Catholic Images and the Second Commandment

Most Americans are familiar with the Ten Commandments from our Sunday School days as kids. Some of us can even recite them from memory. For those who can't, the Commandments are found in Exodus 20:2-17 (and repeated in Deuteronomy 5:6-21). The Second reads, "You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God..." In spite of such a plain ban, buildings of the Roman Catholic Church are notorious for the presence of images and statues, especially of the Virgin Mary. Shrines are even built to them in Catholic homes.

The first problem is that Catholic portrayals of the Commandments hide the Second, a problem which I address here.

However, when confronted, Catholics will dodge the implications of the commandment by claiming that their use of images of saints is a matter of devotion, not worship, and, therefore, not a violation of the commandment. For statues of Jesus, they claim to be worshiping Christ Himself, not the statue; the statue is merely an aid.

I have dealt with the issue of saint worship elsewhere (such as here). I want now to address the worship of Jesus by use of images of Him.

In Deuteronomy 12:29-30, Moses gives the Israelites a grave warning: "When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations whom you go in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, take care that you be not ensnared to follow them, after they have been destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, 'How did these nations serve their gods?—that I also may do the same.'" This was written during the Conquest, as the Israelites were driving out the pagans in the Promised Land, as God had commanded them. We see immediately that He is warning them not to get sucked into the worship of the deities of the pagans, the very perversions for which God had judged the Canaanites. However, that wasn't the end of the warning: "You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods" (Deuteronomy 12:31). Not only did Jehovah forbid the Israelites to worship the Canaanite deities, He also forbade them to use pagan forms of worship to worship Him!

This was an error that Israel had already made in their travels in the Wilderness. When Aaron, Moses's brother, had made for them the Golden Calf (Exodus 32:1-6), in imitation of the pagan rituals that they had known in Egypt, they did not call it a new god, as is often mistakenly thought. Rather, they called the image "Jehovah" (verse 5)!

This is the death blow to all of the pretenses of Rome. She claims that there is no harm in using an image of Jesus, an image just like those used by the pagan Romans in earlier Christian history (just as Israel had learned from the Egyptians), because it is an image of Jesus, not of Jupiter. Yet, that is exactly the pretense of the Israelites as they called the Golden Calf "Jehovah"! And it is equally judged by God's words through Moses: "You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods" (Deuteronomy 12:31).

Proving God: God Blesses His Word Alone

As I write this, I am working through the reading list for an apologetics course. The books mention several bible verses on the topic, such as II Corinthians 10:4-5 and I Peter 3:15. And I fully understand why those verses get a lot of attention. They are of obvious importance.

However, two other verses come to my mind that don't appear in apologetics texts.

The first is Luke 16:31. it comes at the end of the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man. In the story, impoverished, suffering Lazarus goes to Heaven, while the unnamed rich man, who had ignored Lazarus on his doorstep during life, goes to Hell. From there, the rich man begs the Patriarch Abraham to send someone to warn his brothers of the reality of judgment and Hell. Then Jesus, in the voice of Abraham, answers, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." The rich man represents the atheist in modern America, who claims that he would believe in God, if He just gave whatever evidence the atheist happens to demand. but no, says Jesus, that's a lie. Any man who rejects the evidence of the Bible, in which God has spoken to all men, has rejected the principle of evidence. What evidence can there be above God's personal testimonial, not just to His existence, but to His nature, His will, and His provision for the salvation of His people?

The other verse is Isaiah 55:11: "So shall My word be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." This is the flip-side of the verse from Luke. Where that verse said that no evidence will avail apart from God's Word, this one promises that His Word will succeed where He has purposed it.

Nowhere in Scripture does any preacher, including Jesus Himself, ever seek to prove the existence of God. Rather, they all take it for granted, and then proceed to apply His truth to their respective audiences.

One God Means One Law for All Men

There is a common teaching among evangelicals that the Old Testament Law applied to (or may continue to apply to) ethnic Israel alone, not to Gentiles. This is an especially popular view among dispensationalists, but is also held by some who claim to follow New Covenant Theology (often abbreviated as NCT).

When it comes to the ceremonial laws, that is, those laws regarding sacrifices and clean versus unclean foods, etc., I certainly agree that those laws were for the church of Israel alone. This is clear from Paul's discussion of circumcision (e. g., Romans 2:25). However, it makes the false assumption that all law is ceremonial law. Really? So God had no law against murder or adultery except for Israel? If that were true, then the Gentiles could not be called sinners, because sin is defined by the Law (I John 3:4). But, more fundamentally, if the Law reflects the righteousness of God, then to claim that it did not apply to the Gentiles is to claim that they were or are outside the rule of the God of the Bible. Who could accept such an absurdity?

However, in addition to these logical arguments, there are explicit statements of Scripture to the contrary: "We know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God" (Romans 3:19). Paul certainly saw no limitation of God's righteousness to the nation of Israel. He held that the Law made every man in the world accountable to God. Accountable how? "There is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:22-23). Accountable as sinners subject to the justice of God! And what is the consequence of that justice? "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23).

The next natural question to ask is, How were and are the Gentiles held accountable to God's Law when they didn't have the written word of God? It's a logical question, but one based on a faulty assumption, that no one knows God's righteousness except those who can read it. And I would certainly agree that reading God's standards is a powerful tool toward obeying them. But think about the implications of the assumption. Did Adam and the patriarchs have no knowledge about how to obey God? Of course not. The Law was written in their hearts, just as is promised in the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:10, 10:16, Jeremiah 31:33). And even illiterate Gentiles experience the Law of God as conscience (Romans 2:15). That is the basis for the stunning statement that Paul makes in Romans 1:18-20: "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." Ignorance cannot be claimed as an excuse because God has eliminated all ignorance!

There can be only one law for all men because there is only one God for all men!

The People of God: Apostate Israel or Sodom?

A large segment of American Evangelicalism, especially of the dispensationalist stripe, insists on calling the nation of Israel "the people of God," and, therefore, pushing American government policy to an inordinate support for the government of the State of Israel.

However, I deny that the Jews are any such thing, or that there is a special blessing or curse on America, depending on our political attitude toward the modern nation of Israel.

Why? Well, I have mentioned some reasons before, such as here and here. I want to address an additional reason now.

In Matthew 10, Jesus sends the Apostles out on an early mission to the cities of the Jews. He explicitly forbids them to preach to the Gentiles or Samaritans. And of any city that rejects their message, he says (Matthew 10:15), "Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town." He extends that warning more explicitly in Matthew 11:20-24: "Then He began to denounce the cities where most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. 'Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty

Fire Falls on Sodom

works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.'"

This is an astounding warning! We know what happened to Sodom (Genesis 18 and 19): It was destroyed with fire and brimstone when ten righteous men couldn't be found in her. Yet, Jesus says, Sodom was more righteous than were these Jewish cities that rejected Him and His message.

The question that this should raise in anyone's mind is, Did Jesus, therefore, prefer Sodom over these unbelieving Jews? And I think the answer is self-evident! The implication of that can only be that ethnicity has no standing in the purposes of God (Matthew 3:9, Galatians 3:7, and especially Acts 10:34-35). What implication does that have for the question I asked in the headline above? I will leave it to my reader to decide.

Why Does God Allow Evil to Continue?

In several places, the Bible talks about the effects of man's sins, not just on man himself, but on all of creation. That's because Adam was created to be the viceroy of God, the head of the creation. And, just as the bad decisions of a president affect our entire society, Adam's catastrophic choice brought ruin on the entire physical universe.

The primary reference is Genesis 3:17-19: "Cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread." Moses touches again on this just a little later, in Genesis 5:29, referring to Noah: "Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands."

