Polemical – Treasure in Earthen Vessel

PRIDE Month – Indeed!

Yes, to insist on an identity other than male and female is to go against God and His intention for human flourishing. But there is grace even for those who are deep in that rebellion. So let Christians be convictional in their rejection of this moral insanity. But let them be compassionate for even of such is the grace of Jesus Christ.

It is Pride Month. It is that season of the year when the world celebrates society’s rejection of God’s created binary sexuality of Male and Female. Do they even need a month for it? They celebrate it almost everyday! But no label could have been more apt for such a celebration. It is PRIDE!

What else is it when one thinks he/she can sweep aside millennia of wisdom that always thought of humanity as male and female? What else is it when anyone, against the inflexible reality of his/her biological nature, professes he/she can be the opposite by just the decision of the mind? And all the world must accept it, nay, celebrate it. Otherwise, the ever-present threat is to be cancelled.

Of course, that is all they can do. They will not win in a fair debate where both sides are heard. If the side of binary conviction is even given a hearing, the LGBTQ position will shrivel in its own self-defeating insanity. So, they have no choice but to cancel, rather than engage in debate.

But there are now signs that some conservatives are waking to their hidden power. For after all, reason still triumphs over moral insanity. When conservatives, in their moral rage, say “Enough is enough!” the moral insanity feels that power. Take Bud Light and Target. And just now, Elon Musk endorsed the Matt Walsh documentary, “What is a woman?” It happened after attempts to suppress it by the vestigial extreme progressives in Twitter.

Christians may share moral rage with conservatives of the political spectrum. But Christians have more to offer. In the language of Paul, in listing the unrighteous who will not inherit the kingdom of God, he includes: “nor homosexuals, nor sodomites.” But he does not end with a note of condemnation, but with the hope of salvation: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor. 6:9 – 11 NKJ)

Do not Pray for the Dead; But Prepare for Death

Thoughts for this day of remembering the dead

Should we pray for the dead?

“Please pray for the repose of his soul.” This is a very common request that one reads in scores of obituaries that are published every day. Accompanying that request may be a scheduled mass, or novena, for the deceased. Behind this is the practice of praying for the dead. This, of course, is rooted in the belief that, through prayers for the dead, there can be change in the course of the soul of the dead loved one. If this is a valid hope, nothing can be more loving than to spend time praying for the departed.

Is there a basis for this hope in the Word of God? The Roman Catholic Church, chief proponent of this practice, admits that this practice is linked with its notion of purgatory. In the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia entry in “Prayers for the Dead,” it asserts: “Catholic teaching regarding prayers for the dead is bound up inseparably with the doctrine of purgatory and the more general doctrine of the communion of the saints, which is an article of the Apostle’s Creed.” The practice of praying for the dead, by this assertion, stands or falls on the validity of the doctrine of purgatory.

This is not the place to refute this belief in a purgatory. Suffice it to say that this is what drove the Reformation of the 16^th century which led to the division of Catholics and Protestants. Catholic clerics used this doctrine to swindle the superstitious population of precious money on promise that the souls of their loved ones will spring from purgatory once the money rings on the coffer.

The Catholic doctrine of and practice of prayer for the dead is built on the sinking sand of lack of assurance. This is contrary to the assurance of the gospel and salvation that saving faith brings about. Lack of assurance is the fruit of salvation by human merit and works. Whereas assurance grows out of the certainty of the saving work of Christ received by faith. “Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (Heb. 7:25 NKJ). Salvation is not contingent on human works, but guaranteed by what Christ has accomplished.

The Bible teaches that death is the final closure of moral opportunity. The time to be saved is now. If salvation is not received now, there is no post-mortem salvation opportunity. “It is appointed to men to die once, and after this, the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

Prepare for a good death

The Puritans make a different emphasis that believers should be doing. That is to prepare to die in a way that is glorifying to God. This is, unfortunately, a well-nigh absent note. It may be generally because we do not want to discuss such an unpleasant subject as death – even among Christians. There is so much more amusement in life, that some are loathed to think of abandoning this in death. This is unrealistic.

No matter how silent we may be about dying, and studiously avoid its mention, we will still die. It is still the one appointment with providence that we cannot avoid. For the Puritans, the way to prepare for death is not only that one is assured of his salvation. It is, in the language of Paul, “with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death” (Phil. 1:20 NKJ).

Richard Baxter wrote the classic Dying Thoughts at a time that he was sick, and thought that he was dying. The Lord spared him then, but he bequeathed to the Church an immortal plea for believers not only to be sure of heaven. It is imperative that when we are close to death, we have a life and testimony that will point the living to the Lord we have served faithfully in our lives.

Will the Lord be magnified in our dying?

Baptist Day? I am a Baptist, but why I believe Baptists should reject this

This is a Baptist pastor’s reflection on the law mandating a Baptist Day.

It must be made clear that this position is not borne of any lack of zeal for the Christian cause and mission. On the contrary. It is borne of conviction that, for the Christian cause, the Church is to source it in the only Power it should seek. And it is not in the sword. It is in Heaven’s power available to the Church through the Word and Prayer. Indeed, it must be said that the present evangelical intoxication with politics explains much of the powerlessness of the institutional church.

Just before the conclusion of the 18^th Congress of the Philippines, it managed to get a legislation passed declaring every second Thursday of January as “Baptist Day.” As expected, the measure was met with celebration by many Baptists in the country. One enthused, “I thought I would never live to see this day!” It is taken as a great victory that government could pass a law in support of Baptists. Why would any Baptist be against it? I am a Baptist, and I am against this idea. I have a Baptist reason – which a good Baptist must always draw from the Scriptures. There is also the light of history.

Religious Freedom – Baptist Distinctive

A legislated Baptist Day violates one Baptist distinctive, namely, religious freedom. Religious freedom is not only the liberty of citizens to adopt their religious beliefs and affiliation. It is that, but Baptists have carried this further by underscoring the separation of Church and state. This means that one jurisdiction (state) should have no interference with the jurisdiction of the other (church). When the Founding Fathers of America were considering the building of their nation, they initially thought of recognizing a state church, patterned after much of nations in Europe, especially their colonial mother nation of England. The first choice was the Baptists. This would have been a lot superior to just a Baptist Day.

Baptists themselves, however, refused the distinction. It went against the grain of their long struggle in Europe for religious freedom. For what they suffered in a long period of persecution, they came to understand real freedom as not simply toleration of all religious beliefs, while government adopts a favored religious institution. Baptists learned that genuine religious freedom is only attained where government will have no interference with the church. In this, they differed with many of their brethren – Reformed and Presbyterian churches, to name some.

