Tag Archives: Atheism

October 18, 2015 · 10:30

No Gap

earth-implosion

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2)

Ever since Charles Darwin published his On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, (in which, by the way, he never addresses the main thesis of his book) it seems that Christian theologians have been scrambling to defend the Genesis creation account and allow for millions of years of evolution. Even now with all the great research being done by creation scientists in the fields of biology, cosmology, geology, meteorology, paleontology, physics, and others, and by great organizations like Answers In Genesis, Creation Ministries International, the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research and others, still we have far too many Christian pastors and theologians that cower at the roar of atheists and evolutionists when it comes to the question of origins. They fear being labeled as ignorant and uneducated and likened to geocentric flat-earthers. Rather than defend the clear teaching of Scripture on this matter, they will either completely capitulate to the evolutionists, or they will find some compromise to accommodate evolutionary concepts. What really frustrates me is when some of these cowards claim to defend the infallible, inerrant, Word of God. If the Word of God is truly infallible and inerrant, then compromise is not an option.

One such compromise is known as the Gap Theory which proposes that there is a “gap” of long ages – billions of years – between the first two verses of Genesis 1. “According to this concept, Genesis 1:1 describes the initial creation of the universe. Following this, the standard events of cosmic evolution took place, which eventually produced our solar system about five billion years ago. Then, on the earth, the various geologic ages followed, as identified by their respective assemblages of fossils (trilobites, dinosaurs, etc.).”[1] Following this, some sort of global cataclysm takes place destroying all life and God must re-create the earth. Thus, Genesis 1:2 is describing the earth “becoming” without form and void. This idea was popularized by the Scofield Bible, and widely accepted for almost a century, but it was due more to fear of ridicule than solid Bible apologetics.

The first problem with this view begins with the first word of the second verse – “And.” We must first keep in mind that the original text did not include chapter and verse divisions. The text was a continuous reading. The “And” at the beginning of verse two is the Hebrew letter waw (pronounced “vav”). In Hebrew grammar, this construct is known as a “waw consecutive” indicating that there is no break between what precedes it and what follows. The text, then, is one continuous thought without any break: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void.” By the way, punctuation marks were not part of the original Hebrew text; punctuations were added by the translators as they thought proper according to English grammar. The same is true for the remainder of verse two: “and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Each of those “ands” is a “waw consecutive” indicating no break in the action. Furthermore, verses 3-5 all begin with a “waw consecutive,” indicating no break in the action from the beginning of verse one to the end of verse five. Simply analyzing the Hebrew grammatical construction of these first five verses of Genesis destroys any notion of “gaps” in the creation account in Genesis. Attempting to insert a gap in the text is simply sloppy hermeneutics.

The second problem presents itself with the final statement in verse five: “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” “Evening and morning” define a normal 24-hour day. In addition, the Hebrew word translated “day” is yom, and it is normally understood to mean a single 24-hour day. Although it is rarely used to indicate an undetermined time as in “the day of the Lord” or “in that day” or “in those days”; it is never used to indicate an indefinite amount of time as in millions of years. There are other options for specifying longer periods of time. For example, in Daniel 9:24, the use of shâbûa‛ meaning “seven” and translated “weeks” in the King James Bible (KJV), is used to indicate a period of seven years. Later, in Daniel 12:7, the use of mô‛êd, meaning “an appointment” or a “fixed season” and translated “time” in the KJV, is used to indicate a year, although “year” in Hebrew is actually shâneh. Hebrew does have a word for an indefinite amount of time; that word is ‛ôlâm, which is often used in the sense of eternity. So, God had other word options to indicate eons of time, yet He chose to use the word for a normal 24-hour day.

Finally, God regards “death” as an enemy. “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (1 Corinthians 15:26, emphasis mine). At the end of the sixth day, God assessed His work, “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31, emphasis mine). Think about this: God, who is incapable of any error whatsoever, declares His creation, not just “good,” but “very good.” The Hebrew word for “very” is mǝ‘ôd, and it is an adjective meaning “vehemence” or “vehemently.” That is a very strong word describing God’s assessment of His perfect creation. Now think about this: if God considers death the enemy, why would He allow billions of years of death inserted between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and then turn around and exuberantly declare His creation “very good”? That makes no sense! God does not contradict Himself like that. Furthermore, the enemy, death, entered through Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12), and the penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23). That being true, then how could death have existed before Adam’s sin? And if death existed in “the gap” prior to Adam’s sin, then how could death be “the enemy” and the “penalty” for sin? So, the “Gap Theory” raises some serious theological issues.

If a preacher, pastor, theologian or layman professes to believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, it is time to claim ALL of it, stand by ALL of it, defend ALL of it, and stop making excuses and compromising with the secularists that disregard both the Bible and the Creator. There is NO GAP in Genesis. The only gap that exists is the chasm of sin that separates man from God, and that gap cannot be bridged by compromising any part of God’s Word.

Notes:

[1]  Henry M. Morris, “Why the Gap Theory Won’t Work” (http://www.icr.org/article/why-gap-theory-wont-work), accessed October 16, 2015.

12 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Atheism, Christianity, Creation, Evolution, Gospel, Origins, Religion, Salvation, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 23, 2014 · 15:28

Did God Create Evil?

And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. (Colossians 1:20)

Question: Because the Lord is the Creator of all, He brought also evil in the universe. Did He do penance, when He died on the cross?

Answer: To accuse God of creating evil is a misunderstanding of God’s nature. The Bible says:

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. (James 1:13-14, emphasis mine)

God did not create evil or sin, but in His wisdom “allowed” for it. Having created man in His own image (Genesis 1:26), He gave man the option to obey or disobey, to accept God or reject Him, to love Him or not to love Him. Without that option, we would be no more than androids that only function according to the programming of the designer. Without the option, it would be impossible for us to have a “personal” relationship with our Creator.

Therefore, it is not for His sin that Jesus died on the cross, but for ours. When you think about it, that is pretty incredible that God, should take upon Himself the penalty for our sin in order to restore the broken relationship between man and his Creator (Philippians 2:5-11) .

7 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Atheism, Christianity, Creation, Evangelism, Gospel, Origins, Religion, Salvation, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 22, 2014 · 10:30

Proof of God

Big Bang or God?

Big Bang or God?

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (Exodus 3:14)

When someone asks, “What solid proof exists that there is a God who created everything?” that really is a foolish question. In order to “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit” (Proverbs 26:5), one must respond with a similar question: “What solid evidence is there that everything resulted from the Big Bang?” The God denier will attempt to make a case for the Big Bang by citing scientific consensus, but if pressed hard enough, he will have to concede that there is no “solid evidence” for the Big Bang. Hopefully, that should level the playing field.

Neither divine creation, nor the Big Bang can be proven with “solid” evidence because there was no one around to witness either one. So, we have to start with what we can observe. That is what true science is all about anyway – making observations, predictions and experiments. We cannot observe what is in the past, therefore we cannot make predictions about it because we are living the results of the past, and we cannot perform experiments to produce similar results. So, neither creation nor the Big Bang can be proven scientifically.

We are left with only what we can see today. The science that we use today is empirical science, and it is responsible for our advances in technology and medicine, but it does not tell us anything about the past. What one believes about origins has absolutely nothing to do with how one conducts empirical science. A medical doctor can be an excellent neurosurgeon regardless of whether he is an evolutionist or a creationist. Take Dr. Benjamin Carson, for example. He is a creationist, but that has not prevented him from being one of the foremost pediatric neurosurgeons in the world. (See article by ICR: http://www.icr.org/article/benjamin-carson-pediatric-neurosurgeon-with-gifted/)

The discussion of origins, then, falls into the realm of philosophy (from the Greek meaning “the love of wisdom” or “knowledge”) or theology (i.e., the study of God). Dealing in that realm involves looking at the available evidence, like the human genome, the fossil record, archeological records, ancient historical records, the Bible, etc. The investigator must then interpret the evidence and make a determination about what it reveals. This is called forensic science, and it is very subjective depending on the investigator’s presuppositions. If the investigator is an evolutionist and believes the earth is 4.5 Billion years old, he will interpret the evidence one way. If the investigator is a creationist, he will interpret the evidence another way.