The Prophet Isaiah is even more graphic: "The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant" (Isaiah 24:5).

In the New Testament, Paul tells us (Romans 8:20-21), "The creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God."

It is only natural to wonder why this curse continues. Why does God continue to allow hurricanes, earthquakes, AIDS, hunger, and war? And I think these verses allow us only one answer: God has ordained that the creation shall resist its human ruler until that ruler stops resisting God. That is, just as the creation was placed under a curse because of man's sin, it remains a curse until his sin ends. That is part of what is brought about as men turn to Christ in repentance and faith. "Through Him, [God shall] reconcile to Himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of His cross" (Colossians 1:20).

"The creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies" (Romans 8:19-23).

So the answer to the question I ask in the title is another question: How long will God allow evil to continue? How long will mankind prefer suffering evil to submitting to his proper Lord and God? They are the opposite sides of the same coin.

The Christian Sabbath: A Continuing Delight

I have dealt with the Sabbath in three different ways in past posts. One was its continuing validity under the New Covenant. The Second was the proper observing of it. And the third has been to defend the Fist-Day Sabbath from attack by seventh-day sabbatarians, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists. My emphasis this time will be on its continuing validity.

One form of attack on the Sabbath is from an erroneous application of the true principle that the Mosaic ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ's atoning work, and are, therefore abrogated. This is why we no longer sacrifice lambs or treat some foods as unclean (another issue with the SDA's). The reason that the application of this true principle to the Sabbath is erroneous is because the Sabbath was not part of the ceremonial law (thought there are laws regarding the Sabbath).

Before I address that, there is one side issue I want to address. I often hear, "Jesus is our Sabbath." Really? Where does Scripture say that? Did Jesus perfectly fulfill and complete the Law? Of course. But in what way is the Fourth Commandment different from the other nine in that respect? Is Jesus our not-murderer? Does that mean that we are no longer bound by the Sixth Commandment? Obviously not! "Jesus is our Sabbath" is just one of those slogans that has been repeated so often without challenge that it is merely accepted as a truism. Well, I am challenging it. Show me the Scripture.

But back to my intended point.

What this objection fails to acknowledge is that the Sabbath wasn't a ceremonial ordinance (though it did gain some ceremonial adornments in the Mosaic economy). Rather, it was a creation ordinance: "On the seventh day God finished His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all His work that He had done in creation" (Genesis 2:2-3). The Sabbath day had its origin, not with Moses, but with God in the original creation! That's why the commandment says, not "observe," but "remember" (Exodus 29:8). One remembers by looking back on something, not by beginning it.

Furthermore, we know that the Sabbath became an Israelite custom before it was inaugurated by Moses. Note Exodus 16:23, 25-26, four chapters before the Fourth Commandment: "Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy Sabbath to the Lord; bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over lay aside to be kept till the morning. [But] eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, there will be none." We have Moses's applying the Sabbath to the collection of manna, even before the commandment is given in chapter 20. Therefore, it was a practice among the people already!

I don't know why there is a special hatred of the Sabbath among today's Christians, even among those who claim to be Bible-believing. Why do we not want a day to enjoy the Lord and our families, without the burdens of our regular lives, as lawful as those burdens might be? God expects one day out of seven focused on Him, not on earning money or secular entertainment. I consider that to be a wonderful gift, not a restriction!

Judging the Truth of the Bible

In our political system, courts have the power to judge the validity of laws passed by Congress. What is the basis on which they  - at least, hypothetically - base their judgments? On the basis of the Constitution. That is, the Constitution has a higher, a priori, status than do Congressional acts. That makes sense, doesn't it? We expect to judge a thing by a standard which is higher than the thing judged.

That creates a problem when you seek to judge the highest thing. Against what would you judge the validity of the Constitution? In the field of law, there is no such higher standard.

That brings me to the discussion of the truth of the Bible. The challenge from the atheist is to prove the Bible. Yet, no one seems to notice the supposition hidden in the words of that question. That is, no one admits that it is a loaded question.

