What Does God Believe about Atheists?

In the Fourteenth Psalm, King David said a number of interesting things about unbelief.

In the first verse, he said:
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;there is none who does good."

He starts off without fanfare, proclaiming that unbelief is foolish. In our modern society, atheists proclaim their devotion to reason, to logic. But God is unimpressed with their declarations. Rather, He says, the problem is not logic, but righteousness. People believe in all sorts of crazy things, while proclaiming their rationality: aromatherapy, crystals power, aliens. But the question of God is in a class by itself. He has no place in their world of fantasies. Why? Because, in spite of their protestations, it isn't about logic. Rather, unlike crystals, candles, or little green men, the reality of God stands in the way of their hedonistic desires. 

David emphasizes this again in verse 3:
"They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,not even one."

This is not news. We know from plenty of other places in Scripture that the natural man is wicked: Even as early as Genesis 6:5, we read, "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." The difference is that David moves that idea from the field of morality to the field of rationality. Men make their choices by reasoning from their wicked desires, not from a concern for objective truth.

However, David rips the band-aid off the delusion of the wicked in verse 5:
"There they are in great terror,for God is with the generation of the righteous."

While the atheist pats himself on the back, congratulating himself for kicking God out of his consciousness, David exposes his real fear that the awareness of God will creep back, exposing the shallowness of both his reason and his hedonistic devotion. the Apostle Paul makes the same point in Romans 1:18: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." Just like squeezing one end of a balloon, the suppression of awareness at one point threatens to burst out at another, to the terror of the unbeliever.

David offers a solution, one that requires true reason, in verse 7: "Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion!" "Zion" is used in the Old Testament poetry as a reference to the church. the hope for the unbeliever is the Gospel proclamation sent out from God's people. What is the content of that proclamation? It is God's invitation to the wicked man, when he becomes weary of hedonism and hiding from the knowledge of God: "Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Listen diligently to Me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food.  Incline your ear, and come to Me; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant" (Isaiah 55:2-3).

The Law for All Men, Not Just for Israel

One form of antinomianism holds that the biblical Law is still valid (Matthew 5:18), but is, and has always been, only for Israel.

That is false.

Before I get to the Scriptural evidence against this assertion, let's just think about the logic of it. Israel was given a moral code to define her actions in the eyes of God: "Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness" (I John 3:4). Yet, according to the theologians of this stripe, Gentiles have no such standard. If sin is defined by the Law, but the Gentiles don't have the Law, does that not imply that Gentiles do not, therefore, have sin? If yes, according to what standard? And, whether one answers yes or no, does that not imply that Gentiles are not under the government of the God of the Bible? Isn't the source of their law their god, by definition?

I can't imagine how these antinomians can answer those questions. However, I don't have to wait for their answers because the Bible is explicitly opposed to any such concept of independence from God's Law. Paul tells us, "When Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them" (Romans 2:14-15). Every man has a conscience, even those who are so wicked as to heave seared their consciences into insensitivity. And, according to Paul, those consciences reflect the Law of God written in our hearts. This is part of the image of God, remaining in us since the creation of Adam, and restored in the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:10, 10:16, from Jeremiah 31:33). Of course, that image has been marred by sin, so the law is not recalled perfectly in the heart. In that way, Israel had an advantage over the Gentiles (Romans 3:2). While having the written Law was an advantage to Israel, that advantage falls far short of implying that the Gentiles were not accountable to God's Law. If that weren't the case, then would not the advantage have been with the Gentiles, for then they could never be accused of sin, and, therefore, had no need for a Savior? Yet, we know that is not the case, because Paul is specifically changed with carrying the Gospel to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8, I Timothy 2:7)! Why carry to the Gentiles something that they didn't need?

"The Middle Way" or God's Way?

 It is rare to find a professing atheist in modern America. Rather, it is fashionable not to express assurednes in either direction. To be outspokenly Christian is disdained as fanaticism, while explicit atheism is considered arrogant. Instead, let us all be somewhere in the middle, Christian by heritage, but not too concerned about truth, or agnostic because we don't want to be dogmatic.

Stuff and nonsense, is my reaction! It is that of Jesus, too: "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot!" (Revelation 3:15).

God does not offer Himself as one option among many. He isn't an item on a smorgasbord, or an orphan preening in the hope that you will pick Him. That is a shabby view of God! 

The God of the Bible does not plead; He commands: "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). "This is his commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ" (I John 3:23). There is no equivocation here, no middle among three choices. God tells us that it His way, with no other option.

We see here that God gives no consideration to modern moderation, Aristotle's middle way in every decision. This is a shocking concept to the modern American! Who does He think He is? God!?!? And the answer is, yes, that is exactly what He thinks.

There is no "golden mean" here. The options are obedience and disobedience, and the consequences of which option a man chooses."Now therefore fear the Lord and serve Him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods ... and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve... But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:14-15).

A Universe Without God: The Irrationality of the Atheist

In order to understand our world around us, whether in the informal sense of day-to-day living or in a formal,scientific manner, we must accept that every object that has come into existence and every action must have a cause. That is, when the pool ball rolls across the table, we understand that something hit it. We could never develop an understanding of the laws of the universe if we didn't have this presupposition.

However, in order to avoid invoking God, the atheist posits that the universe had a beginning without a cause. He even gives it a name, the Big Bang, as if naming it explains it. Whether he believes that matter came into existence at that point, or holds to a steady state of pulsing matter with repeated big bangs, he must imagine an event of that unimaginable scale without a cause.

That presupposition, if consistently followed through, must eliminate the possibility of a comprehensible universe. If things or events can occur without causes, then irrationality rules, planning is impossible, science is impossible. Thinking is impossible.

Of course, people would not be able to function in the world if we lived according to that presupposition. How can I even fry an egg for breakfast if I operate as if events and things have no causal connection? Yet people do exactly that.

How does that happen?

It's easy enough to explain. The atheist makes such an extreme assumption to rule God out of his consciousness. Then he lives his life with the opposite supposition, that all things and events actually occur in a God-made world that operates according to rational laws, such as that of cause and effect.

The Bible describes exactly this schizophrenic mentality: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:18-22).

Speaking through the Apostle Paul, God exposes the self-deception of atheism. The created world shows the existence, sovereignty, and righteousness of God. That is why the universe is understandable to us. But the atheist seeks to maintain the illusion of autonomy, that he is sovereign, not God (confer Genesis 3:5), so he is forced to suppress his awareness of God. Since the triune biblical God is why the universe is rational (Acts 17:28, Colossians 1:17), by excluding God, the atheist's world becomes irrational and incomprehensible. Therefore, in order to function in God's world, the atheist compromises, without admitting the compromise, by denying God with his mouth, while acknowledging God with his life. Thus, to use Paul's words, they become fools.

Government Is to Be the Tool of God, Not a Tool Against Him

The Signing of the Mayflower Compact

Conservatives like to talk about the United States as "a Christian nation." And I do not doubt that her original settlers had such a concept for the new land. However, when our current Constitution was adopted in 1787, Article VI, section 3, included this provision: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." This provision has now been expanded also to apply to state and local government. Therefore, no atheist, Jew, Pagan, Muslim, or any other spiritual reprobate can be barred as such from rule anywhere in the United States.

The problem is with the assumption that government is supposed to be "neutral" when it comes to religion. Even if neutrality were truly possible, that assumption is contrary to Scripture: "He [i. e., God the Father] put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church" (Ephesians 1:22). The Father has given to the Son to rule over all things. There is no exception given there for government. Also, if God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30), how can it be rational to exclude one collection of men, i. e., government, from that command? We also have the explicit command to kings in Psalm 2:10-12: "Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way, for His wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in Him." Scripture does not allow us the luxury of believing that one group of men, or one human activity, is exempt from the royal rule of the ascended Jesus Christ.

Scripture is not neutral regarding God's instructions regarding the spiritual qualifications that He has set for governors in a Christian nation: "Look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people" (Exodus 18:21). "The God of Israel has spoken; the Rock of Israel has said to me: When one rules justly over men, [he must rule] in the fear of God" (II Samuel 23:3). God's standard for any level of governor is that he fear God, be capable, trustworthy, and have integrity. Has that been our experience under our "neutral" government? I wouldn't say so.

