The Critical Danger of Unbelief

I had an interesting discussion with Matt Hadro on EWTN’s “Morning Glory” radio show about the rising number of “nones” in our country. When asked for their religious affiliation, “nones” do not identify themselves as atheists or agnostics, but rather check the “none” box. They tend to be dismissive of “organized” religion and generally believe that it is acceptable to construct a purely personal religious view and understanding of God.

Indeed, we live in times when many people make light of the fact that others do not believe in God or relegate their faith to a solely personal and largely irrelevant aspect of life. This attitude exists even among many Catholics who, though believers themselves, don’t seem to be overly concerned that others are not. What seems to be of greater concern to most believers—Catholics included—is that a person be “nice.” If a person is determined to be “nice,” little else seems to matter.

Frankly, all of us should be concerned by the rise of unbelief in our culture, whether it is atheism, agnosticism, “none-ism,” indifference, or the rampant secularism that relegates God to the margins. We should be concerned because unbelief on a wide scale (as is the case today) is not only unhealthy for a culture, it is dangerous to it.

This danger is fairly obvious when one considers that unbelievers (and most “under-believers” such as “nones”) think that they answer to no one. When one no longer acknowledges that God exists and sees everything, “reinvents” God, selects what he likes from what God has commanded, or doesn’t understand that he will ultimately have to answer to God for what he has or has not done, it is easy to ignore important aspects of the moral life.

Realizing that we will one day answer to God is an important reminder that we are not a law unto ourselves. The knowledge that we will not ultimately escape if we treat others with contempt, engage in serious injustice, live unchastely, or indulge greed, is an important curb on sin (or at least a call to repentance).

This observation does not mean that every unbeliever or “under-believer” lives a reprobate life. There are atheists who live exemplary lives, who exhibit natural virtues, whether they do so because it is to their benefit or simply because they have some ethical sense that comports with the right reason.

But, other things being equal, having large numbers of unbelievers who do not think that they are ultimately accountable for what they do or fail to do is never healthy to good order, morality, or virtue.

Further, when belief is lost by many, so is a common moral reference point. The Judeo-Christian moral view formed the basis for modern law, justice, constitutional rights, and ethics. While sectarian differences obviously existed in the country for 200 years before this rise of unbelief, there was basic agreement on the essential moral issues, based on a biblical worldview. The rise of unbelief has caused this moral consensus to break down. In its place there has arisen a tyranny of relativism, in which numbers matter more than reason. The one who wins is the one with the loudest megaphone, the most power, and the greatest influence.

This, too, is dangerous to a culture. Without a shared cultus, there can be no real culture. The word cultus refers to a reference point (God and His revelation) that is above and outside a culture, that is bigger and more lasting. Without that shared cultus, that devotion to someone higher, there can be no culture.

Today, when we cannot agree on what makes a marriage, or even on something as obvious as whether one is male or female, the tyranny is starting to resemble anarchy and nihilism. No culture can withstand such a basic undermining. Problems of this sort are civilization killers.

Thus, belief is not only important—it is critical. We cannot go on relegating this matter to the realm of the purely personal and largely irrelevant. Being “nice” is not enough. We must be accountable to God and see Him as authoritative in our life. If we are to survive we must do this, both individually and collectively.

The First Commandment says, I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me (Exodus 20:2). This is not some egocentric God, demanding worship and that He have no rivals. This is our loving Father, who knows what unbelief does to us. When we reject Him and/or turn to other gods, we are harmed immeasurably. We lose our way and inherit a lawless and confused world, in which the tyranny of relativism holds sway and no one thinks or acts as if he will one day answer for what he has and has not done.

Do not make light of the rampant unbelief in our world today. It is far more serious than most imagine. God commands the most serious things for our own well-being. The First Commandment is that we believe and that we call others to do the same. There is a reason that it is commandment number one!

Daniel 12:2
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

It would be reasonable to infer from this that:

Person A receives eternal life and person B doesn’t
Person B receives shame and Person A doesn’t.
Person B receives everlasting contempt and person A doesn’t.

