Another Rational Atheist

Evidently there are some atheists who do not know how to read—which is quite an extraordinary paradox, given their apparent ability to write. You see, despite the fact that my former blog Apologia has been declared 'Closed' for more than a year, it continues to receive drive-by comments from these visitors. (Some might argue that perhaps these visitors are linked to the specific article in question by Google, but that is no excuse because I reiterate within the Comments field itself that the blog is closed.)

A gentleman by the name of Nigel Davies recently left a terrific scholarly response:

Your religion does not declare that there is one God atall. It declares faith in the Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost betraying its origins in pre-Christian faiths of multiple gods. You have rationalised that down to one god but you have one more reduction to go before you reach the fact that there is actually no god atall.

Christianity does not declare that there is one God, Davies states. Were you aware of this? I wasn't. That was definitely news to me. When I examine every reasonable standard of historic Christian belief, from apostolic teaching and throughout the history of orthodox doctrine, I find again and again the declaration that there is one God—and at times rather explicitly, in direct repudiation of relevant heresies (e.g., The Nicene Creed, which begins with the affirmation, "I believe in one God").

Do you know what we call a proposition that's contradicted by evidence? A delusion, sir. This is especially the case when the amount of invalidating evidence is so extensive. Now, I think it's quite probable that Davies meant to say that the expression 'trinitarian monotheism' is an oxymoron but, if that is so, he really ought to have said that because that's quite a different statement—but it's also an extremely difficult one to support, given a responsible definition of both terms (viz. both terms presuppose a singular deity).

Of particular interest to me, of course, is his bold assertion that it's a "fact" that God does not exist. Oh how I would love to examine the evidence which establishes that as a fact. I shall not hold my breath, though.

Layman & Euthyphro

Pulled from Atheism.org in their "Quotation of the Minute" box:

"[Given the legitimacy of purely hypothetical questions] . . . even if God would not approve of torture, it is still true, according to the divine command theory, that if He were to approve of torture, then torture would be right." (Layman, p. 38)

Layman has latched onto the Euthyphro dilemma, which has no compelling force against Christian theism. His statement is non-sequitur when contemplating a God who is (i) immutable and (ii) omnibenevolent, and a moral order that is (iii) grounded in the very nature of God. All three are hallmarks of Christian theology.

----------
Layman, C. Stephen. The Shape of the Good: Christian Reflections on the Foundation of Ethics. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame. (1991)

Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner?

The following is an email I had received:

There's something I don't quite understand in the Bible. It says to "hate the sin" but to "love the sinner," and then in Psalm 5:5 it says about God, "You hate all who do wrong." I don't quite understand what that really means. How can God love us but hate us? And how can we do the same? Am I missing something here? Although I do realize that so many people have turned hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner into a cliché, so that it has lost all meaning, what's the true meaning?

You're right, it is a cliché. But as general principles go it is a fairly good one.

The deal with hatred comes down to the issue of intentions, or what lies at back of a specific act or emotional state (as does everything we are held morally culpable for). And not only for us but for God too, because in one sense he hates but in another sense it is impossible for him to hate, e.g., God is capable of hatred in the sense of "aversion" but not in the sense of "malice."

At back of God's hatred lies his supreme commitment to his own glory and righteousness. In other words, the reason why he hates all who do wrong is because they defy the supremacy and glory of God, and God simply cannot deny himself (2 Tim 2:13); as John Piper said, for God to deny the infinite worth of his own glory "would imply that there is something more valuable outside himself. He would commit idolatry." This is the reason for God's "intense aversion" (hatred) toward sin and sinners—and also the necessity of Christ and his atoning sacrifice. Without Christ our end is inescapable: utter destruction. It is because of Christ—and only because of Christ—that this world has not been destroyed and that anyone is saved at all. In ourselves we can offer God no worthy thing; the ground of the saints' justification is Christ, and only Christ.

The same thing may be said of the saints as well. Our hatred is justified when it takes the form of "aversion" but it is a sin when it takes the form of "malice." The saints never hate for hatred's sake; we hate for God's sake because, like David, we have a Spirit-fueled commitment to the supremacy and glory of our Lord God. As John Calvin said, "A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent." The reason for our "intense aversion" (hatred) toward sin and sinners is because we have a commitment to the supremacy and glory of God that exceeds all else, completely. "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26). For the saints, God comes first in all things and their commitment to him is intense.

We do not hate others because of their race or sexual orientation or because of what they have done to us; all these things are human-centred motives. Our motives are God-centred: "Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and do I not loathe those who rise up against you" (Psa. 139:21). We are to live peaceably and to love others and forgive them, but never at the expense of God's glory; although we are to live peaceably here on earth, we are to avoid friendship with the world wherever it threatens the priority of God in our lives. "You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God" (James 4:4).

But it is very important to note that there is no Scriptural warrant for hating individual people. David said that he hates those who hate God and loathes those who rise against God, but notice: here he hates a certain class of people, not select persons, that class of people who hate God. But no individual is being specified. We can never be certain of who falls into that class, but we can certainly hate that class itself, like David, because of our passionate devotion to God.

When it comes to individual people, we have no idea who belongs to the elect of God and who does not. Smith might live in rebellion against God today but we should love him nonetheless, forgive him, and preach the Word to him, because next week he could turn his life over to God and become one of his most passionate followers. All along he was one of God's elect, but not until later did his life of faith begin. Walk down the street and notice the people around you: any one of them could be one of God's elect. We must not hate them as individuals because we do not know who belongs to God. But we must, like David, hate that class of people who defy God and rise against him because we cannot serve two masters. Where our loyalty is concerned, it must fall on the side of God, his supremacy and glory.