An Atheistic Argument and an Inconsistent Christian

Article 4 of 10 — No Parachute: Following a Doctrine to Its Final Destination

“Do you mean that everyone who holds this doctrine is an atheist?”

The question appears as soon as an argument reaches an atheistic conclusion. If the critic says yes, he confuses the doctrine with the man. If he says no, defenders often pretend that the criticism has disappeared.

The dilemma is false. A proposition and a person are related, but they are not judged by the same evidence. A doctrine can carry an atheistic consequence while a Christian who holds it sincerely denies atheism. His profession and his theory then contradict one another. The contradiction does not make the theory safe, and the theory does not by itself disclose the condition of his heart.

Four Questions

Public controversy should separate four inquiries.

What does the person expressly profess? If he confesses the Trinity, resurrection, inspiration, preservation, and divine truthfulness, those affirmations should be acknowledged.

What does the disputed doctrine entail? This question concerns definitions, premises, and inference. If the doctrine cannot be true unless a genuine promise of God failed, its consequence remains what it is.

Does the advocate understand that entailment? He may never have followed the premise to its end. He may also believe that an orthodox statement elsewhere resolves the conflict.

What culpability does he bear? Knowledge, office, opportunity for correction, manner of response, and injury to others all matter. A new student, a confused layman, and a teacher who knowingly persists after careful correction do not stand in the same circumstances.

A short article can often answer the first two questions from public evidence. The third requires stronger proof. The fourth may require pastoral knowledge and the lawful judgment of a church. One demonstrated entailment does not authorize four verdicts.

Practical atheist commonly describes someone who professes belief in God but lives as though God did not exist. The charge concerns conduct: worship is neglected, divine law ignored, and life ordered without reference to providence or judgment.

That may not describe the advocate of a defective preservation theory. He may worship faithfully, defend Christian doctrine, and show an evident consciousness of God. Calling him a practical atheist would invite a conclusion about his life which the logical argument has not established.

The more accurate sentence is:

The theory is atheistic in its necessary consequence, although its advocate expressly denies atheism.

If he has not recognized the consequence, say so. If he disputes a connecting premise, identify it. If he grants the route while retaining both ends, describe the contradiction. Exact language keeps the burden of proof attached to the right claim.

To prove that a doctrine has an atheistic consequence, establish the route. To prove that a person is an atheist, establish his belief. To prove hypocrisy or obstinacy, establish his knowledge and will. Strong polemic does not require the largest available label.

The Two Axes

The project’s Category Rule places doctrine and person on separate axes.

On the doctrinal axis, a proposition may be orthodox, erroneous, materially heretical, or atheistic in consequence. These judgments concern content.

On the personal axis, an advocate may be unaware, confused, careless, inconsistent, evasive, obstinate, or openly committed to the conclusion. These judgments concern his relation to the content and require independent evidence.

The distinction resembles the older separation between material error and formal adherence. A sentence may contradict an essential Christian truth before the speaker understands what it entails. The error does not become orthodox because he is ignorant of it. His ignorance does affect how he should be addressed and judged.

Paul’s treatment of the Corinthians shows both truths. Some said that there was no resurrection of the dead. Paul followed the premise to its consequences: Christ is not risen, apostolic preaching is vain, faith is vain, believers remain in their sins, and the dead in Christ have perished. Those consequences destroy the gospel. Yet Paul used their force to correct men within the church.

Inconsistency can be a mercy. It may keep an error from governing the rest of a Christian’s faith. It should become the point of appeal: “You trust the God who cannot lie. This other claim cannot stand beside that faith.”

The Office of Public Writing

A lay theological publication may quote public teaching, compare it with Scripture and the Reformed confessions, expose a contradiction, trace a consequence, and call for correction. It is not a church court. It cannot read hearts, administer discipline, or pronounce a binding judgment upon a person’s standing before Christ.

That limit does not require a timid conclusion. Scripture says, “let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4). John writes that whoever refuses God’s record concerning his Son “hath made him a liar” (1 John 5:10). Public writing may therefore say that a doctrine contradicts divine testimony, conflicts with its author’s express confession, or terminates in atheism. It should not say that the man secretly disbelieves God, knowingly lies, intends to destroy Scripture, or stands outside Christ without evidence and lawful warrant.

This precision is the harder charity. It takes the Christian profession seriously enough to reason from it. It also refuses to let the profession shelter a doctrine which contradicts the God being confessed.

Repeated inconsistency cannot become permanent refuge. Once a teacher is shown the route, he owes an answer. He must identify the false premise, invalid inference, equivocation, or misstatement. Simply repeating the opposite conclusion does not answer the argument.

An atheistic doctrine and an inconsistent Christian can occupy the same page. Faithfulness requires us to report both facts: judge the doctrine by what it entails, describe the man only by what the evidence shows, and call him away from the premise toward the God he professes.

Sources and Notes

• The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), 1.6.
• Compare Matthew 18:15–20, 1 Corinthians 5, and 1 Corinthians 15:12–20.
• Confessional Bibliology is a lay theological publication, not a church, presbytery, synod, seminary, or ecclesiastical court.
• Scripture quotations are from the Authorized Version.