When the atheist (or whomever) demands proof for the Bible, he is demanding that the Bible be judged by a higher standard, one that he accepts. Not only must that standard, whether reason or experience, etc., be higher than the Bible, but it must be something that satisfies his intellectual nature. Thus, there are really two higher standards, with his mind as the highest of all.

Ah, here is that dastardly hidden supposition: that atheist is presupposing his own sovereignty, autonomy, his right to judge God.

This is as if some Congressman claimed that, before his law could be subjected to the Consitution, the Constitution must first be subjected to his personal satisfaction. Would he not be considered presumptuous? Perhaps even irrational?

Yet, no one makes any such judgment of the atheist who expects to judge God and His word before it can be accepted! Here is his argument, though it is never made explicit: "The Bible is not God's word; therefore, I am not responsible to its authority."

The only legitimate approach is to consider the Bible on its own authority. That is, for example, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (II Timothy 3:16). Is that circular reasoning? After a fashion. However, as I have sought to demonstrate, a certain circularity is unavoidable when dealing with ultimate standards. If the Bible is God's word, then I must accept it as true. Any other approach assumes that it is not God's word, and is, thus, also circular: "It is not God's word; therefore, it is not God's word."

That's why no one in Scripture ever attempts to prove the truth of Scripture. The Prophets, Jesus, the Apostles, all assumed that it is absolute truth, and proceeded, not to prove it, but to apply it.

Neutrality: There's No Need to Be a Fanatic!

Sin is an unpopular concept in today's culture. However, one sin is still acknowledged: to claim that anything is true, while something else is untrue. That is, the law of logic known as the Law of Non-Contradiction is now Public Enemy Number One. Of course, that popular opinion is self-refuting, because it says that it is an absolute truth that there is no absolute truth.

And this isn't just a secular problem. Even among professing Christians it is the "in thing" to say, "I believe X; you believe Y; but there is no way to know who is right, so we'll just agree to disagree." Well, I for one do not so agree! Why? Because to agree to that neutrality is a betrayal of God, the Bible, and truth.

In the words of Scripture (Joshua 24:15), "If it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." The context was a renewal of the covenant between Israel and Jehovah. Some of the Israelites had held on to the pagan deities that they had known in Egypt (verse 14). That is, they were hedging their bets, serving Jehovah one hour, and then the pagan deities the next. After all, why be fanatical about it? But Joshua rejected their neutrality, as did Jehovah. This is the same God who had warned the Israelites (Deuteronomy 4:24), "The LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God."

Unlike the suave and open-minded Christian of modern America, the God of the Bible very much believes in absolute truth. And He is it!

Jesus made the same point (Matthew 6:24): "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." Therefore (Matthew 12:30), "Whoever is not with Me is against Me, and whoever does not gather with Me scatters."

So, while it may be very sophisticated to choose both of every choice, Jesus is not sympathetic. The God of the Bible, whether in the Old Testament or in the New, rejects your neutrality. As we used to say, "It's my way or the highway."

Where Did the Righteous Go Upon Death Before Jesus?

This is an issue that has come up in several conversations recently. People keep asserting that they, i. e., Old Testament saints, went to someplace called "Abraham's Bosom," a phrase that occurs nowhere in the Old Testament, and only once in the New. You may recall that Jesus tells the story (Luke 16:19-31) of Lazarus and the Rich Man (traditionally nicknamed "Dives"). Dives went to Hell, but Lazarus went to Abraham's Bosom. The burden of proof is on those who want to claim that it is not an epithet for Heaven. So far, I have been given lots of insistence, but zero evidence.

Behind this evangelical version of Limbo is an assumption that the atonement in Jesus's blood could not have applied before it occurred in history. Why not? Don't we do anything analogous? When I sit down to eat at a restaurant, I receive my meal in expectation of the money I will pay for it after I eat it. A person gets to move into an apartment in the expectation of the rent he will pay later, not that he has already paid! That is the significance of the Revelation 13:8: "All who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain." The elect are written in the book of life in anticipation of the blood that will be shed for our redemption.

There is the answer to the question of the spiritual status of the godly down through history before the physical appearing of Jesus in Bethlehem. We were chosen, with the expectation of the blood atonement that would be applied at a later historical point (John 6:39). Therefore, the Old Testament saints were saved in no way different from us in the New Testament era (Acts 15:11). Why, then, should those saints require a different spiritual home from that which we will enjoy? There is no reason for such an assertion.

We also have more-explicit information on the subject. Most people know the story of Elijah, who was transported away without ever undergoing physical death. Where did he go? The text tells us: "As they [i. e., Elijah and Elisha] still went on and talked, behold, chariots of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."

There is no Limbo. There is no Limbo-substitute called "Abraham's Bosom." There are, and have only ever been, Heaven and Hell.

Is It a Sin to Say That There Is Hyperbole in Scripture?

A Skyline in Canaan?

In discussing Isaiah 14:3-23, I have denied that it refers to the fall of Satan. I insist that it really is about the king of Babylon, just as it says in verse 4. There is always someone who points out that there are specific references in the passage that exceed something that could be true of a mere human king. And, if one insists on taking a literal approach, that would be true. However, is it not inconsistent to insist on being literal about that, while being figurative about the subject of the passage? After all, Satan is mentioned nowhere in it.

My answer is simply that the Prophet is using hyperbolic language to emphasize the arrogance of Babylon, and especially of her king (compare Daniel 4:30-33). Hyperbole is a widely used literary form, using exaggerated language to emphasize a point. Yet, people accuse me of denying the inerrancy of Scripture by claiming that it contains hyperbole. Would I do so if I claimed that it uses poetry? Or allegory? Or humor? Certainly not! God uses all of the literary forms that any other form of human literature uses.

Here is another example: "Hear, O Israel: you are to cross over the Jordan today, to go in to dispossess nations greater and mightier than you, cities great and fortified up to heaven" (Deuteronomy 9:1). Would anyone suggest that Moses was literally saying that the Canaanites had skyscrapers in their defensive walls? I hope not! Rather, he is using hyperbole, deliberately-exagerrated language, to impress on Israel how powerful their human foes were, before pointing them (verse 3) to the power of their God: "Know therefore today that He who goes over before you as a consuming fire is the Lord your God. He will destroy them and subdue them before you. So you shall drive them out and make them perish quickly, as the Lord has promised you."

Hermeneutics requires the awareness of the literary form used in any particular passage. That isn't liberalism, but merely sound exegesis.

Without the Law, There is No Righteousness

I've noticed a certain reaction, whenever I cite from the Old Testament something which conflicts with another person's theology: "That's Old Testament, and we're under grace, not under law." Of course, that ignores the fact that most of the Old Testament  is not Law. It is also an abuse of Paul (Romans 6:14), who also said, "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law" (Romans 3:31). So, the Apostle had no fantasy that the Law had no place in the life of a Christian (compare Matthew 5:19). From where, therefore, does this antinomian heresy arise?

It seems that everyone forgets the offer that Satan made to Adam: "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). We print thousands of pictures each year of the tree, the serpent lounging among its branches, while Even holds out an apple to Adam. It wasn't about the fruit! It is the words that are significant, and, in them, Satan offered - deceptively, of course - moral autonomy. The temptation to which the first man fell wasn't an apple, but rather the false promise of autonomy, to decide right and wrong for himself, rather than to receive the judgment of his Creator. Antinomianism is the same lie, but now distributed by men who claim to represent, not Satan, but God! Notice the element that those two words, antinomian and autonomy, share: "nomos," the Greek work for law. "Antinomian" means "against the Law," that is, God's law. "Autonomy" means "self law," again an opposition to God's Law.