In America, under the able leadership of Isaac Backus (1724 – 1806), Baptists contended that religious freedom must mean no established Church should be adopted by government. Twenty-seven years after his death, the last state church was disestablished in Massachusetts in 1833. Historians recognize the role of Baptists in the ratifying of the very first amendment of the US Constitution that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The Christian History Journal [ Issue # 6 “The Baptists” ] notes:

Although Baptists cannot claim all the credit for the triumph of religious liberty and separation of church and state in the United States, they played a key role throughout the nearly two-century struggle to enshrine these principles in the nation’s basic documents of freedom. As Anson Phelps Stokes, perhaps the most renowned church-state historian of this century wrote, ‘No denomination has its roots more firmly planted in the soil of religious freedom and Church-State separation than the Baptists. On the other hand, George W. Truett, in an historic address on the subject delivered in 1920 from the steps of the U.S. Capitol, called religious liberty ‘the supreme contribution’ of America to the rest of the world, and declared that ‘historic justice compels me to say that it was preeminently a Baptist contribution.’ Because religious liberty is the chief contribution Baptists have made to the social teaching of the church, and because its continuity is essential to proper church-state relations, each generation of Baptists is obligated to contend for it and to extend it to the next generation.

The champion of this separation of Church and State was Thomas Jefferson, a Founding Father and the third president of the United States. He was no Baptist; was not even an Evangelical Christian. But he had keen insight into the meaning of separation of Church and State. In his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists on New Year’s Day of 1802, his words became precedent-setting:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Power of the Church

There is just one more objection I must raise. Dependence on government for the advance of the Church betrays the lack of confidence in the only source of power for the Church – the Holy Spirit through the gospel of Christ. It must be made clear that this position is not borne of any lack of zeal for the Christian cause and mission. On the contrary. It is borne of conviction that, for the Christian cause, the Church is to source it in the only Power it should seek. And it is not in the sword. It is in Heaven’s power available to the Church through the Word and Prayer. Indeed, it must be said that the present evangelical intoxication with politics explains much of the powerlessness of the institutional church. It must be held with conviction that what we seek is the same as Paul’s: “Our gospel came to you, not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit with full conviction” (1 Thessalonians 1:5).

Our Baptist forbears flourished without seeking the assistance and interference of government on their behalf. Are we now to turn this around, and re-enter via the backdoor, seeking the interference of government? Does government have any power to make a particular day religious by legislated imposition? I say ‘No!’ That is why I reject the proposition that government may declare a Baptist Day.

Freedom of the Press

Press Freedom quote

It is the press that has the mandate of not only informing the people of events in society, but also to check official announcements and policies. This it does by having competent people who check the facts and report on views other than that of government. In the course of doing this, as human beings they make mistakes. News can be faked by irresponsible journalists. There are laws that the press may not violate in the name of freedom of expression. Defamation law covers false statements made in writing that destroy the reputation of the innocent.

But this is not a reason to muzzle the press.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte imposed a ban of coverage on Rappler News, a news social media sharply critical of the President. More than ten cases were filed against Maria Ressa, Rappler’s chief editor and her staff – cases that many perceive are at the instigation of the president. The President threatened to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to arrest his media critics. The ban on Rappler has been in effect for fourteen months when its correspondents filed a petition to the Supreme Court seeking to end the ban. The petition argues that the coverage ban violates constitutional guarantees of a free press, free speech, equal protection and due process. This is now a significant press freedom test case. Should Christians care?

Christians should very much care. Intimately linked with freedom of the press is freedom of religion. Because Christians care very much about the latter, they should care as much for freedom of the press. The battle for freedom of religion was a long and bloody history. The American Pilgrim Fathers crossed the Atlantic to escape persecution in England. They founded New England in America. America became the birthplace of the concept of separation of church and state. It was the Baptists who had led in the advocacy, and had suffered most in the cause, of freedom of religion. 18^th century Baptist theologian Andrew Fuller summarizes the Baptist position thus,

In former times liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment in matters of religion were denied both by ecclesiastics and politicians. Of late they have been very generally admitted, and much has been said and written in their defense… The right of private judgment in matters of religion appears to be the right which every individual has to think and to avow his thoughts on those subjects, without being liable to any civil inconvenience on that account.[1]

Freedom of religion can only be sustained where there is freedom to express oneself. This is where freedom of the press matters most. It is the press that has the mandate of not only informing the people of events in society, but also to check official announcements and policies. This it does by having competent people who check the facts and report on views other than those of government. In the course of doing this, as human beings they make mistakes. News can be faked by irresponsible journalists. There are laws that the press may not violate in the name of freedom of expression. Defamation law covers false statements made in writing that destroy the reputation of the innocent.

But this is not a reason to muzzle the press. There is a 1964 landmark legal case in the US Supreme Court known as New York Times vs. Sullivan. The New York Times published a report that ultimately was proved false. L.B. Sullivan, the city official who was the aggrieved party, sued the newspaper and a local jury awarded him a big sum. It was raised to the Supreme Court which reversed the local court. It established that even false statements by the press should not be liable to prosecution, if the statement is made in good faith, and not out of malice. Establishing malice made it almost unprosecutable. But this right to make a false statement in good faith must be protected if the basic right of public discourse is to have the “breathing space” it needs to survive.[2]

This is similar to freedom of religion in that even those who teach false doctrines should have protected freedom to do so. Even as Christians detest what is taught, we counter it with the truth of the Scriptures. But to prosecute religious teachers because their teachings are deemed as damning will only come back later to the teachers of the truth. False teachers will have their judgment from God. But let society have freedom for all religious discourses. That way, truth will have its converts.

I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim. 2:1-4)

Using the enormous power of the presidency to harass his critics in the press is demeaning of the President and of his office. He does not have the principled stance of Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States, who said: Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.

These are trying times to endure a presidency that has lost decency.

[1] The Works of Andrew Fuller (First published in 1841; Banner of Truth edition, 2007): 829

[2] Michael Trachtman, The Supremes’ Greatest Hits: The 37 Supreme Court Cases That Most Directly Affect Your Life: 162-165

Providence – not Superstition – for 2019

Providence

Trust is believing that ultimately God’s purpose will prevail – even amidst the apparent triumph of evil and when good seems so overwhelmed. God is working out His purpose. Even when we are hard of seeing and hearing how it happens, it will have its victory.

It is that time of the year – the old one concluding, and a new one beginning – when superstitions and pseudo-sciences are at their peak of influence and following. Polka dots and round fruits to represent wealth. Preference for pasta to symbolize long life. Feng Shui to manipulate good energies. Zodiac and Chinese calendar-cycle to divine the secret charm of the coming year. The options are numerous. Each is an exercise in false hope.

A well-instructed Christian will not give credence to any of these superstitions. It is not because the Christian’s alternative is fatalism. A what-will-be-will-be attitude is not Christian at all. Certainly, it is not according to the Word of God. A Christian is as much concerned as anyone else for the new year’s prospect. He has his expectations. He hopes. But he holds steadfastly to something more certain than superstitions. It is called providence of God.

Concept of Providence

It is not a word that is commonly used in the English Bible. In the KJV, it only occurs once (Acts 24:2), and there it only means the foresight of Felix’s leadership. The one time it occurs in the NIV is closer to our sense, in Job 10:12, You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit. But while sparse in occurrence, the idea pervades biblical thought. In systematic theology, providence is put under the category of the works of God – after His predestination and creation. Where predestination is the plan of God from eternity past (also called decrees), providence is the execution of the plan in time and history. In the simple assertion of Reformed theologian Hermann Bavinck, “according to Scripture and the church’s confession, providence is that act of God by which from moment to moment he preserves and governs all things.” [ Hermann Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol 2: p. 596 ]

The pervasive “all things” in the coverage of providence is intended to spare nothing from God’s governing control. All created things are in the two modes of either remaining in the same state, or changing into another state – in philosophical language, being or becoming. Belief in providence holds that all states of being remain as they are by the preservation and provision of God. As Nehemiah exalts God: You alone are the LORD; You have made heaven, The heaven of heavens, with all their host, The earth and everything on it, The seas and all that is in them, And You preserve them all (Neh 9:6). Even the changes, the becoming, are directed by the purpose of God. In contrast with the pagan deities, the prophet asserts, The LORD of hosts has sworn, saying, “Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass, And as I have purposed, so it shall stand…” For the LORD of hosts has purposed, And who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, And who will turn it back? (Isa 14:24, 27).

Theologian GC Berkouwer summarizes, “All things, having once proceeded from God’s creative hand, are still utterly dependent upon his omnipresent power… all things are indebted for their existence to the preserving act of God; let God cease to act and the universe will cease to exist. This concept of sustenance opposes every claimant to absoluteness in this world – gods and idols, and any who would autonomously and sovereignly pretend to a self-sufficient existence.” [ G.C. Berkouwer, The Providence of God: p. 50 ]

The assertion of Scriptures is as emphatic when it pertains to God’s providence in the affairs of mankind – human actions and intentions. This happens without any infringement of man’s moral accountability and responsibility. When men do the evil, the culpability is theirs; but even the evil does not happen outside God’s providential purpose. Sometimes, God restrains the evil (Gen 20:6); and at other times, He lets loose man’s own evil devices, So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices (Psa 81:12). In this, humans remain ‘free agents’ in their actions. Their will is not coerced contrary to their nature. Providence must not be stretched to the denial of human freedom and moral responsibility. In the language of the Confession, “God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.” [ 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith: IX. 1 ].

Use of Providence

How are we to use the concept of God’s providence in facing the prospect of 2019?

It is a corrective to the heavy emphasis on the miraculous and spectacular. A dominant faction in Christian circles has inculcated the expectation that God’s acts of power are to be seen in the miraculous and supernatural. Its effect is the impoverishment of faith – reducing it to a magical formula that is more pagan than Christian. Many are blind to the wonder of providence that is often hidden in ordinary motions – human or natural. The 19^th century English preacher, CH Spurgeon, puts it eloquently:

Everything is in the Divine purpose, and has been ordered by Divine wisdom. All the events of your life – the greater, certainly; and the smaller, with equal certainty. It is impossible to draw a line in Providence and say this is arranged by Providence and that is not. God’s Providence takes everything in its sweep- all that happens. Divine Providence determines not only the movement of a star, but the blowing of a grain of dust along the public road. God’s Providence knows nothing of things so little as to be beneath its notice, nothing of things so great as to be beyond its control. Nothing is too little or too great for God to rule and overrule. [ Spurgeon’s Sermons “The Hairs of Your Head Numbered” #2005. Mt.10:30 ]

It is an inspiration to the real challenge of faith – to trust in God. In his book, Trusting God, author Jerry Bridges makes an impressive comparison between obeying God’s commands and trusting God in our circumstances.

Why is it easier to obey God than to trust Him? Because obeying God makes sense to us… But the circumstances we often find ourselves in defy explanation. When unexpected situations arise that appear unjust, irrational, or even dreadful, we feel confused and frustrated. And before long we begin to doubt God’s concern for us and His control of our lives. [ Jerry Bridges, Trusting God: ch 1; from the back cover ]

Despite appearances to the contrary, the world historical process is going somewhere. God is directing human affairs to the final revelation of his sovereignty and reordering of the universe in the new heaven and the new earth. In his time, God will act decisively. And even now he invites us to orient our lives around his ongoing program. By means of allegiance to God revealed in Christ we can exchange the disorder of life for a new order marked by community or fellowship with God, others, and all creation. [ Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God: 123 ]

Believing in God’s providence, we can own the language of the Heidelberg Catechism (1563):

Q28: What does it profit us to know that God created and by His providence upholds all things?

A28: That we may be patient in adversity, thankful in prosperity, and for what is future have good confidence in our faithful God and Father, that no creature shall separate us from His love, since all creatures are so in His hand, that without His will they cannot so much as move.

What a comfort the providence of God truly is! May it be the foundation of your hope in 2019. A God-blessed New Year to all!

Born of a Virgin? Why?

Isa 7 14

The wonder is not how finite man is made into a divine; rather, it is the infinitely divine becoming genuinely human – new-born infant!

In what could be the earliest confessional statement of the Church outside of the New Testament, the Apostles’ Creed affirms of Jesus in its third line, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary. This is a confession that goes back to the two birth narratives of the Gospels – Matthew 1:18 – 23 and Luke 1:26 – 38. All of orthodox Christendom affirms the virgin conception of Jesus. Why is this significant?

Roman Catholics use this as a basis for the exaltation of Mary in their hierarchy of saints. One must not dismiss this lightly. The recognition of Mary is pronounced in the Lukan narrative. The angel called her, from the well-known KJV translation, blessed among women! (Luke 1:28). Mary herself, conscious of the implication of her favor, said: behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed (1:48).

