Atheists do not spend all their time and energy hating on and railing against flying spaghetti monsters for the simple reason that they know there are no such things. But they DO know that God exists, and they hate him for it. If God exists, then they cannot be god.

Yes they actually do hate God:
Having just penned another piece on the war against God, I of course got the usual angry atheists writing in with their fists flying. They hate it when you dare challenge their derelict worldview. And they always go on about how they do not really hate God. Yeah right.
Of course they hate God. Their entire life screams out this hatred. And it is no wonder: when they are told that they are NOT the centre of the universe, but only the one real and living God is, that incenses them. That outrages them. Atheists hate it when you point out the truth that there can be only one true God. And the reasons are obvious:
They want to be king, not subject.They want to rule, not be ruled.They want to give orders, not take orders.They want to call the shots, not be told what to do.They want to determine what is true and false, not God.They want to determine what is right and wrong, not God.They want to be independent, not dependent.They want to do their own will, not God’s will.They want to live like the devil, not God.They want to rule in hell, not serve in heaven.
Scripture of course often speaks about atheists. Twice in the Psalter for example they are called “fools” because they refuse to recognise God (Ps. 14:1 and 53:1). Rejecting their creator—and judge—is the height of foolishness. And this is a deliberate, defiant rejection of God. D. A. Carson, commenting on Psalm 14:1, puts it this way:
The word rendered ‘fool’ is in Hebrew a term of moral opprobrium suggesting perversity, churlish and aggressive perversity…The Bible’s view is that in the last analysis atheism is less the product of misguided searching, a kind of intellectual mistake, than a defiant and stubborn rebellion…The fact that atheism is not widely seen that way is itself an index of our depravity. In fact, the best-informed atheists commonly acknowledge the connection between morality and belief, between immorality and unbelief. There is a famous passage in Huxley that acknowledges that one of the driving forces behind atheistic naturalism is the desire to tear away any sort of moral condemnation of otherwise condemned behavior. In a passage scarcely less famous, Michael Foucault, one of the theoreticians behind postmodernism, frankly acknowledges that it became important for him to destroy traditional notions of truth and morality, because he wished to justify his own sexual conduct. A few years ago, Foucault died of AIDS.
But the classic text on the atheist mindset and value system is found in Romans 1:18-32. It reads:
For 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, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Read More

Related Posts:

God’s people, with all our faults and immaturities, are God’s glorious works in progress. Though our hearts are often fickle, they are also cleansed. Therefore, we don’t write one another off, but commit to one another, rejoice with one another, give grace to one another. In the process, we will certainly be disappointed, but Jesus will even more certainly be a sufficient salve for our wounds. 

We’ve all been disappointed by someone. We’ve all known what it feels like to be let down. The bitter taste, the sharp sting, the nagging sense of betrayal — it hurts when people fail us. It hurts even more when the people who fail us are our friends. The deeper the relationship, the deeper the potential wounds from disappointment. David knew that deeper pain:
For it is not an enemy who taunts me — then I could bear it; it is not an adversary who deals insolently with me — then I could hide from him. But it is you, a man, my equal, my companion, my familiar friend. (Psalm 55:12–13)
In another psalm, he says, “Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me” (Psalm 41:9).
As Christians, our deepest relationships are often those found and cultivated within the local church. And rightfully so, for, as the church, we are “members one of another” (Romans 12:5). Unlike all our other relationships, we are called to “love one another with brotherly affection (and) outdo one another in showing honor” (Romans 12:10). This makes church relationships uniquely deep and glorious. That means they can also be uniquely, deeply disappointing.
Do you know this by experience? If so, how have you sought to handle it?
The Way of the Cynic
One way to handle this potential for disappointment is cynicism. As a defense mechanism, cynicism markets itself as a way to avoid future disappointment by assuming everyone’s an imposter. The cynic leans on his familiar formula: “You only do (action), because you want (result).” He can attribute impure motives to just about anyone, even those in the local church.

The young man volunteering in childcare is only trying to impress his girlfriend.
The older woman attending multiple Bible studies is only trying to earn the respect and admiration of her peers.
The pastor preaching God’s word is only trying to grow his church (and his salary).

No one in our churches, whether in the pulpit, or on the platform, or in the pews, can evade the cynic’s accusations.
Sadly, cynicism often seems to work, at least for the moment. The one who views the whole world as a fraud is very rarely disappointed. Instead, he appears to have exchanged his potential of future disappointment for the present impression of power (“Now I’m the one who gets to criticize”), and control (“I decide if and when to trust them”), and courage (“I don’t need anyone but me”). And yet, those impressions of power, control, and courage, are only just that: counterfeits of the real things. And as counterfeits, they take more than they give.
Consider, after all, the glorious works of God that any cynic must disregard. When face-to-face with a man who has been radically transformed by God, or a woman who has found her happiness in Jesus despite all the suffering she’s endured, or a whole host of elderly believers who have held on faithfully to God since childhood — what can the cynic do but scoff?
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Wednesday, June 19, 2024
The overture requiring the titles of elder and deacon to be restricted only to men who serve in that ordained office passed, but even if it had failed it would still remain impermissible to ordain women to the office of deacon, which is what this minister was arguing for. Others arguing against restricting the titles of elder and deacon to ordained men insisted that their specific cultural heritage, namely respect for older members in the church, demanded that they use biblical titles of office for those not ordained to that office. Still others simply stated that they have used these titles for non-ordained women for decades, and that it would be very unpleasant to change course now.

The Presbyterian Church in America met this week [6/10-14/24] for its annual General Assembly (GA), where the entire denomination gathers to deliberate important, denomination-wide matters. Ruling Elder Steve Dowling was an excellent and fair moderator and business progressed in a timely fashion. One might even dare to hope that the trend of ending mid-afternoon on Thursday, as occurred both this year and last year, will continue indefinitely. This year there were fewer outwardly controversial matters debated, though some of the items up for votes were related to bigger issues (the role of women in the church, abuse, etc.).
I attended this year as a voting commissioner and was pleased with how things went. One of the items receiving extra attention is that of who may use the titles of elder or deacon. This one is important because it addresses the fact that women in some PCA churches have been called deacons, though the polity of the PCA requires that this ordained office be only filled by men. Of all the GA debates, I was most surprised by the reasoning of those who opposed the overture that would explicitly forbid the title of elder or deacon being applied to anyone not ordained to that office. One minister presented the commonly used argument that the biblical word “deacon” is applied to women (Phoebe in Rom 12:1, for example). There is a confusion in this argument between the way in which the word “deacon” is used in a more generic sense in scripture simply to mean someone who is serving others in some capacity and the specific office of deacon described in 1 Timothy 3, but what was most striking to me was that this speaker was using this argument very straightforwardly to state that the PCA’s binding polity is simply wrong about women deacons. Even if the PCA’s polity is wrong on this (I don’t believe it is), for the time being that polity is binding on all officers. The overture requiring the titles of elder and deacon to be restricted only to men who serve in that ordained office passed, but even if it had failed it would still remain impermissible to ordain women to the office of deacon, which is what this minister was arguing for. Others arguing against restricting the titles of elder and deacon to ordained men insisted that their specific cultural heritage, namely respect for older members in the church, demanded that they use biblical titles of office for those not ordained to that office. Still others simply stated that they have used these titles for non-ordained women for decades, and that it would be very unpleasant to change course now. I don’t recall hearing a single argument on this side for the permissibility of calling unordained women deacons within the rules of our currently existing polity. This, to me, only goes to show that the real issue has been a lack of enforcement of our polity in the past, not ambiguity about that polity.
One thing that surprised me this year was the failure of an overture that would make binding an amended section of our non-binding Directory of Worship. The section, as newly amended, would mandate that only qualified men can preach. The main argument against this overture was that our binding Book of Church Order (BCO) already mandates that only qualified men can preach. This is true (BCO 12-5.e), though I don’t understand why added clarity on this matter is problematic.
Read More
Related Posts: