In Fiew Views on Apologetics, John Frame has written two paragraphs that do not set well with me, not because they are wrong, but because I wish they were wrong. Â Why would I wish such a thing? Â Because I want to believe that atheists (those who claim not to believe in God) are honest seekers who missed the testimony to God’s existence that is given by all of creation. Â I want to believe that atheism is the belief of those who are “too smart for their own good,” as I have heard it said, those whose superior intellectual capacities prevent them from exercising faith.
I want that to be true.
As Frame points out, however, it is not.
The Hard Truth About Atheism.
The apostle Paul’s teaching about atheism is much different from my wishes.  In fact, it is entirely different.  Consider Frame’s commentary on Paul’s writing:
Those who deny God do so, not because they lack evidence, but because their hearts are rebellious. Â In Romans 1:19-20, the apostle Paul says that
what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. Â For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Paul even says that they “knew God” (v.21). Â God’s revelation is clear, but fallen human beings “suppress the truth by their wickedness” (v.18). Â So the unbeliever’s problem is first ethical, and only secondarily intellectual. Â His intellectual problems stem from his ethical unwillingness to acknowledge the evidence. Â Unbelief distorts human thought.
What Does This Mean?
How does Paul’s claim about atheism affect the Christian approach to apologetics, or defending the faith, with professing atheists? Â I’d love your thoughts…
As a former atheist I have to say reading Romans 1:19-25 is pretty rough. For me verse 22 is especially unsettling "Professing to be wise, they became fools…" Then, reading all the verses where God is talking about fools only furthers the depressing nature of my old way of thinking. The reason why I chose to deny God's existence in the first place was because I believed I hadn't been enchanted by Man's ability to create (and recreate) moral guidelines and creation stories. Shortly after I became a Believer I thought that discovering "evidence for His existence" was what drove me to Him. While I believe that scientific facts and other forms of evidence certainly pointed me towards His direction, I was missing the fact that God was drawing me near to Him, even when I publicly denied Him. I just love Acts 22 as Paul is telling his account "Now it happened, as I journeyed and came near Damascus at about noon, suddenly a great light from heaven shone around me. And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?' So I answered, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said to me, "I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting". Unless I am interpreting those verses wrong, it seems that Paul knew exactly who the Lord was before he admittedly came to the conclusion.
Until 2006 I had a God-shaped hole in my heart. I still struggle with understanding how much "conscious control" I had in my salvation process and think about it almost daily. I can, however, rest in the fact that for Believers "The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord, and He delights in his way" (Psalms 37:23) and "The Lord knows the days of the upright, and their inheritance shall be forever" (Psalm 37:18). Unfortunately for the skeptic “…since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen…†and are “…without excuse…†(Romans1:20). What I focus on now is asking God to have mercy on those who defiantly deny His name and trust that no matter what I see at a particular time in a person’s life “…the Lords weighs the hearts.†(Proverbs 21:2) and that my job is to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks [me] a reason for the hope that is in [me]â€. (1 Peter 3:15).
I am blessed to know you Natalie Wade ~ Thank you for being his conduit!!
Natalie, it is sweet to read your comments. The brokenness over and honesty about your former rebellion, your recognition of the distinction between worldly wisdom and godly wisdom, your confidence and joy in the Gospel, and your desire for other people to receive the same mercy from God. Hearing that is so good for the soul. Thanks for commenting.
Chad, I respect you as a friend, but I think the Bible is filled with errors, and nowhere is that more apparent than here. It is basically a false conclusion derived from accurate logic using faulty premises and presuppositions, such as (in no particular order, and not an exhaustive list surely):
1. The concept of God is even valid in the first place
2. That God exists
3. That evidence shows God exists
4. That the specific form of deity which demands human attention, worship, and obedience exists
5. That these writers (whoever they actually were — I mean the other scriptures that Romans, which I believe Paul wrote, referred to) and Paul himself actually had a connection and endorsement by God to write what they did
Et cetera…
I must honestly confess that I operate from naturalistic presuppositions and that I believe those presuppositions to be properly basic. I believe that these best explain the evidence found in the world around us and the operation of that world and cosmos. As such, I can neither prove my own presuppositions nor disprove those of Christians, except that I believe that a supernatural explanation, even if valid, would be the least preferable explanation for a circumstance, behind all naturalistic explanations, no matter how far-fetched some no doubt could be.
At any rate, having once been a strong believer in Christianity and five-point Calvinism, and now an atheist, I too used to underscore the same apologetic reasoning of people like John Frame (not him specifically, as I am not well familiar with him). However, I began reading and listening to “testimonies” by ex-believers, and I began believing more in my power to reason and consider the evidence, than what my faith taught me to believe against my own reason and the actual evidence I came across. One could certainly argue I am just a non-elect revealing an unregenerate heart (or an elect revealing a pre-regenerate heart, I suppose) but I feel more like a human whose religion lost him rather than a believer who lost his religion to apostasy.
This is getting long, so I will try to wrap this up pretty quickly. I believe you endorse this approach because your faith requires it (because of inerrancy, for one, and the content of the Scriptures) rather than any emotional appeal, and I respect you personally for that, even if I do not respect the belief itself. There are too many professed Christians today who are not honest and genuine. We can both agree that this is bad. I do not believe, and have never seen any evidence that God exists, supposedly, that cannot be interpreted more meaningfully in secular and naturalistic ways, in my opinion. So to me, the above is a doctrinal teaching, and one simply does not use reason or evidence to embrace it, but religious faith. If the Christian God is true, it seems to me that the actual evidence would be not only inescapable but indubitable. And it hardly seems that. And I have wanted God, even the Christian God, to exist, though now I no longer do, because I disagree with the morality of the Scriptures and so-called revealed nature of God. So I cannot prove my position, but I can almost guarantee you that no atheist could agree with what you have written, while remaining an atheist, once he or she has given sufficient thought to it.
Well, anyway, I would like to come visit you guys again sometime. Sylvania is probably the best church I have ever been to, and I want to reassure you that even though I have since left the faith, I did believe at the time I applied for membership and was accepted. Your pastor seems to be a good preacher from the little bit I have heard online. And I wish you guys the best.
Well, Byron, I don’t think you could have been more respectful of me in your response. You have always treated me that way, though, so I’m not surprised. I agree with you that it is a matter of presuppositions. Admittedly, I presuppose the existence of the God of the Bible, the divinity of Jesus, and the divine inspiration, inerrancy (though there are a few hundred thousand NT textual variants), authority, and sufficiency of the Bible as God’s self-revelation. I do, of course, believe these presuppositions to be entirely reasonable. For example, these presuppositions confirm the existence of God generally by supporting what I believe is obvious–that our wonderfully ordered universe is not a cosmic accident, comprised of either (1) eternal matter, which violates the concept of time, or (2) self-creating matter, which violates logic. As you know, I also believe that morality itself is contingent upon the existence of God. These presuppositions also confirm the existence of the Christian God specifically because no other religion properly upholds divine justice.
Anyway, I would love for you to come visit. You’re always welcome here, just as you always have been. I hope life is otherwise going well for you. Talk to you soon, friend.