What must be rejected is the excess to which this Mary-exaltation in the Roman Church was carried. Dogmas developed that gave Mary a position contrary to her original status as a humble maid of Galilee. This includes Pope Pius IX’s declaration of Immaculate Conception as church dogma in 1854. This certainly is against Mary’s confession of God as my Saviour in the Magnificat (Luke 1:47) – owning her need of salvation as herself a sinner. She acknowledges herself as beneficiary of God’s mercy (1:50). One should also deny the tradition of perpetual virginity – to which even some reformers subscribed. It is expressive more of the medieval disdain for sexual union than a serious theological deduction. The time-reference of Matthew should be significant: Joseph took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son (Matthew 1:24, 25). Mary’s role as a dutiful wife would have normalized after the birth of Jesus.

So why was Jesus conceived of a virgin? Jesus’ was not the only miraculous birth. Even Luke’s narrative of Jesus’ birth was preceded by the account of the conception of Elizabeth leading to the birth of John the Baptist. But all other such miraculous births were of married women who could not be pregnant, or of mothers past their pregnancy age. Such was Sarah’s birth of Isaac. The case of Jesus was unique as the only case of conception by one who was a virgin. Was it necessary? For what?

Continuity and Discontinuity

As the Son of God was to become Man, his humanity must be continuous with the humanity that then existed. He cannot be like Adam, created from the dust, without human parentage. The becoming-Man of the Son of God was to be an act of sharing with flesh and blood (Heb 2:14). Thus, the conceiving by Mary gave him his human substance. The begetting was by the Holy Spirit, but all the conceiving was by Mary. Everything in the process of conception followed the natural human development. This is a marvel in itself. God became everything that humanity undergoes from embryonic to fetal development in the womb! He was, in every way of his human nature, born of a woman (Gal 4:4).

Ancient art has attempted a variety of ways to portray Jesus as super-human: the child with a halo on the manger! Even Martin Luther’s carol says, the little Lord Jesus no crying he makes! Why not? The wonder is not how finite man is made into a divine; rather, it is the infinitely divine becoming genuinely human – new-born infant!

While in every way human, this God-made-man is virgin-conceived, and thus, without a human father. As theologian, GC Berkouwer, puts it:

The human procreation of a human life is not the way of incarnation. At the end of such a way we shall not find Jesus Christ. In analogy with what Jesus says concerning Abraham, we might summarize the relationship with: before Joseph was, Christ is. This is no biological explanation nor does it eliminate the fatherhood, but it recognizes the uniqueness of this birth, which may also be described as a coming into the world. [1]

Lutheran theologian, Robert Duncan Culver, adds his own take:

The virgin birth provides a reasonable explanation for how a divine Being who is without beginning might take to himself a human nature without the procreation of a new person. [2]

In being born, Jesus is like any human being. In being born of a virgin, Jesus is not like any human being. He is continuous with humanity, but at the same time, is the Inaugurator of a new humanity.

Humanity without Corruption

The virgin conception of Jesus spares him of that corporate connection with Adam that grounds the imputation of sin. This seems to be the point of contrast in 1 Corinthians 15:47, The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. Both the first Adam and Jesus, as second Adam, are possessor of the divine Image of their respective humanity. In contrast with the first Adam’s humanity as earthly, Jesus’ is heavenly. The latter’s divine image is not just inherited from Adam, but all his own as a man from heaven. While it has nothing explicit to say of the virgin birth, it does corroborate the idea of a different origin of Jesus’ humanity. Says Gordon Fee,

Paul urges that since believers have borne the image of the man of earth, they should also now (because they will) bear the image of the man of heaven. The christological significance of this text is its certain emphasis in context on Christ’s humanity and thus on his being the second Adam, the one who has most truly borne the divine image in his human life. [3]

This significance of the virgin birth is underscored by Reformed theologian, John Murray,

The Son of God was sent in that very nature which in every other instance is sinful. The Son came by a mode that was supernatural, by a mode consonant with his supernatural person, and by a mode that guaranteed his sinlessness. But he came in a way that preserved fully his organic and genetic connection with us men who are all sinful flesh. He was made of the seed of David, of a seed that was sinful, and of a woman who was herself sinful and afflicted with the depravity incident to fallen humanity. He came into the closest relation to sinful humanity that it was possible for him to come without thereby becoming himself sinful. This is the incarnation that actually occurred. [4]

William GT Shedd affirms,

The doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ is, thus, necessarily connected with the doctrine of the miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit. The one stands or falls with the other. [5]

Test of Supernatural Presupposition

If for nothing else, belief in the virgin conception of Jesus tests the supernatural commitment of any theologian. J Gresham Machen spent his life and ministry contending against the Liberals of his day. He saw in the issue of the virgin birth a test case.

It is perfectly clear that the New Testament teaches the virgin birth of Christ; about that there can be no manner of doubt. There is no serious question as to the interpretation of the Bible at this point. Everyone admits the Bible represents Jesus as having been conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the virgin Mary. The only question is whether in making that representation the Bible is true or false. [6]

To return to Culver,

In a practical way, the virgin birth tests whether a theologian or a theology is approaching Christianity with wholly naturalistic assumptions or is open to the supernatural… This does not make the virgin birth central to the structure of Christian doctrine and the plan of salvation, but it is a useful test. [7]

Conclusion

Ultimately, the uniqueness of the birth of Jesus is grounded on the uniqueness of his saving mission. It is not the manger that has become the central symbol of the Christian faith – but the Cross. It is those who see the need of a Saviour from sin who will see the necessity of sinlessness as prerequisite to His saving work. It is those who see their need of salvation from sin who want the One born of a virgin. The Saviour of sinners must Himself be a Man – but not like any man.

Endnotes:

[1] GC Berkouwer, The Work of Christ: 122

[2] Robert Duncan Culver, Systematic Theology: 48

[3] Gordon Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study: 119

[4] John Murray, Collected Writings II: 133

[5] William GT Shedd, Dogmatic Theology: 639

[6] Gresham Machen, Virgin Birth: 382

[7] Culver, 481

Christian-Turned-Mocker

Gal 6 7

It is rightly said, Mockery is the result of a poverty of wit. I dare say that the real intention of resorting to mockery is not to disprove the Christian faith. The mocker is often without a rational answer to the Christian apologetic. His mockery is intended more to alleviate a harassed conscience. The mocking laughter has the sound of whistle in the dark.

“Ridicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities,” says Irish poet and playwright, Oscar Wilde (1854-1900). This applies very aptly to the Mocker-in-Chief, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. After the much-publicized meetings with Christian leaders – first with the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), and then, with the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches (PCEC) – he promised a moratorium, only to break it in subsequent public meetings. As always, he only displays his mediocre knowledge of religion in general, and of the Christian faith in particular.