So, what does this say about God? Well, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) does a lot of scientific research on matters touching the Bible. ICR has highly qualified Ph.Ds. in micro-biology, physics, nuclear physics, astrophysics, and geology. ICR’s research has disproven evolution in the fields of biology, geology and cosmology. All their findings are published on their website and can be searched at http://www.icr.org/home/search/.

So, if we have disproven the Big Bang and evolution – order out of chaos – then what is left? Everything we observe in our universe shows signs of “design.” Everything that exists is designed with a purpose. So what does design require? It requires a designer. And what does a designer require? A designer requires intelligence! Scientists have only probed the surface of the intelligence contained in DNA. DNA in a human being is the specific instructions that make you unique to every other human being in the world or that has ever lived. But writing the programming code that makes you YOU, requires intelligence.

When someone writes an email to me, I naturally assume that it was thought out and written by an intelligent human being. It never occurs to me that some disturbance in the cosmos – a solar flare or a super nova – assembled thousands of ones and zeroes in the internet cloud in the correct order to produce intelligent communication directed specifically to me in the form of an email. That is just as ridiculous as believing that all the design and order we observe in our universe was some random, mindless accident caused by an inexplicable Big Bang.

There is intelligence – super intelligence – behind all that we see and experience. For those who reject the idea of a supreme being – i.e. God – they have to attribute the design to some other intelligence, i.e., ancient aliens, or the seed of life arriving to this planet on an asteroid, or something like that. But then, if you follow that line of reasoning, where did they get their intelligence, and on and on ad infinitum? There is no satisfactory answer in that! So, now what?

The Bible says, “In the beginning, God …” (Genesis 1:1). When Moses asked God for His name, He said “I AM THAT I AM” (Exodus 3:14). In other words, what God was saying is that He is the “Ever-Existent-One.” He has always existed, even before time began. He has no beginning and no end. When you think of it logically, that is the only thing that really makes sense. You understand by experience that any created thing is always subordinate to its creator. Just think about that for a moment. Can you name anything created by man that is greater than man? Even the world’s greatest super computer is not greater than man, and it is subject to its designer and programmer. It cannot even begin to compare to its creator.

So, whatever or whoever got the cosmos going of necessity must be greater than all that exists. God says, “That is Me.” You can reject that, if you wish, but you would be hard pressed to prove it false because His creation is hard to refute. The Bible says that, “that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead” (Romans 1:19-20, emphasis added). God’s creation proves that God exists. Furthermore, the Bible says that every human being has this knowledge deep within the core of their very being. Perhaps that is why the question of God comes up in the first place. Something inside every person tells them that God really does exist, but there exists another part that wants to suppress that knowledge, therefore they want “proof.” Everyone already has all the proof they need, and “they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). One just needs to move forward with the little knowledge of God that He has given. No one really needs “proof” of God.

8 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Atheism, Christianity, Creation, Evangelism, Evolution, Gospel, Origins, Religion, Science, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

July 28, 2013 · 20:55

An Atheist’s Challenge – Round Two

DNA Double Helix

… evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

(2 Timothy 3:13)

The atheist about whom I wrote last week actually responded. It surprised me. Something I’ve noticed about atheists is their inability to focus on any one thing and examine it thoroughly. Instead they resort the “fire hose tactic” by trying to overwhelm their opposition with more “evidence” than one can respond to – all of it unsubstantiated, of course. I find that one advantage of writing over speaking is that I can select the topic to which I will respond, and rather than going into great detail to defend my position, I just refer the atheist to articles written by real scientists that present a contrary view. The atheist prides himself in being “open-minded,” so this allows him to practice what he preaches.

I do not want to burden my readers with every detail of the conversation, but the following are some of the points the atheist attempted to make, along with my commentary.

  • Some species that have evolved throughout the recorded history of mankind. Examples – The fish in the Hudson River evolving to survive the toxic waste, the South-East Fence Lizard which has learnt [sic] a defensive ‘dance’ to fight off ant predators, the Lerista Skink that’s evolved to shrink its legs to travel through the Australian sands more efficiently, slithering instead of walking with legs.

Here the atheist is equivocating. I had previously warned the atheist not to do this, but there is only so much one can expect from a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28).  Evolutionists often confuse “adaptation” (microevolution) with macroevolution – one kind of animal changing into another. In his examples, the fish is still the same species of fish. It did not change into a whale or grow legs to walk out of the polluted waters. The lizard is still the same species of lizard. The lerista skink genus, according to the Wikipedia, “is especially notable for the variation in the amount of limb reduction. The variation ranges from short-bodied forms with large legs bearing five toes, to elongate forms completely lacking legs” (emphasis added). “Variation” does not equal “evolution.”

  • Humans share (approx) 96% of their genes with Chimpanzees, 90% with Cats, 80% with Cows, 75% with Mice (90% of Mice’s genome can be lined up with certain regions on the human genome, also with 99% of Mice’s genes turning out to have analogues in humans), 60% of Fruit Flies’ DNA is shared, 60% of genes with Chickens, and so on.

If anything, the similarity in DNA among animals and even plants speaks to a common designer not to evolution. The information coded and stored in DNA are the instructions necessary to make a human being human or a dog either a Great Dane or a Chihuahua.  Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, biologist with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has written much on this subject. His research shows that the similarities between human and chimp DNA are not as close as first proclaimed, and the gap grows greater the more he investigates. (See: Chromosome Comparison Shows More Chimp-Human Differences.)

The atheist then pointed to Darwin’s finches at the Galapagos Islands. That really is no different than what has already been covered above. Typically, what I have noticed about atheists is that they parrot things that they have heard without bothering to think critically about what they have heard. They simply regurgitate what they have been fed. His next point is a good example:

  • Big Bang Theory… 13.7 billion years ago (somewhere around that mark), not 5,000 years (almost hilarious to believe the world is that young with the overwhelming amount of proof), something quite large happened. Not an explosion like most Religious parties believe happened, nothing like if a balloon were to pop and all its contents were to spill out in all different directions. It happened more like a small balloon finitely expanding to the size of the Universe as it is now. What caused this, no-one knows, the mathematics behind it are [sic] crazy and extreme for humans to even grasp.

If “religious parties” portray the Big Bang as an “explosion,” it is because that is how it was initially portrayed by Sir Fred Hoyle (and others), the man who coined the phrase in 1949. Current theoretical physicists promulgate this idea by what is presented on the mass media. While they speak about “inflation,” they present images that imply an explosion. Contrary to the atheist’s portrayal of “religious parties,” creation scientists would lean more toward the side of “inflation” (without the billions of years) as this view lines up better with biblical instruction (Job 26:7; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 44:24; Zechariah 12:1). The atheist ignores that there are competing views among secular scientists on how the Big Bang developed. The jury is still out on which is the correct interpretation. So, like all fools, the atheist builds on a foundation of sand (Matthew 7:26).

  • Our sun alone is 4.57 billion years old, after it collapsed (along with many other stars) from being a part of a giant molecular cloud (Hydrogen + Helium). For god to have created the sun 5,000 years ago, it would still be in the process of its collapse and Earth would still being in its process of creation, much more flat and disc-shaped.