The moral disintegration of our country isn't something for which I hold the government responsible. After all, the government is acting consistently with the moral basis it has been given, that of "neutrality." Rather, I hold Christians responsible for disobedience to God and His word. Christians dismiss so many of God's commands with an unthinking, "But that's Old Testament." Ephesians 1:22 is certainly not Old Testament! But, even if it were, where does the Bible say that accountability to God's standards ended with Malachi? Nowhere! It is only the bad theology that assumes the end of God's laws, leaving "neutral "government to become the tool of the anti-Christian. The anti-Christian has no qualms about making religious use of government, and Christians have capitulated to that conquest without any effort at resistance.

What Is Faith?

We have a lot of common sayings on the issue of faith. Two that I sincerely hate are "a leap of faith" and "you just gotta have faith." The first means that we should go through life making hazardous decisions with insufficient information. The second is what we say to people dealing with personal or general catastrophes. Faith in what? Or whom? Well, faith in faith, i. e., the New Age concept that insistent belief creates reality.

In contrast, Theologian John Frame, in his "Apologetics," p. 53, says, "Faith is not mere rational thought, but it is not irrational either. It is not 'belief in the absence of evidence'; rather, it is a trust that rests on sufficient evidence... So faith does not believe despite the absence of evidence; rather, faith honors God's Word as sufficient evidence." In other words, "faith" is not a mental insistence without regard to objective circumstances. Rather, it is a belief in the power of God on the basis of His Word, the Bible. Faith isn't the vacuous stubbornness of popular psychology and New Age religion, but rather has a particular foundation and explicit content.

We see that for example, in Jude 1:3: "Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." Here the brother of Jesus is referring to faith as a body of belief, of doctrine, which was held in common by believers. He is telling us that the content of our faith matters! That is the opposite of what we say in the phrase I quoted above. Paul referred to the same thing in Titus 1:4: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith..." The emphasis here is on content, too, but a content held in common among believers, equivalent to Jude's "that was once for all delivered to the saints." Both inspired writers reject faith as a feeling or as an individual insistence, but rather as something held in common among all true believers, with a specific content of truth.

Luke describes that content in Acts 6:7: "The word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith." The content of the faith is the word of God, i. e., the Bible, and to believe it is to be obedient. Or, to express the converse, not to believe it is to be disobedient.

Therein lies the problem with faith in faith, without content. it assumes, contrary to Scripture, that God honors disobedience as if it were obedience. Again quoting Paul (Ephesians 5:6): "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for ... the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience." Not doing things God's way cannot be the source of assurance that our common encouragements assume, because they bring, not His blessings, but His wrath.

Here is a definition of biblical faith (Westminster Larger Catechism 72): "Question 72: What is justifying faith? Answer: Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation."

The Deception of Autonomy in Liberal Theology

The theological left makes its reputation by tearing down traditional theology, the traditional view of Scripture, traditional morality, etc. Liberal theologians make their academic reputations through novelty, and the more vigorously they speak against traditional Christianity, the more "modern" they are considered to be. No matter how academically rigorous, a conservative theologian is not going to get the recognition of prestigious universities (such as Yale or Harvard) or mainstream media.

What is it for which such theologians are the social heroes that they are portrayed to be?

Take your mind back to the earliest stories in the Bible, in particular to the temptation of Adam. There was find Satan making this offer to Eve, if she would be eat the forbidden fruit: "God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5). The temptation of Satan to which Even (and then Adam) capitulated was this offer of autonomy. No longer would their spiritual world center on God and His word, but instead they would determine for themselves their standards of good and evil.

Remember, also, the words of Paul: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:18-22). Paul is describing the lie hidden in Satan's temptation. Though Adam and Even did eat the forbidden fruit, they did not receive the autonomy that they had been promised. Rather, they found that they were still conscious of God and His Law and their accountability to Him. What had changed is that they were now sinners, and hated that knowledge. Their posterity, which is all of mankind (Jesus excluded), would find this same thorn in our consciences. And, apart from regeneration, it is our nature to hate that knowledge and to suppress it from our awareness.

This is where the liberal theologian comes in. He talks about a god, and maybe a Jesus, something which is recognized by even the hardened unbeliever. But the liberal god has no bible, no Law, no righteousness, no Hell, but only touchy-feely concern for our self-esteem. The natural, fallen man can handle that god. He can get on that theological train because it keeps his conscience quiet, and leaves him with what Satan promised, the ability to decide for himself how to live, how to determine truth, and to be satisfied with a life without God. Or so he imagines.

The problem is that the offer of the liberal theologian is just as much a deception as it was from the mouth of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. And, just as was discovered by Adam and Eve, that deception gives no reward of autonomy, but rather only the judgment of death: "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23).

Grace and Faith Do not Justify Antinomianism!

One thing at which Dispensationalism has succeeded is in making modern evangelicalism utterly hostile to God's Law. A phrase everyone seems to have memorized is, "We are under grace, not under law," a corruption of Romans 6:14. I bet you can't remember what the rest of the verse says!

However, one thing I have frequently noticed is that this shibboleth gets drawn out only when something in the Pentateuch disproves something an evangelical says. But, whenever the subject of homosexuality, for example, comes up, that same evangelical will pop out with Leviticus 18:22. And quoted correctly, unlike Romans 6:14!

There are so many problems with this doctrine, called antinomianism. Just logically speaking, it is offensive! The Law is the expression of God's moral nature. His precept for us is to reflect His holiness: "Consecrate yourselves, therefore, and be holy, for I am the Lord your God. Keep My statutes and do them; I am the Lord who sanctifies you" (Leviticus 20:7-8, quoted in I Peter 1:16). If a person rejects the Law out of hand, is he not rejecting the holiness of God? And with what is he replacing it? Whose holiness will he now imitate?

Also, biblically speaking, the assertion that Romans 6:14 eliminates the Law from the life of the Christian is contrary to what Paul himself tells us elsewhere in the same epistle: "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law" (Romans 3:31). How can the same man in the same epistle endorse the Law in one verse and repudiate it in another? What does the assertion that he does so say about the view of Scripture of such persons? Or of the God who inspired the Scripture?

Let's look at another comment by Paul regarding the Law: "The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted" (I Timothy 1:9-11). Ah, here is the solution! The Law is not for those who are now living consistently with our new nature in Christ. It is for those who require an outside limit on their wickedness. Notice that he even includes false doctrine. That's something very few people will consider, a proper role of the state in the suppression of heresy.

Lets look once more at Romans 6:14, but the whole verse, properly quoted: "Sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." Now we can see that Paul's contrast isn't between law and grace, but between grace and bondage to sin. This is exactly what he says in I Timothy, that the Spirit-controlled man has his sin nature shackled on the inside. But the natural man has no such control, and, therefore, requires an external control, the Law of God.

Either Jesus Is God, or God Has Been Deceived!

In two different places, the Prophet Isaiah tells us that God does not share His glory: "I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other" (Isaiah 42:8); "My glory I will not give to another" (Isaiah 48:11). Both statements are clear, bold, and unequivocal.

However, we then have this statement from Jesus (John 17:5): "Now, Father, glorify Me in Your own presence with the glory that I had with You before the world existed."

In the Old Testament, "God" (Hebrew, "Elohim") without qualification, as here in Isaiah, usually refers to the Trinity collectively. However, if a person denies that, or denies that it is the case here, then he has even greater difficulty in these passages, because they then become the words of God the Father. We have God's claiming that He does not share His glory. Then we have Jesus's claiming that He has shared, and will share, the glory of God the Father.

That can be nothing less that a claim that He is Himself that God who spoke through Isaiah!

Society Has a Choice: Wickedness or Righteousness

"When a land transgresses, it has many rulers,
     but with a man of understanding and knowledge,
     its stability will long continue.
When the righteous triumph, there is great glory,
     but when the wicked rise, people hide themselves.
When the wicked rise, people hide themselves,     
     but when they perish, the righteous increase."
- Proverbs 28:2, 12, 28 

The Book of Proverbs is the most practical book in the Bible, addressing every area of life, both for the man on the street and for the man in the highest socio-economic strata of society. Here the writer, apparently Solomon, addresses the latter, the leaders of society.

His first comment, verse 2, describes much of what we see in modern America. He says that a society where wickedness becomes commonplace will be plagued with a multiplication of government officials. As our society has moved away from its biblical traditions, have we not seen an expanding swarm of bureaucrats, promulgating more and more laws? Is there not a mindset that says that social order will be restored if we just come up with the right regulations? Of course there is! It is a humanistic mindset which claims that morality is a matter of law, not grace, and even that is the autonomous laws of men, not the sovereign laws of God. It is the plague of tyranny!

The second comment, verse 12, also describes a humanistic society in moral breakdown. As biblical morality has broken down, have we not become a society of fear? We often hear of a golden age when no one had to lock his doors at night, or where no parents had to explain "stranger danger" to our children. People lament the loss of neighborliness, because too many people fear walking the streets of their own neighborhoods, due to gangs. When was the last time a woman felt safe walking down her own street? 

The third comment, verse 28, also describes the fear of peaceful people, sealed in their own homes for fear of the chaos outside. Yet, unlike the other two verses, this one describes a solution: "When they [the wicked] perish, the righteous increase." Note that God, speaking through Solomon, does not advocate a new social program or a new government agency as the solution, but rather says that righteousness will increase as the wicked perish! The wicked do not need self-esteem or social support. Rather, society needs for them to be removed. We have absorbed a humanistic mindset that says that wickedness is a disorder, for which the rest of society is responsible. It isn't! Wickedness is a choice, and violence is its consequence. Humanism, therefore, puts the welfare of the wicked ahead of the welfare of the peaceable members of society. Therefore, until that mindset is changed, we can only anticipate that wickedness will continue to dominate American society.

Godly Men Love God's Sabbath

When talking about the importance of the Sabbath, I have noticed that most Christians will make a dismissive remark about its being ceremonial law. That statement is false, since the Sabbath long preceded the time of Moses (Genesis 2:2-3). Even more, though, it ignores the role the Sabbath played in the rest of the Old Testament. The godly people of Israel valued the Sabbath. In fact, that quality is used in the Old Testament as a distinguishing mark between pious and nominal Israelites.

Before the Babylonian exile, God, speaking through the Prophet Jeremiah, warned the people of Israel, "If you do not listen to me, to keep the Sabbath day holy, and not to bear a burden and enter by the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem and shall not be quenched" (Jeremiah 17:27, but look at the whole passage from 21 to 27). Yet, we know that Judah ignored the warning, and it was fulfilled in the sacking of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586BC.

After the exile, the governor of Israel - appointed by the king of Persia, but God's man - Nehemiah, remembered these words, and tried to start the restoration of Judah on better footing. First, he recognized the pattern of Sabbath desecration: "In those days I saw in Judah people treading winepresses on the Sabbath, and bringing in heaps of grain and loading them on donkeys, and also wine, grapes, figs, and all kinds of loads, which they brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day. And I warned them on the day when they sold food. Tyrians also, who lived in the city, brought in fish and all kinds of goods and sold them on the Sabbath to the people of Judah, in Jerusalem itself! Then I confronted the nobles of Judah and said to them, 'What is this evil thing that you are doing, profaning the Sabbath day? Did not your fathers act in this way, and did not our God bring all this disaster on us and on this city? Now you are bringing more wrath on Israel by profaning the Sabbath'" (Nehemiah 13:15-18). Both the Jews themselves and the foreigners resident among them were trampling God's day, just as their ancestors had in the time of Jeremiah. They had learned no lessons from their seventy years of exile.

So, he commanded reforms: "As soon as it began to grow dark at the gates of Jerusalem before the Sabbath, I commanded that the doors should be shut and gave orders that they should not be opened until after the Sabbath. And I stationed some of my servants at the gates, that no load might be brought in on the Sabbath day. Then the merchants and sellers of all kinds of wares lodged outside Jerusalem once or twice. But I warned them and said to them, 'Why do you lodge outside the wall? If you do so again, I will lay hands on you.' From that time on they did not come on the Sabbath. Then I commanded the Levites that they should purify themselves and come and guard the gates, to keep the Sabbath day holy. Remember this also in my favor, O my God, and spare me according to the greatness of your steadfast love" (Nehemiah 13:19-22). This passage shows both the binding nature of the Sabbath for the people of God and the responsibility of the civil magistrate to fence the day from abomination.

This is the basis for the Westminster Larger Catechism (question 117): "The sabbath or Lord's day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to betaken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God's worship: and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day." Though the day has been changed from the seventh to the first, the Sabbath principle is just as binding as it was to Jeremiah and Nehemiah.

The Prosperity Gospel: A Baptized Get-Rich-Quick Scheme

The Proverbs say a lot about how a man is to support himself and his family and advance in the material aspects of his life. However, I am often left wondering if Christians have read that book. Maybe it has languished as part of the dispensationalist dismissal of the Old Testament (except the portions that they can use for their wild-eyed eschatological theories).

I am especially troubled by the Prosperity Gospel movement, not just here in America, but, increasingly, spreading in the mission field, especially Nigeria and the Philippines. These ministers, mostly of a Pentecostal origin, who claim that the Christian life consists in the accumulation of shiny objects, such as fancy cars, big houses, expensive suits, or big hairdos. The favor of God, they claim, is evidenced by flashy stuff, especially for their ministers, such as Creflo Dollar's private jet.

This is not God's way. While He calls Himself the one who teaches us to acquire wealth (Deuteronomy 8:18), He also says, "Do not toil to acquire wealth; be discerning enough to desist" (Proverbs 23:4).

Where is the balance here? Wealth is clearly not sinful, since He promotes it. However, in the getting of wealth, there is much more that He has to say.

Proverbs 28:6: "Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity, than a rich man who is crooked in his ways." Let's start with priorities. Wealth is not worth the selling of our souls, as Dollar has. If faced with the choice, then the man of God sticks to his integrity. It cannot be for sale.

Proverbs 28:19: "Whoever works his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows worthless pursuits will have plenty of poverty."  Godly wealth comes from legitimate, honest work. The example here is agriculture. This isn't a way to get rich quick. Rather, it is the day-in, day-out work of honest labor. Dishonest, instant gains will just as instantly disappear, leaving a man with "plenty of poverty." 

The next verse, Proverbs 28:20, is even stronger: "A faithful man will abound with blessings, but whoever hastens to be rich will not go unpunished." The drive to get rich quick will have the opposite effect, as God will give that man the consequence of poverty. Notice the contrast between faithfulness and the drive for easy wealth. They cannot coexist (Matthew 6:24). 

And lastly, Proverbs 28:22: "A stingy man hastens after wealth, and does not know that poverty will come upon him." This verse addresses the opposite extreme, the stingy or miserly man. This is not about thrift, something which is otherwise commended in Scripture. Rather, this is about the man who turns a blind eye to the needs of his neighbor, though he has the means to help him (Proverbs 14:21, 21:10).

I keep thinking of these principles, as I watch people shelling out money for lottery tickets. Where does that money come from? We know that poor people are more likely to buy lottery tickets. They are spending their mortgages, or their kids' college funds, or even money that would have gone to putting food on their tables. God will not honor such foolishness.

Circular Reasoning in Christian Thought

A true Christian will always base his spiritual views on the Scriptures. This is both proper and necessary. If I believe in God, then I must believe what He says. That seems obvious to me.

However, the atheist responds with an accusation of circular reasoning. That is, the Christian's knowledge about God is based on the Bible, and His trust in the Bible is based on his knowledge of God. And, as far as it goes, the accusation is true.

However, there is an unstated premise in the atheist's attack. That unstated premise is that the atheist does not use circular reasoning. Is that premise true? In order for a conclusion to be true, then its premises must be true and organized according to the objective rules of logic.

Here is the atheist's argument, in the form of a syllogism:
     Truth is based on logic.
     Logic does not produce a belief in the bible.
     Therefore, the logical person does not accept the Bible as a standard of truth.

Do you see the problem in this argument? Actually, there are two problems, one stated and the other not.The stated problem is that the conclusion is a restatement of the first premise. That is called "begging the question," a logical fallacy. The second problem is that this argument is a logical argument. That is, logic is used to prove that logic is superior to the Bible. Or to be explicit, using logic to prove logic is itself a circular argument. In fact, it is impossible to avoid a circular argument to prove an ultimate standard of truth.

Therefore, the accusation of the atheist applies to himself as much as it does to the Christian.

However, I deny that circularity is a fatal accusation against biblical Christianity. Why? Because it is also the flaw of the argument against Christianity. Think of it this way: If God is real, and the Bible is true, then what it says is ultimate truth. By its very nature, that which is ultimate has no higher standard against which it can be judged. Therefore, it can only be judged according to its own presuppositions. Then, the evidence against Christian theism can only be, not that we didn't start with evidence, but rather that it leads to irrational results, such as contradiction, or something which is demonstrably false. That means that the burden of proof is not on the Christian, who is acting according to reason with proper justification, but rather on the atheist to demonstrate the falsity of the Bible.