What basis does God give for the righteousness that our lives should display (James 2:14-17)? God says, "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy" (Leviticus 19:2). Jesus paraphrased these same words in Matthew 5:48: "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." In contrast to Satan, God says that our righteousness is centered on Him, not ourselves. the Apostle Peter quotes and applies those same words from Moses: "As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, 'You shall be holy, for I am holy'" (I Peter 1:14-16). If Peter quotes the Mosaic Law to support his point, then he, at least, didn't believe that it has no role in the life of the Christian! He was no antinomian!

I give here the words of Paul, Peter, and Jesus against antinomianism. "Let God be true though every one were a liar" (Romans 3:4).

The Logical Use of Words and the Heresy of Modalism

I have frequent interactions with Modalists (also known as Oneness or Sabellians). They talk about Jesus's being His own Father. Or, when reading what Jesus says about the Father, they claim that His use of "He" and "We" really mean "I." I frequently respond that their doctrine deprives words of their meaning, undermining, not only communications among men, but, more importantly, communications from God to men. Either God uses deceptive language or He is utterly irrational, if Modalist exegesis is correct.

But I don't for a moment think that it is. Human reason is part of our having been made in the image of God (John 1:4, 9), which includes the ability to communicate. The need and ability to communicate imply the logical Law of Non-Contradiction, i. e., it is impossible for a word to mean both A and not-A (at the same time).

Consider how Jesus spoke about the Father during His earthly ministry: "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser" (John 15:1). He borrows from imagery that would have been familiar to the agrarian society of First-Century Palestine. What would a First-Century grape farmer think if he believed that Jesus meant that the vine and the vindresser were the same person? He would think, and properly so, that Jesus suffered from some form of dementia.

What if He had used imagery of our own time? "I am the software, and My Father is the programmer." Would any person, at least any English-speaking person, conceive that he might mean that the software IS the programmer? Yet that is the logic of  Modalism.

Science with Faith versus Scientism with Unbelief

Science is a useful and legitimate means of discovering and describing that which is. It cannot, however, describe what ought to be. That is why scientism, not science, per se, is opposed to biblical faith. I am using the term scientism in this sense: "The idea that the concepts of truth, falsity, explanation, and even understanding are all concepts which belong exclusively to science." It is a common justification for agnosticism and atheism.

It is quite respectable to claim, "I only believe what can be demonstrated by science." However, that is not really something a thinking person should say. Why? Well, let's start with the built-in, but unspoken, contradiction in the statement: By what scientific experimentation have you determined that science is the only legitimate source of truth? It is impossible to do so. The assertion is untestable, and, therefore, unscientific.

But the bigger problem is this: I think everyone would agree with the statement that there is evil in the world. There are things that happen which ought not happen. Innocent bystanders get mown down by drunk drivers. Small children die of cancer. Terrorists kill and maim men, women, and children who have done them no harm. But, again, we have an unspoken contradiction: how does science determine that these things are evil, or that they ought not to be? It cannot! Certainly it is true that scientists have an understanding that these things ought not to be. However, can anyone point to the scientific experiment by which any scientist demonstrated that truth?

No, no one can.

Rather, the scientist, or the atheist-on-the-street who preaches science, is making an a priori determination of what is evil, of what ought not to be. And what is the source of that a priori judgment? The Bible gives the answer: "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 2:15). By the very declaration that something is evil and ought not to be, an atheist is declaring his suppressed knowledge that God is and that both the atheist and all other men are answerable to Him. 

Paul described this suppressed knowledge of God in Romans 1:18-22: "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."

The atheist, while proudly proclaiming his unbelief, and claiming science as its justification, cannot help but reveal that his spoken claims are a deception, both to himself and to his audience. He cannot point a finger at anything that ought not to be without demonstrating that the biblical faith is true, and the triune God of the Bible is the only basis for rational thought and communication.