In the first place, gas does not collapse; it expands, which is an argument against current star formation theories. This is a carefully guarded secret. As for God not being able to create in a short amount of time, obviously the atheist is not familiar with the omniscient, omnipotent God of creation.

At this point, the atheist begins his assault on God. He begins his attack with words straight from the devil’s mouth: “You’re god is the only true god?” Then he lists several pagan gods. Interestingly he finds the parallels between the pantheon of Asherah, who is impregnated by a ray from the sun god, gives virgin birth to a son, who is killed and rises again. There are several variations of this theme in ancient pagan religions which predate Christianity. Asherah is called the “Queen of Heaven,” a title which is currently carried by the Virgin Mary of the Roman Catholic Church. Let us face it; Satan is not stupid. He is the foremost counterfeiter. Jesus called him the father of lies (John 8:44). Sadly, the atheist has willfully accepted the lie as evidenced by his charge that “Christianity and its bible [sic] is simply a mish-mash, hand-me-down of all the most memorable elements and factors of thousands of different ‘pagan’ religions that came a long time before it.”

As previously stated, often the atheist’s strategy is to overwhelm his opponent with a barrage of stupid questions. (Yes, there are stupid questions – those that are not thought out before presenting them.) Here are some examples:

  • About Adam and Eve … They ate from the ‘Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil’ which disobeyed god…right? Just one problem: How could have Adam and Eve been expected to comprehend the implications of their actions if, prior to their indiscretion, they had no concept of right and wrong, punishment, evil, pain, suffering and death? Even if god had been successful in adequately explaining all these beforehand, this means that he would have had to give them knowledge of good and evil anyways, which turns the entire story into one big ridiculous farce. A loving, just and secure god would realise [sic] that simply not believing in him is not a crime worthy of hellfire.

The atheist assumes that Adam and Eve were supposedly created with lower intelligence rendering them incapable of understanding God’s only rule (Genesis 2:16-17). This rule seems straightforward and simple enough that any child can comprehend it. This was answered in last week’s post, so I will not comment on it further other than to say the atheist was either not paying attention or his reprobate mind kept him from seeing it.

  • God doesn’t make mistakes, as you put it, he is perfect in every aspect, therefore his creations were perfect too… so why then did he flood the entire Earth killing thousands, if not millions of innocent people, along with some of the ‘sinners’… they couldn’t have been ‘sinful’ because god made them, and he’s perfect and so were his creations. There would be no way they could have turned against him, because they were perfect (research the word ‘perfect’ think you’re using the wrong one).

The atheist missed the part about the fall of man (Genesis 3:6), also covered in last week’s post. That is what makes these kinds of questions stupid, and they are designed to distract the opponent from the main point – that God is Creator of all and His creation is accountable to Him – like it or not.

The atheist went on to make more absurd arguments, and I do not want to bore my readers; but what follows is the saddest thing of all. This was his response to the Gospel message that I presented to him:

  • Jesus’ “sacrifise” [sic] … For Jesus to have made a blood sacrifice for our sins is impossible. A blood sacrifice cannot ‘pay’ for a person’s sin, it is an archaic, deeply flawed view of morality that says that, as long as there is blood spilled to appease god (and with Jesus’ blood being innocent at that), then the crime is forgiven. How can someone else pay for your sins? In what sense is morality and justice served if someone, let’s say, offers to take the place of a condemned criminal in the electric chair? Does this change the fact that the condemned criminal has not been held responsible for his actions? And how is the innocent death anything more than a sad, pointless waste that doesn’t add anything to the overall moral equation?

It intrigued me that he should see the futility of blood sacrifices. God shares the same attitude: “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). But the innocent, sinless blood of the God-Man is ultimately superior: “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10).

The atheist had much more to say, but I found it wearisome, tedious and mind-numbing. The Bible tells us to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). But the Bible does not put the burden of conversion on the shoulders of the witness; that work is for the Holy Spirit. But we should not withdraw when challenged by an unbeliever just because we assume it will be time wasted. Often, your words, no matter how well put together or how brilliantly argued, will fall upon deaf ears. Occasionally though, you may find that one that is ignorant, knows it, and truly wants to learn the truth. That one is worth the effort!

2 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Atheism, Christianity, Creation, Evangelism, Evolution, Gospel, Religion, Salvation, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

June 10, 2013 · 00:27

Practical Atheism

people-jumping-off-cliff

 

If ye love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:15)

It could be argued that there are no true atheists. The Bible says that “that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them” (Romans 1:19), so they are, in fact, not ignorant of the existence of God. Instead, they “hold [down or suppress] the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18). According to a recent poll reported in the Washington Post, August 13, 2012, only five percent (5%) of Americans profess to be atheists. That represents a rise from one percent (1%), but it could hardly be called epidemic.

The same poll noted a decline of those who call themselves “religious” from 73% to 60%.  “Religious” is a rather nebulous term that could range from strict fundamental Christianity to navel-gazing new age mysticism. In an article that asks, “How Many Americans are Evangelical Christians? Born-Again Christians?” Bradley Wright points out that “Currently Evangelical Christianity in the US is at about its 40-year average, with 23%-24% of Americans affiliating with an Evangelical church or denomination.” Of course, just being affiliated with an evangelical church does not necessarily mean that the adherent is “born again.” Under this classification, Wright noted that 34% of Americans claim to be born again, and that includes mainline Protestants, and Catholics besides Evangelicals. Even here, the numbers may be misleading because many who claim to be “born again” really have no idea what that means. Probably the percentage of truly born again believers in America is less than 20%, and I base that on personal observation without any scientific proof.

My observation informs me that there exist many “practical atheists” out there. Many are in our churches and are familiar with church “lingo” so that they easily “pass” as genuine Christians. Most practical atheists, however, are either “non-religious,” that is, they profess to believe in God, but do not affiliate with any organized religion, or they are simply “spiritual” holding to one or more varieties of pantheism, and they will even “allow” for a “supreme being.” None of these would deny the existence of God outright, but they live their lives as if there is no God. Their egocentric lives are a series of choices based on what is expedient for them at the time. They never consider consulting God on a matter, but rather act on what suits them at the moment. To someone like this, James says, “Go to now, ye that say, [Today] or [tomorrow] we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that” (James 4:13-15).  To ask God’s direction in any plan would not even occur to a practical atheist.

A practical atheist thinks that all his possessions are his because of his own effort, or in the case of him who lives off subsidies, he believes that somehow these things are owed to him. Certainly Paul’s instruction to “In [everything] give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you” (1 Thessalonians 5:18) would make little sense. The practical atheist gives low priority to “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is” (Hebrews 10:25). Even if he is a member of a church, often other activities will take priority over attending the worship service and Bible study on Sundays. The practical atheist has no need to “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17) or to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15). For the practical atheist, personal prayer and Bible study are of little or no value. The practical atheist lives his life as though his future is guaranteed. He is oblivious to Jesus’ warning: “Surely, I come quickly” (Revelation 22:20).

Practical atheists are not necessarily “bad” people. Jesus told of a rich man that died and went to hell (Luke 16:19-32). Jesus’ description of the man was not necessarily an evil report; albeit he was self-centered and self-absorbed, and oblivious to the needs of Lazarus who begged outside his gates. The rich man went to hell because he was a practical atheist. He lived his life as if God did not exist even though he was probably very religious in practice, yet even his religious practice was all about him, and “God” was just part of the nomenclature of his religious life.

The practical atheist may profess a superficial belief in God, but he lives his life as if God does not exist, and as if he is not accountable to Him in any way. As Christians, we should strive to live our lives consistent with our profession and the teachings of God’s Word, and not as practical atheists.

6 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Atheism, Christianity, End Times, Gospel, Religion, Salvation, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , ,