Isaac Newton and Theology

[Faithful Witness]

Here's a YouTube video on the Theology of the great physicist Sir Isaac Newton, the man who invented calculus, formulated a way to calculate the force of gravity and brought us to an increased understanding on the composition of light. What amazes me is that the greatest scientists are usually the ones who have a proper motive for doing their investigations that in turn lead to amazing discoveries, the motive of getting to know the mind of their creator.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1rxUQdANnnlFldi4wHLP9AY2JdQu4tmi&params=OAFIAVgI&v=ii2ljTqKxR0&mode=NORMAL

Edited August 29, 2015 by Faithful Witness

[hatcheckgirl]

Very interesting points:

• Newton believed that Jesus was created, not of the same divinity as God
• God ruled the universe by mathematics
• He rejected the trinity
• He wrote commentaries on some Bible books, and was very interested in prophesy, particularly Daniel
• He would have been seen as a heretic due to his views, but didn't publish these private views
• Like other early scientists, Newton's motivation for studying mathematics and science was to see what light that would shed on the Creator of the universe he was studying

[CHecker]

This is a fascinating subject. I hope there are more comments, more details.

[outwalkin]

This is a fascinating subject. I hope there are more comments, more details.

 

Type in "Isaac Newton" in the WT Library. Good info.

[Tortuga]

This is a fascinating subject. I hope there are more comments, more details.

 

Well, I heard that if Issac Newton has an earthly resurrection and sits under his own fig tree, he would make fig newtons, but that hasn't been confirmed yet...

[pnutts]

here is a still active link on wikipedia. I looked at it a couple of years ago.  Some of his ideas were slightly off

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton

[Witness1970]

This is a fascinating subject. I hope there are more comments, more details.

Newton knew that there was no immortal soul.

He believed that there would be associate rulers with Christ. He believed that Christ and these rulers would rule invisibly, but felt that they could appear visibly if necessary just as Jesus appeared visibly on occasion after his resurrection. He never set the number as 144,000.

Newton stated that the truth would not be fully understood until the time of the end. He said that his time was not the time of the end because the trinity doctrine was so entrenched. He said there would be a preaching work in the time of the end. He also believed that the preaching work would be a great work because he said that the great multitude in revelation would require a great preaching work.

His office at the University required that he be ordained in the priesthood. He put this off for years and than wrote to the king to avoid doing this. It is said he was ready to give up the post if necessary. The king changed the law so that hewas not required to be ordained.

He refused death bed absolution. He obviously had left the church behind.

He misunderstood the scripture in revelation and thought there would be further resurrection after the 1,000 years.

[CHecker]

Well, I heard that if Issac Newton has an earthly resurrection and sits under his own fig tree, he would make fig newtons, but that hasn't been confirmed yet...

Richard, Richard....can count on you looking to the sunny side of things! That was down right funny.

[hatcheckgirl]

I was thinking of the contrast with Newton and later scientists of the "enlightenment" age like Darwin.  Newton did not succumb to the lies of the religious leaders of his day, but took Bible study seriously and saw the study of science as a way of revealing the Creator.  A lot how we view it too.

 

By Darwin's time, religious lies including the doctrines of the trinity, immortality of the soul and the rampant materialism of the churches had caused many to stop looking into the Bible and it was easy then to just step into the intellectual pursuits of the enlightened age and reject God.  So, if Darwin had made his discoveries without the bad example of religion, who knows if he would have interpreted his findings in a similar slant to Newton - as revealing the Creator of all these species, rather than formulating the impossibly vague theory that became the gold standard of scientific knowledge. 

 

Now anyone who disputes evolution is in a similar position to Newton, who had to keep his opinions regarding his disbelief in the trinity private so as not to be branded a heretic.

[Witness1970]

One problem I have noted in commentaries about Newton is the attempt to classify him. Because of the environment he lived in he couldn't speak openly about his beliefs without repercussions, so they called him a Nicodemite. Because he realized that the trinity was a false teaching he was called an Arian. Because he knew that the teaching of the immortal soul was false he was called by a name that I would have to look up again. Because he knew that an apostasy had started after the death of the Apostles and he claimed that the truth would not be understood until the "time of the end" he has been compared to the Morons (Oops, I mean Mormons).

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

Edited September 6, 2015 by Witness1970

[RaymondG]

There is an opposite path to the one Newton took, of course...