This leads me to reflect on a particular type of a mocker of religion. This is the person who mocks the Christian faith out of his supposed knowledge of it. He may have been himself a former professor of that faith. Or more usually, he may have spent his childhood years under Christian parentage, until he came to adulthood and chose “freedom” from his religious tutelage. Now he feels qualified to scoff on the faith that he once professed. We can call him a Christian-turned-Mocker.

To mock is to treat with scorn or contempt. The idea of mockery is to make its object a laughingstock. It betrays a deep bitterness that may not be present in ordinary resentment. The Christian faith seems to elicit the most bitterness when it provokes opposition. Christianity, of all religious faiths, is the most vulnerable to the treatment of mockery. After all, Christian advocacy of freedom of religion and speech guarantees that there will be no reprisal against the mocker. Try to mock Islam.

What makes one mock the Christian faith that he once espoused? The most obvious answer is disenchantment. The impression of failure on the part of those he once respected for their Christian faith disillusioned him. Whether the failure is real, or just a misconstruction, a string of the same will create an increasing imprint. It leads to the wrong conflation that the failure of its followers proves the falsehood of the faith. No wonder that it creates a bitterness that is turned into mockery. That such a process of disenchantment is going on should be a sobering reminder for Christians to be mindful of their testimony in the eyes of the world.

But to the disenchanted, I must appeal. Christians do not pretend to be perfect. Indeed, it is a part of our conviction about holy living that we can never attain perfection on this side of glory. We appropriate by faith the redemption of Christ in His atoning work. By that, we are forgiven of our sins – but that is not sinlessness; far from it. Our struggle with sin is real, and perhaps, even more fierce, given the standard we seek to meet – to be like the Lord Jesus. And if you have witnessed such outbreak of sin in our words and ways, it is one of those failures, of which we will have many in this life. But that does not mean the spiritual change is not for real; it is not just anywhere near complete.

Our argument for the Christian faith does not stand on any false claim of perfection on our part. It stands or falls on Jesus of Nazareth who died in time-and-space history, and who rose from the dead alive also in time-and-space history. In the language of the Scripture, “declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 1:4). If you will object to the Christian faith, conceive your apologetic against Jesus. It is He Who we claim to be perfect, Himself God, but became Man to redeem sinners – including mockers.

If your way out is by mocking Christians, you prove nothing, for we already admit our flaws and sins. The question confronting you is the same with which Jesus confronted the mockers of His day, “What do you think about the Christ?” (Matthew 22:42).

It is rightly said, Mockery is the result of a poverty of wit. I dare say that the real intention of resorting to mockery is not to disprove the Christian faith. The mocker is often without a rational answer to the Christian apologetic. His mockery is intended more to alleviate a harassed conscience. His mocking laughter has the sound of whistle in the dark.

Mocking the Christian faith, however, has the tragic consequence of being its own punishment. When mocking becomes a habit, it is self-confirming. The mocker will justify his sin. As the Bible warns, “There will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions” (Jude 1:18). That is why a plea such as this one will likely engender only more mockery. So warns biblical wisdom, “Whoever corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse… Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you” (Prov. 9:7-8). But the worst mocking was endured by Jesus on the Cross. Why not by a poor follower?

If one becomes a Mocker-turned-Christian, it will not be the first time. CS Lewis once called Christianity a “false mythology” and became one of its staunchest defenders. Such is what grace can do even to a mocker.

There is a truth that you can mock but can never overturn. “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap” (Gal. 6:7). If you choose to persist in the lie of your own mockery, I will lament for your soul in this life. But even in eternity, I cannot mock on your mockery turned to wailing!

Blasphemy of the Arrogant

Dan 5 23

The only way to ensure that Christians can exercise freedom to proclaim the message of the gospel is if they are willing to grant that freedom to those religions whose teachings they detest. The president’s blasphemy makes my blood boil. But I believe in freedom of expression – alas even a blasphemous expression!

“Who is this stupid God?” Thus, challenged Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte at the opening of the National ICT Summit in Davao City last June 22, 2018. There is no graceful way of evaluating it. The president is guilty of blasphemy.

Blasphemy is defined as “expressing through speech or writing that which is impious, mocking, or contemptuous toward God.”[1] That is what Mr. Duterte did. It was uttered in the middle of his ranting against the idea of original sin. His remarks were riddled with his usual cuss words. But what made them obnoxious was the gross ignorance that characterized them. He obviously did not know the story of the Fall of Man in the Genesis account, but he proceeded to narrate it anyway. His narration was colored by his patented risqué, telling his salacious version of a grave biblical story.

What compounded the whole spectacle was the arrogance of Mr. Duterte’s pretentious conclusion. He ridiculed the whole subject of the Fall and original sin as not worthy of any belief. And that a very sensible man like him can pronounce on such stupidity. The president is, of course, not aware that original sin is a theological concept that has exercised theologians, philosophers, and biblical expositors for many centuries. And they are not a bunch of insensible people. Many of them were geniuses, and I am sure, possessed more integrity and morality than this president.

The fact is, the concept of original sin gives better sense of the condition of man – his propensity to evil and why human life, in its natural condition, as the Enlightenment philosopher Thomas Hobbes puts it, is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” But with the concept of original sin is the message of redemption. For if Adam is the one man by whom “sin entered into the world” (Romans 5:12), there is a second Adam by whom there is righteousness – the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 5:18-21).

It is not my intention in this piece to explain and defend the Christian doctrine of original sin. That will have to wait for another post. My intention is only to show that Duterte’s comment was way beyond his mandate as president, and certainly, very short of his personal qualification.

I know many Christians were deeply offended by the president’s blasphemy. I was. I can understand why many are calling for radical measures to call the president to account. The president should apologize to those he offended, if only because that is the mark of humility. Probably the president does not have it, and he will not apologize. I am sure that he would have, if his insult were directed to the Islamic religion. He might have had to deal with what happened to the French magazine Charlie Hebdo just for making a caricature of the prophet Muhamad. Duterte calculated that Christians are easier to insult because of their commitment to freedom of religion.

I rest in the Lord for the accounting of the president’s dishonoring of God. Daniel’s rebuke of Belshazzar, the regent of Babylon, fits this president: “the God who holds your breath in His hand and owns all your ways, you have not glorified” (Dan. 5:23).

I also happen to believe in freedom of religion. We do not live in the days of Oliver Cromwell who had King Charles beheaded in 1649 for being on the wrong side of a Civil War of religions in England. The only way to ensure that Christians can exercise freedom to proclaim the message of the gospel is if they are willing to grant that freedom to those religions whose teachings they detest. The president’s blasphemy makes my blood boil. But I believe in freedom of expression – alas even a blasphemous expression!

He is also a lost soul that must evoke compassion from Christians. His was an arrogant and ignorant blasphemy. Because of his blasphemy, may God have mercy on his soul. But because of his arrogance and ignorance – and he is our president – may God have mercy on us!

[1] Donald McKim (ed.), The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Westminster John Knox Press): p. 34

The Home-Focused Mother

Pro 31 29

Put in such a negative way, who will not lose the joy of living? But it is spotlighting the struggle side, which all vocations have share of, while dismissing the triumph side of home-keeping. What about a stable family, well-reared children, a well-ordered house fit for hospitality, and with all these, a fulfilled woman? Definitely this latter side sees no torture, but enjoys family life.

The sheer patience and determination is born of a principled belief in the value of motherhood. It is not the torture of Sysiphus with its endless cycles. Motherhood sees its triumph in children who become crowns for their generation… I submit without question that the mother has contributed more to society than any female roles.

The emancipation of women, it is claimed, is the noble cause of Feminism. If by this emancipation is meant deliverance from the oppression of male-dominated society that has treated women as mere sex-objects, Christians should stand to be counted. But it appears in their discourses that feminists mean something more radical. Their cause is emancipation of women from the “bondage of the home.”

Leading feminist champion, Simone de Beauvoir, makes this vivid description of the woman’s domestic bondage,

Few tasks are more like the torture of Sysiphus than housework, with its endless repetition: the clean becomes soiled, the soiled is made clean, over and over, day after day. The housewife wears herself out marking time … The battle against dust and dirt is never won … Severe, preoccupied, always on the watch, she loses the joy of living…1

The mark of Christian families should be the demonstration of love in the day-by-day, mundane circumstances of life, in the many moments of opportunity to show that love suffereth long… What is a family? A formation center for human relationships — worth fighting for, worth calling a career, worth the dignity of hard work.2

Is the home a woman’s torture chamber from which she needs emancipation, or is it a relationship center upon which the woman must focus? The Bible has a very definite side to this issue. One may wish to be a feminist and reject Scriptures, she must do so openly and honestly. But no one can honestly subscribe to Scriptures as the Word of God, and espouse the feminist view of the home as domestic bondage.

DEFINED ROLE

The rationale for the woman’s creation is stated in Genesis 2:18ff. She is to be a “helpmeet” to the man. This word has provoked misunderstanding. It is often employed by those who hold the view that women are inferior to men by nature. And in reaction to this view, the opposite side do everything to wrest this word of its sober intent.

Perhaps, before setting forth the defined role that is contained in this text, let us take a look at the whole of Scriptures. Two clusters of Scriptures must govern our understanding of women.

(a) Scriptures giving dignified place to women

The classic representative is Proverbs 31:10ff. It is unique in contemporary literature in its exultation of the virtuous woman. [ See separate article by Steve Hofmaier in this issue ]. Women in the Old Testament played prominent roles in the central events of Israel’s history. This led Old Testament scholar, Walter Kaiser, to observe:

Women were not chattel to be ordered about and used as men pleased in the Old Testament, ranking slightly above a man’s ox or donkey! They were fellow heirs of the image of God, charged with tasks that exhibited the originality, independence and management ability of the ‘woman of valor’ in Proverbs 31 and were called to enter holistically into sharing all of the joys and labors of life.3

(b) Scriptures safeguarding the rights and worth of women equal with men

The feminist favorite text of Galatians 3:28 is as vigorously asserted by Evangelicals who do not espouse feminism. This is a text that shows the absolute equality of all under the blessing of the grace of God. This equality is acknowledged in what traditionally was male-dominant privileges. In Matthew 5:27-32; 19:3-9, Jesus’ permission of divorce in case of adultery, which the Jews understood and practiced as a male prerogative, notably was extended to women. Jesus accepted that they can be (and often were) the aggrieved party. Following this train of thought, Paul’s pronouncement in 1 Corinthians 7:4 establishes the woman’s mutual right and authority on her spouse’s body.

The cause of biblical womanhood is not served by unwise pronouncements on the supposed superiority of the man over the female. The common assumption is the supposed physical superiority of the male. But it is only a one-dimensional measure. Science has established that women have a greater pain-threshold than men. There is always another dimension whether one uses the intellectual superiority or emotional superiority argument. The structure does not stand on gender superiority. Man and woman are equal.

Back to the ‘helpmeet’

While equal, man and woman are distinct. Equality does not lead to interchangeability of roles. And from its origin, the man-woman relationship in the home have clearly defined roles. The woman is to be the help meet (= matching, comparable, corresponding to, etc.) for the man’s incompleteness. The word does not indicate inferiority. Recent research into the Hebrew root of ‘ezer reveals connection with the idea of strength. (cf. Deut. 33:26, 29) Kaiser goes so far as to suggest the translation for Gen. 2:18, “I will make a power [or strength] corresponding to man”. Rather than male superiority, the word reminds us of male inadequacy! The woman is the strength that man needs to complete his life.

But now that much has been admitted, this text mandates the female focus in marriage. From the very beginning, there is a role-hierarchy that God mandated in the house. Paul affirms this in 1 Corinthians 11:9, “Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man”. Also in 1 Timothy 2:12, 13 [ see my separate article, “Evangelical Feminism?” ]. We must agree that this text sees in the order of creation a principle mandatory upon all. So says Lenski,

God could, indeed, have created both man and woman, Adam and Eve, in one undivided act. Today many think and act as though God had really done so. But the fact is otherwise. Nor should we think and say that at this late date God’s creative act, which lies far back in time, makes no difference. The facts of creation abide forever. They can be ignored without resultant loss or harm as little as can other facts of nature.4

The resulting hierarchy structure from this order is the mandatory authority of the male partner and the subordinate submission of the female partner. James Hurley observes the consistent appeal of New Testament discussions to the creative act of God,

Our examination of New Testament arguments concerning marriage has shown that the marriage relation was viewed as ordained by God at creation, with a particular structure as a continuing element of that relation. With the exception of 1 Peter 3, the major apostolic discussions of marriage all appeal to the divine institution of marriage at creation as a ground for the present ordering of it (1Cor. 11:7-12; 14:34; Eph. 5:31; 1Tim. 2:13-14). These discussions not only prescribe the institution of marriage, but also demand a particular structure within it.5

DEFINITE PRIMARY SPHERE

The mandated role defines the primary sphere of the woman’s vocation in marriage. That sphere is the home. This position will throw feminists into a fit of protest. “Bondage!” “Domestic oppression!” As though, secular career has no bondage and oppression all the more cruel? Why not the emancipation of women from the primary concern of the secular to have her primary freedom at home? Is this not why the woman was created for the man. Indeed, her mandated role requires her, under normal circumstances, to devote her primary efforts to being a wife. Many a home is broken because the wife sees more the ‘well-watered plain’ of career advancement than the laborious task of home-building.