This has something in common with Romans 6:23 and John 3:16. IT is a binary statement about two fates. One receives immortality and the other does not. When I listen to the bible for 2-3 hours a day for months on end, I am shocked at how often this occurs, especially in the new testament, all over scripture.

Once I gave CI serious consideration, a LOT of scripture that simply didn’t make sense suddenly came into clear focus.

The thing is, the bible is translated in English for me. That means it uses English words with actual dictionary meanings. I always had a hard time with some English words having “special meaning” for the bible only.

And one of the most interesting studies is to look at everywhere in the bible where it is translated “everlasting”, “eternal”, “forever and ever”, etc. You’ll find that in many cases it was actually describing a VERY finite event. It’s kinda like saying “Joe was a baseball player ‘forever’”, when what you mean is that the only career Joe had was being a baseball player.

I think a lot of the bible is “dog whistle” for believers, but a lot of people with an agenda have their own “dog whistles” in their interpretation. An example of the latter is when the word “death” doesn’t really mean death. And the former I believe is supported by all the scripture that discusses God confusing the wisdom of the wise, spreading His word through “fools” etc. I think of it as that old Yogi Berra comment about a certain restaurant: “Nobody goes there any more because it’s too crowded.” The “wise” person says, what a dolt. The statement is an oxymoron.” Yet you and I know exactly what Yogi was saying, because we are attuned to the frequency of the dog whistle.

Same thing with the ECT vs CI debate. I used to be ECT, but the more I read the bible, the less it meshed with the personality of the God of the bible. And when I read the very first article about CI (the one on FR in 2009 that I posted here), it caused me to further study the issue. I became an adherent to CI.

And again, what is fascinating is that when I accepted CI, suddenly everything meshed with the personality of the God of both old and new testaments.

But I’ve also become quite hostile to ECT. I believe it was created by “possibly” well meaning people a long time ago to “scare” people to God. It may be why the KJV discusses “fear” regarding our attitude toward God when a better translation would be “respect Him for who he is”. Kinda like “fearing” nuclear power or “fearing” the momentum of a fast moving truck. You don’t fear it. You respect it as quite powerful and able to do great good or great evil.

And that is another one. Evil. The KJV discussed God causing evil. But the word translated “evil” really means “bad thing happening”. So when God destroyed the two cities, He did a great “evil”, though what He did was not evil at all.

And this is also important: If you find yourself constantly returning to Revelation to get your doctrine, it may not be all that sound. It is a book steeped in symbolism. It is interesting that people think the second death is torture forever in a lake of fire, but they don’t argue that the seven churches are literal lamp stands.

And Jesus never mentioned Hell. He mentioned the garbage dump in the valley of Gehenna as an allegory of the lost essentially being “thrown away”. And his comments about the worm not dying and the fire not being quenched was to answer the idea that a lot of stuff in that dump is not totally destroyed because it’s hard to completely burn a body to where there is nothing left but ashes. Likewise the worms. But he makes it clear that in THIS case, they will do their work.

And about an unquenchable fire: It is not a fire that never goes out. Rather, it is a fire that you cannot put out. Think of a house on fire and there is no water nearby. You could call the fire unquenchable, because you can’t put it out. However, when it runs out of fuel, it will have done its job and go out on its own. Yeah, an unquenchable fire can still go out.

The biggest problem I have with ECT is that it is CRITICAL to “anti-Christians” that it is what the bible teaches. It is their biggest argument against the Christianity of a “loving” God. When you remove it, they fight bitterly so support ECT, lest they no longer can complain, effectively, of a “mean” God.

And some say, “but if death is all we are saved from, where is the incentive in following Christ.” Two things:
1. Is the message of Christ, “You’d better follow me or else!”. i.e. fear of what He’s gonna do to you. Or is the message of Christ called the good news because it is: The fate of man is the fate of Adam for eating of the fruit. Death. But I offer a better way. Follow me and receive immortality in my eternal kingdom!”

The latter is, in my opinion, the message of the whole bible.

When someone offers new teaching on old dogmas, searching the scripture is the high ground. This is why the Bereans were commended.

Paul wasn't preaching 'against old dogmas' he was showing Jesus Christ in the OT to the Jews. The source of 'dogmas' if you aren't Catholic is the Bible. So biblical dogmatism is the highest praise. God's Word has been searched. As for this issue, the destinations of believers and non-believers has been addressed by none other than the Judge Jesus Christ in Luke 16:19-31. Lazarus is Abraham's bosom, the rich man apart in torment.

Dogmatism is the refusal to even look at evidence contrary to your own viewpoint

Definition: dog·ma·tism ˈdôɡməˌtizəm/ noun the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others.

In this case, the Bible is the source of the Savior's view of hell, Jesus should know as He will be executing the judgement. The Bible has to be the source of the things of God, His is the only opinion that matters. It isn't my opinion, it is what God records in His Word. Apparently you would not agree that the destination of man righteous or not is in the purview of God. Post resurrection, in Revelations 14:9-12 hell is described. No service is done to the unchurched or weak brethren when the scriptural consequences of unbelief are artificially softened. Doing so is also an offense to the Gospel.

Dogmatism is the refusal to even look at evidence contrary to your own viewpoint Definition: dog·ma·tism ˈdôɡməˌtizəm/ noun the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others. In this case, the Bible is the source of the Savior's view of hell, Jesus should know as He will be executing the judgement. The Bible has to be the source of the things of God, His is the only opinion that matters. It isn't my opinion, it is what God records in His Word. --------------------------------------- I strongly agree that the Bible is the source of the Savior's view of the fate of the lost. However, Jesus doesn't speak of Hell. He speaks of Gehenna, which was a valley south and west of Jerusalem and a garbage dump. He is speaking allegorically. That's the thing. We agree that the bible is the source. What we disagree on in the interpretation of its content. The dogmatism is not adherence to the bible. The dogmatism is the adherence to a particular interpretation. This is also what the Jews were guilty of regarding the scriptures.But the Bereans abandoned dogma and actually tested Paul's words against scripture, and many were saved due to their acceptance of a new interpretation of what had been in front of them all along.

Post resurrection, in Revelations 14:9-12 hell is described. No service is done to the unchurched or weak brethren when the scriptural consequences of unbelief are artificially softened. Doing so is also an offense to the Gospel.

You say artificially softened. I say artificially hardened. You say potato, I say potahto. ;-)

I think a great service is done when the lost are offered this choice: Choose God because you DESIRE to enjoy eternal life in the presence of your Creator who gave His very life for the remission of your sins, or choose to be the god of your life and enjoy the life God gave you as outlined in Ecclesiastes.

I call it very good news and an excellent example of allowing man to, of his own free will, choose Christ.

I think a very bad service is done when the lost are offered this choice: Choose God because you FEAR a terrible and unimaginable future where he will torture you in ways unimaginable for eon upon countless eons because of the crime of not really paying attention enough to believe he can and will do it. He will make Pol Pot and Stalin look like pikers.

I would not call that “good news”. I would call it coersion. That is not the message I see in the bible. Anywhere.

I call it very good news and an excellent example of allowing man to, of his own free will, choose Christ.

That's great, but the whole counsel of God reminds us that by himself man will never choose life. So we come from different places. I prefer the biblical stance you not as much at least where the Bible describes the difference between evil and good, light and darkness, how stark it is, how defined how final.

I would not call that “good news”. I would call it coersion. That is not the message I see in the bible. Anywhere.

Hell is Law, not Gospel. You are not rightly dividing the Word. No 'coercion' in the Bible? Elijah and the prophets of Baal. God vs Pharoah, Adam and Eve from the Garden, the jumbling of tongues on the plains of Shinar, etc.

think a very bad service is done when the lost are offered this choice: Choose God because you FEAR a terrible and unimaginable future

Fear God? Prov 9:10. The purpose of the Law, understanding of sin, basic lessons before the glory of the Gospel can be appreciated. Without sin, who needs God? Your methodology removes that fear of the Lord because the worst that will happen is I'll die, there is no afterlife, days of Noah Part deux. There's a bright tomorrow. Hope for the future. The belief in no afterlife, the dream of Satan.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.