sad. For him to know the truth, probably better than some Christians, and he still rejected it as far as we know. One thing is for certain, he cannot claim that God wasn’t “fair.”
    Blessings

    Like

  5. “but their protests are merely confirmations of the reality that they know God does exist.”

    Has the insane logical distortion of this sentence occurred to you yet?

    Claiming that every time his arguing the non-existence of God was actually his displaying that he knows God exists makes me think of childish arguments and word-games like ‘Opposite Tuesday’ and ‘You’re X, full-stop, no erasing, no mirror’. If you get my reference. Children have those here in Australia.

    I’ll restate it plainly:

    When a person says they don’t believe a god exists, it really, really does mean they don’t believe a god exists. Not the exact opposite.

    “The atheists knows judgment awaits them and the outcome is not good.”

    I’ll preface this by saying that I implore you not to do a complete reverse interpretation of my following statement:

    I’m an atheist, therefore I know judgement isn’t coming. Not for a provable fact, but In the exact same way you know you’re not going to be pagan-reincarnated, or Viking-received-into-the-halls-of-Valhalla.

    Lastly, on the issue of burden of proof, I will paraphrase the great man himself. (Christopher Hitchens, that is).

    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, those claims that are put forward without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

    Since you are the one making the claims of gods, heavens, miracles, resurrections and judgements being true, you must provide evidences of these.

    True, I can no more provide evidence that God doesn’t exist, than you can that unicorns or fairies don’t exist. Inability to disprove existence is absolutely NO grounds for belief. None. Zero.

    Like

    1. Hi Wranger,
      I’m arguing from the point of what Scripture says about man, not what atheists or man say about man. Romans 1-2 show that man has a conscience given to them by God, therefore they are without excuse in their denials and their sin. Since you deny the truth of Scripture, I don’t expect you to every accept my arguments for His existence.

      As for my claims that I saying He exists, and there being no proof, again, proof has been given, but you have neither the ears nor the eyes to see that proof. Therefore, we are at an impasse.

      Like

  6. No, not at all. It’s not blind faith, but faith in the truth, person, and work of Christ. Our faith isn’t uninformed either, which is often a charge laid against us. We are to know His word, believe it and trust in Him for our salvation. The faith aspect is the confirmation of these truths for those who believe and are saved.

    Like

  7. BTW, we all have faith in something. The scientist has faith in evolution, since there is no evidence to support the claims. The passenger has faith in the pilot of an airplane when he boards that plane, we have faith in the engineers of a bridge when we cross it. The question is: what are we trusting in for salvation?

    Like

    1. Scientists do not have faith in evolution, per se, because it’s based in dependable, tangible, currently irrefutable evidence. That is not faith, that’s fact. A passenger does not have faith in a pilot, they have confidence in their training, and it’s not even complete confidence all the time, hence nerves about flying. There’s room for doubt.

      Do you have doubt? If not, then it’s faith, which is blind.

      Like

      1. Wranger,
        You cannot claim the evidence for evolution is fact. Even leading evolutionists have admitted as such. Evolution is still only a theory. There are a lot of things that scientist try to point to in order to verify the theory, but again, it hasn’t been proven scientifically. This is why it is a faith system.

        Like

      2. Evolution is “still only a theory” in the same way that gravity and quantum mechanics are “still only theories”.

        There are two different definitions of theory, there’s the colloquial theory which is basically just somebody’s idea, and the scientific theory, which is a hypothesis that fits with all the evidence that exists, and is essentially factual until new evidence proves it wrong.

        What’s interesting to note about Darwin’s observations of evolution was that he made them during the time in history before modern genetics as a field of science, even existed. Therefore, his theories he subsequently promoted based on those observations, were unprovable until the arrival of modern genetics. When it did arrive, all of his theories were perfectly corroborated, proving that his formulas were sound.

        So what exactly is the evidence you claim to have that, out of the thousands, if not infinite gods that exist, you’ve made the precisely correct style of mental capitulations to this deity? What makes your faith in God have a stronger factual basis than a Viking’s faith in Wotan, or a Grecian’s faith in Zeus?

        I would posit that you don’t have one, which is fine, simply concede that it’s blind faith.

        Like

  8. And the word became flesh, and dwelt among us…

    Jesus Christ walked the earth and became human on our behalf. He lived the perfect life, was crucified by the Pharisees, and Pontius Pilate as was raise from the dead on the third day, witnessed by more than 500 people. It’s historical evidence… it is not blind faith.

    Like

      1. The Apostle Paul wrote of the 500 witnesses, he was the last.
        The Apostles Matthew, Mark and John were all eyewitnesses and wrote their gospels stating as such. Luke wrote his gospel and worked with the Apostle Paul.

        The writers of the New Testament all wrote in Greek, and we have plenty of copies of the manuscripts to show the truthfulness of the words written. We have copies of manuscripts dating to as early into the Second Century, only a few years after John’s death.

        Of all the manuscripts we have, more than 10,000, none of the variations in them amount to a single change in Christian doctrine at all. The reliability is certain and can be trusted. We know Greek and Hebrew and can read the manuscripts for ourselves. While we have many translations, they stem from the original language and so there is no loss of meaning.

        There is more to this subject than I can give, but even non-Christians scholars agree to what we have been given is authentic. They don’t believe what is given, but agree in its reliability.

        Like

    1. No. I’m saying there is no evidence for evolution. If there were, other than simple implications, we would be celebrating the scientist with honorary days and celebrations every year for the man who “proved” evolution. Science cannot prove evolution. It’s still a theory, and still has not been proven even though the entire scientific community (which it is not), holds hands, sings kumbaya for conseses and tells all the kiddies in school that it is “fact.”

      It’s not fact. It has not been proven. It is still a faith-based system of belief.

      Yes, there is more evidence for the resurrection of Christ than for evolution. However, the evidence is historical evidence, not scientific evidence.

      Like

      1. I wasn’t really aware that people in the educated world were still defying the entire field of evolutionary biology, I thought ‘the dinosaur bones were put in the ground by God to test us’ position was more-or-less dropped a decade or two ago.

        You refuse to acknowledge the existence of any of the countless evidences for evolution, just off the top of my head: the Burgess Shale, DNA tests that reveal we share ~95% of our DNA with chimpanzees, the coat of fur we grow and then shed in the womb before birth, vestige of our departed lives in the Sahara, citing that not only are these things not evidence, but even refusing to admit they exist? Instead you choose to rely on…

        “the evidence is historical evidence, not scientific evidence.”

        …the eye-witness testimony of Bronze Age desert farmers?!

        Which I imagine must be really compelling, and would now actually like to hear about, in specific detail, if you’d care to share.

        Like

  9. “…the eye-witness testimony of Bronze Age desert farmers?!”

    This shows your ignorance of the First Century Jewish culture, and the disciples, since none of them were farmers. This also shows you have fallen for the arrogance of modernity, i.e., how could people living in the First Century know more than we do? After all, we have iMacs.

    Yet, here we are with the problem. God chose to reveal Himself to those people of the First Century to be His witnesses and apostles. You can either trust Him and His decisions, or your scientist and their DNA.

    Like

    1. 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.

      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.

      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.”

      Like

  10. Pingback: The Arrogance of Modernity in Full View | Timothy J. Hammons

Comments are closed.