Exalted vocation of Home-building

Our protest against feminist denigration of the home must be passionate. Scriptures direct the moral assessment of woman in what she makes of the home.

Every wise woman builds her house,

But the foolish pulls it down with her hands. Proverbs 14:1

Here the wisdom (in Proverbs, a moral/spiritual attribute) of the woman is measured in terms of its impact upon the home. Note that woman is the modifier in the original, and might better be translated, ‘womanly wisdom’. The wisdom that is uniquely feminine is exercised in the field of home-building!

The New Testament re-affirms this focus. Where Paul anticipates marriage to occur, this is his instruction to the woman partner, “… bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully” (1 Timothy 5:14). His language indicates how Paul takes this issue as crucial to the interests of the gospel cause. And in the collection of virtues that he urged on women in Titus 2:3-5, Paul revolved woman’s duties and graces on the concerns of the home: “… love their husbands, to love their children… home-makers… obedient to their husbands,” capped by the now familiar warning, “that the Word of God may not be blasphemed!”

In this connection, we must raise the serious issue of motherhood, a calling without substitute. But, perhaps, motherhood is the most unappreciated of human vocations. This is the age of the career-woman. It is much easier to feel valuable where there is regular salary and certain promotion. On the other hand, educated women cringe at the thought that their BS and BA or higher will end up with changing diapers and breast-feeding. It is thought embarrassing, and at any rate, inferior. But is it? Is motherhood the dumping ground for the ill-educated? We must protest against this with every fiber of our being.

Walter Chantry corrects this sentiment,

Proverbs 10:1 tells those who are children that ‘a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother… Motherhood could not be a part time hobby… Godly women do not live for kisses and nice little gifts, but to see their children walking with the Lord in righteousness. All of a godly woman’s hopes in this world are bound up with the children of her motherhood.6

To say that only those who can do nothing worthwhile in society should just become mere mothers is tragically foolish. The infant life deserves the best qualified woman, qualifications that put the stress on patience of character and reliable stock of knowledge. Of course, education contributes greatly to her knowledge and character, and with whatever livelihood she can render without robbing the home of its primacy. But the sheer patience and determination is born of a principled belief in the value of motherhood. It is not the torture of Sysiphus with its endless cycles. Motherhood sees its triumph in children who become crowns for their generation.

I submit without question that the mother has contributed more to society than any female roles. Multiply the number of children yet in their crib. They will make up the fiber of society tomorrow. What type of fiber that will be, depends on the hands that rock their cradle. Some of them will end up in the gutter, largely because of slack mother (and a father who is no better). Others will become pillars of the nation and society. Let us not forget that behind them are patient motherly hands. Here lies the value of motherhood — not in salary or degree, but in the life that it builds.

If for this reason alone (there are more!), it is enough to espouse this as a cause for reformation: Home-focused Mother!

Happy Mother’s Day!

NOTES

Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, (trans. by H. M. Parshley) [1952]: p. 425
Edith Schaeffer, What is a Family?; Baker Book House [1975]: p. 81
Walter Kaiser, Toward Old Testament Ethics; Zondervan Publication [1983]: p. 207-8
R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of I and II Corinthians; Augsburg Publsihing [1963]: p. 443f.
James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective; Zondervan Publication [1981]: p.160
Walter Chantry; from the tract The High Calling of Motherhood; Banner of Truth

The Atheist’s Option

Thumbnails_5_V2

Not opting? Is that possible? Of course not. In rejecting all claims, he makes his own claim – there is no true God. Atheism becomes the option left for him. In other words, this becomes his own religious confession – there is no God. Atheism is therefore nor merely the rejection of the religious confession, it is itself an alternative religion. But it is the kind of religious confession that has no control on what to believe and what not to believe, what is right and what is wrong. By rejecting the option of God, the Atheist opens himself to any kind of belief. G.K. Chesterton puts it well, “When men cease to believe in God, they do not believe in nothing, they believe in anything.

‘I believe in God’ – this is the first confession of almost all religions. But when asked the next questions, it leads to as many answers as there are religions. Which God? How many? How do we know him? To take the stance of non-committal to any religious claim, there are those who assert that there is no way we can answer questions about God. They are known as agnostics – those who forego any claim of certain knowledge of God. As a matter of fact, they are so certain of this! Then, there are others who also make no commitment to any religious confessions who, however, claim certainty in their stance. They believe that there is no God. They are called Atheists. In many ways, Atheism is more consistent than Agnosticism. The Agnostic’s approach is plain cop-out. The Atheist makes a chilling dare to any God who is supposed to be there and he asserts, “You are nothing!”

On the level of conduct, practical Atheists, those who live like there is no God even if they confess to believing in one, always outnumber serious theists (believers in one God). But there was a time when to believe in God – with that upper case G – is the natural thing. An Atheist became one for reasons that probably did not occur to the normal mind. But the last century going into this new one saw the development of Atheism as something acceptably natural. There are now more Atheists as a matter of philosophical conviction. Communism needed the premise of Atheism for its own ideas to flourish. In 1925, the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism was established, later succeeded by the League of Militant Atheists. The avowed intent is to propagate Atheism through literature and influence placements. This writer recently watched a documentary report on TV concerning the active campaign of Atheists in campuses. One leader of an Atheistic organization said flatly, “We are committed to no god but ourselves!”

But why should anyone come to a militant denial of any true God?

Atheism may simply be one’s despair over the multitude of truth-claims

Should one choose to reject the religious traditions in which he was bred, and really attempt to look at the other options offered, it can really be an exercise in despair. Even if he should choose to look at the options that offer only one God to believe in, which of the three great religions should he consider? Judaism, Islam, or Christianity? And granting that he opts for Christianity, which of the motley groups of churches, denominations, let alone sects and cults? In his despair he comes to the point where he finds not opting for any claim the less confusing.

Atheism, as well as Agnosticism, can sit well as partners with polytheism (belief in many gods). Paul found this out in Athens (Acts 17:16ff). As a city given to idols, its populace however had sense enough to dedicate an altar to the unknown God. Is this out of fear that they may have missed one more deity? Probably this is a confession of their own despair – that amidst the open syncretism of religions and idols, there is still one they cannot represent to their own satisfaction. That is what Atheism is – an altar of despair masquerading as a denial of God.

Atheism often boasts of itself as the scientific choice

This boast is nurtured by the false (and unscientific) premise that all that is true is a matter of scientific observation. And by observation is meant the five human senses and the tools for measurement and other quantification. Conclusions beyond this ability to observe and quantify are deemed unscientific and speculative. That includes religious notions.

But what could be more inconsistent than to limit one’s system to the observable phenomena, and then make pronouncements about the non-observable? For if God is outside the observable and the quantifiable by the scientist’s laboratory, the most that he should say is ‘I cannot tell!’ But to conclude that there is no God because He is unobserved is to intrude beyond science’s set limits.

It is the contention of the Christian that if the evidences of phenomena are given objective investigation, they point to God. Job, even with a severely tried faith, gives expression to this eloquently:

But now ask the beasts, and they will teach you

And the birds of the air and they will tell you;

Or speak to the earth, and it will teach you;

And the fish of the sea will explain to you.

Who among all these does not know

That the hand of the Lord has done this,

In whose hand is the life of every living thing,

And the breath of all mankind? Job 12:7-10

In the language of Christian theology, this is called General Revelation. God is disclosing Himself to all mankind through the phenomena that we observe. Instead proud claims of science are blind to their own limitation, and make bold claims outside their legitimate field. Atheism is like a man who is facing a high wall that he could not mount. Refusing to admit his smallness, he instead concludes that there is nothing more beyond the high wall. The Atheist, confronted with the issue and claims of God, finds One who is “dwelling in unapproachable light whom no man has seen or can see” (1Tim 6:16). In his pride, he simply declares, “I cannot see God because he does not exist!”

Atheism is really an attempt at free rein in selfishness and sin

Of course, it is every sinner’s ambition to go on in sin with abandon. Except that there is this thing called Conscience. Assuming that it has not come to the point of hardening, conscience does something we do not wish, but we cannot escape. It accuses us of wrong! (Rom 2:14f). This accusation becomes intensified when it stands on a serious belief in God, specially when recognized as a just Judge of all the earth.

The act of removing God in one’s thoughts is an attempt to quiet conscience. For then wickedness can be indulged with abandon without the discomfort of those moments of solace and silence. Rightly did the Psalmist observe,

The wicked in his proud countenance does not seek God;

God is in none of his thoughts. Psalm 10:4

Paul sees this as the negation behind sinful indulgence. “Even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind” (Rom. 1:28). God in one’s knowledge – even in an unchristian society is the guarantee of some decency and civility in human relations. Of course many sorts of baseness have been committed in the name of God; but these are the gods produced by those who change the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible men (Rom. 1:23). But so long as some silhouette of God’s character is retained in one’s knowledge there is restraint. God’s justice in one’s knowledge restraints our proneness to be unfair and unjust; His compassion confronts our cruelty; and more.

What General Revelation in creation and that personal imprint of God’s law in human conscience do in combination is to leave man with a sense of God that is inescapable. He breathes with it and moves with it, for God is “not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27). What then of Atheism? It is the unnatural option. It is a make-believe illusion. That sense of God is still present even in the Atheist, but he kicks it into silence so that he could go on with life without accusation.

Reformed theologian Robert Reymond makes this case, “All this means that there is no actual atheist. There are only theists, some of whom claim to be atheists. But God’s Word declares that these atheists are not real atheists; they only attempt to live as though there is no God. But they know in their hearts that He is ‘there’ and that He will someday judge them for their sin. They are theists who hate, and attempt to do everything they can to suppress, their innate theism. Their ‘intellectual problems’ with Christianity are in reality only masks or rationalizations to cover up their hatred of God and their love of and bondage to sin… Thus their ‘atheism’ is their unproven ‘grand assumption’ – an assumption, by the way, with which they cannot consistently live!” [ A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith: p. 143 ]

The Christian Confession

Together with the basic confession of the Israelites, Christians confess “The Lord our God, the Lord is One” (Deut. 6:4). Paul echoes this with the unambiguous declaration, “there is no other God but One” (1Cor 8:4). This confession clearly belies the common idea that all these religions worship the same God, they are different roads taking different routes but will arrive at the same destination. In effect, the Jews’ Yahweh is the Islam Allah, and so on. The Lord’s being One is not just numerical, it denotes His uniqueness – that there is no other like Him. He is not a formula that one can re-produce by just giving it different names. He is a Living Being. Anyone who will deal with Him must deal with Him on His own terms.

Furthermore, the Christian confesses that this one true God on His own initiative disclosed Himself. For there is no other way that He could be known by mere creatures, much less by sinners, except if He chooses to make Himself known. This He did – that is make Himself known by revelation. There is an inescapable general revelation in creation and conscience rendering all mankind without excuse (Rom 1:19-21). But even this revelation is not adequate to save sinners. God revealed Himself with redemptive intent through the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the saving knowledge of God. It is this saving knowledge that we cannot attain by our efforts. “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten, He has declared Him” (Jn 1:18). The clearest revelation we have of this God is the Person of His own Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. This implies that there is no coming to know God savingly unless the sinner bows to the claims of Christ. This is called special revelation. Now, all of God’s special revelation has been committed into writing. The most complete and sufficient revelation of God for us today is in the Holy Scriptures. It is through them that we get a knowledge of Christ, and through Him of God as our Father.

Salvation is not just about believing in a God. it is coming to know the true God. But that true God is One we can only know savingly in the Lord Jesus Christ, for the “light of the knowledge of the glory of God (is) in the face of Jesus Christ” (2Cor 4:6). Obviously, Atheism has refused to take even the first step toward this knowledge.

Conclusion

Atheism is the option for the mental sloth who, in despair, refuses to think through the issues of truth-claims. It is also the option of the proud who thinks science is the new omniscience (all-knowing). But over-all this is the option of the selfish sinner who wants to make a free trip of his sinfulness without the cargo of conscience.

Beyond the sophisticated arguments, Atheism is really, in the final analysis, dehumanizing. It is not what a self-respecting man is expected to opt for. It is not surprising that the Bible hardly takes any space for addressing Atheism as a philosophical option. The New Testament has only one place that uses atheios. Paul calls them as those ‘with no hope and without God in the world’ (Eph 2:12). The OT Hebrew has no equivalent at all for Atheist. But in a memorable statement, the Psalmist tells us of how to regard this: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God’” (Psa 14:1; 53:1)!