In the Middle Ages there were others who looked at the bible with an enquiring mind, but not all of them acted on what they came to understand. It was easier to go along with the church and reap the reward of being well paid from the riches the church was drawing from the masses.

The penalty for not going along with the church, of course, was often death. This is why Newton kept some of his writings secret.

Would we have done the same if it had been us?

[Witness1970]

There is an opposite path to the one Newton took, of course...

In the Middle Ages there were others who looked at the bible with an enquiring mind, but not all of them acted on what they came to understand. It was easier to go along with the church and reap the reward of being well paid from the riches the church was drawing from the masses.

The penalty for not going along with the church, of course, was often death. This is why Newton kept some of his writings secret.

Would we have done the same if it had been us?

In times of persecution things have to be done secretly.  Newton spoke to certain individuals whom he knew would not turn him over to authorities.  I think that would be necessary.  But the preaching work has to be done to fulfill God's will.  Of course, if you do things the wrong way you could end up locked away or being executed.  Better to take care and only talk when it is safe.

[carlos]

Well, in Newton's time, heretics were no longer being burned alive in England.  This was the 17th century, the Renaissance, not the dark ages anymore.

 

Newton even published some books during his lifetime explaining some of his religious ideas. Besides, he was not just another run-of-the-mill guy, but a well-respected scientist and scholar and even a member of Parliament. He was well-connected with friends in high places. When he had some conflicts with the Church, the king himself supported him. So even if he ruffled some feathers, it was not likely that the ecclesiastical hierarchies would want to mess with him.

[Witness1970]

Well, in Newton's time, heretics were no longer being burned alive in England. This was the 17th century, the Renaissance, not the dark ages anymore.

Newton even published some books during his lifetime explaining some of his religious ideas. Besides, he was not just another run-of-the-mill guy, but a well-respected scientist and scholar and even a member of Parliament. He was well-connected with friends in high places. When he had some conflicts with the Church, the king himself supported him. So even if he ruffled some feathers, it was not likely that the ecclesiastical hierarchies would want to mess with him.

I was not sure of thevtiming. I did not know how bad it was in Newton's day. It is hard to put myself in his time and know exactly what I would do or how careful I would have to be.

As I understand it the church still had a lot of power with a lot of people.

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[carlos]

I was not sure of thevtiming. I did not know how bad it was in Newton's day. It is hard to put myself in his time and know exactly what I would do or how careful I would have to be.

As I understand it the church still had a lot of power with a lot of people.

 

I just meant to put a little context. He didn't risk being burned at the stake as others were in previous centuries. But still it required a lot of courage to publicly contradict the powerful ecclesiastical hierarchies. And had the king not supported him, he would have lost his job and his scientific career.

[Witness1970]

I just meant to put a little context. He didn't risk being burned at the stake as others were in previous centuries. But still it required a lot of courage to publicly contradict the powerful ecclesiastical hierarchies. And had the king not supported him, he would have lost his job and his scientific career.

Thank you for that information.

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[RaymondG]

The trinity was, as I understand it, one thing about which he never published his views...

 

Even today we find people who erupt when the trinity is questioned. It's a real lynchpin in some peoples' beliefs.

[Witness1970]

When I mentioned execution in my earlier post I was thinking of brothers under persecution in the last century that have been executed as well as ones throughout history that have been executed.

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[Witness1970]

The trinity was, as I understand it, one thing about which he never published his views...

Even today we find people who erupt when the trinity is questioned. It's a real lynchpin in some peoples' beliefs.

Another thing that he never published was his feeling about the church. He avoided being ordained by going to the king. And he refused deathbed absolution when he was dying. It appears that he had separated from Babylon the Great even though I have seen nothing that states that he actually understood what Babylon the Great actually was. I have not read everything available that he wrote.

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[carlos]

I am translating into Spanish a book he wrote about Daniel's and Revelation's prophecies:

http://publicdomainreview.org/collections/sir-isaac-newtons-daniel-and-the-apocalypse-1733/

 

I absolutely recommend reading the first chapter where he reasons on who wrote every part of the Scriptures. The rest of the book is packed with historical details and may result boring and hard to follow, but the first chapter is a complete delight.

[Witness1970]

The trinity was, as I understand it, one thing about which he never published his views...

Even today we find people who erupt when the trinity is questioned. It's a real lynchpin in some peoples' beliefs.

I recently read that he considered the Great Harlot to be the Catholic Church. That is something that a lot of people want to believe. A little short sighted though.

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk