The Part that Dawkins Left Out

DawkyAtheist Richard Dawkins has become famous by hating the One True God who reveals himself in the pages of the Old and New Testament. He, like many other so-called New Atheists, attempts to level the charge of immorality against God. Despite the obvious category errors that such accusations necessarily exhibit, the same old complaints continue to flow from Dawkins and those who follow him. How a creature whose most valued moral sentiments are nothing more than “the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms” (to quote Bertrand Russell) thinks he has the right to judge the behaviors of another person is an inexplicable mystery. How this creature thinks he has the authority to judge the behaviors of God is even more impossible to comprehend! Nevertheless, as I read Scripture some time ago I stumbled into that part of the Old Testament that Dawkins & Co. have left out of their analyses of God’s moral character.

In particular, I was reading through Exodus 22 and came across the following commands.

“You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.

“If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him. If ever you take your neighbor’s cloak in pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down, for that is his only covering, and it is his cloak for his body; in what else shall he sleep? And if he cries to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.” (vv.21-27)

God commands the Israelites to not wrong a sojourner, and to not oppress him. God commands Israel to not mistreat any widow. God commands Israel to not mistreat any fatherless child. God commands Israel to be compassionate to the poor, not demanding interest from him or repossessing the only cloak that he owns. And God promises to pour out his wrath on all those who break these laws.

I’ve never seen an atheist comment on these laws. Why? Perhaps atheists haven’t read them. Perhaps atheists have, in a fit of blind fury and mouth frothing, read past these verses in search of something they could misinterpret as immoral. Perhaps God has blinded their eyes to these words in order that these atheists will continue in their unbelief and hatred of God and so heap up wrath for the day of judgment.

Perhaps their intention is to accuse God of sin, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.


Jonathan Edwards on David as a Type of Christ


Since my church is studying the life of David, and some brothers and I were talking about the typological significance of David throughout 1st Samuel, I decided to look for any writers who also addressed this topic.

Anyway, I stumbled on to this blog post by Nick Batzig:

Batzig’s post quotes, at length, Jonathan Edwards’ detailed analysis and comparison of David and Christ. Great stuff!

Just thought I’d share.


An Update…

CARM Blog HeaderAs I poked around my WordPress dashboard, I noticed that my CARM blog entries received several hits. I tried to visit the site, but it is no longer functional. So I re-linked each blog entry to the cached version here.

If you’re curious about the content of the blogs I wrote for CARM, I think you could benefit from some of the writing I’ve linked to on my CARM Blog Posts page.

Additionally, I’ve added more articles from that site that I had forgotten I wrote.

I hope you can find use for them.

Soli Deo Gloria


The Sin Bearer [An Excerpt]

[The following excerpt is taken from Horatius Bonar’s little booklet The Sin Bearer. I’ve been spending some time in this text and others in preparation for my next preaching engagement. Hope this is as refreshing to your soul as it is to mine :) 

You can download the booklet for free here.]


In Opposition to All Outward Ordinances and Privileges

…Christ bare our sins in opposition to all outward ordinances and privileges. How much stress do some lay on ordinances as if they were a ctually our s aviors! These seem all the mediatorship1to which many are trusting for removing God’s anger, and securing His favor. They are strict and frequent in the observance of ordinances, and having been so, their idea is that it would be unfair and unjust in God to lay their sins to their charge. That is to say, they substitute ordinances for the sacrifice of Christ. They lay their sins upon these, as if they were sufficient to bear the weight of one single trans-gression of a soul! They do perhaps admit, that in the observance of these they are defe c-tive; nay, perhaps, that ordinances themselves are weak and unavailing; but then they consider that the object of Christ’s death was to give ordinances a value and efficacy which they had not in themselves, by which they are rendered capable of bearing the weight of their sins. That is to say, they imagine by these ordinances to assist Christ in bearing the weight of their sins. And when they find that this does not bring any peace to their consciences, nor relieve them of the burden and sense of guilt, they are ready to say with Israel, “ Wherefore have we fasted, and thou seest not; wherefore have we afflic t-ed our soul, and thou regardest not” (Isa 58:3). Thus they deny the great truth that the bearing of our sins is a thing already past and perfected eighteen hundred years ago—that Christ only, Christ wholly bare our sins in His own body on the tree.

If trusting to duties for the remission of sin, may be called an attempt to bribe God to forgive us, trusting to ordinances may be called an attempt to flatter God to forgive us. True, ordinances are of God’s appointment. True, they are to be diligently observed, and we can expect no blessing when we neglect them. But then they are available only for the purpose for which God has set them up, and for no other. And seeing God has appointed them not for procuring remission of sin, but for the proclaiming remission through an-other, even through Christ, it is an insult to the God by Whom they were e s tablished to use them for an end for which H e did not ordain them—it is an insult to that Savior Whose finished work they thus supersede; it is a miserable delusion of hell in the wor-shipper to take refuge in these as a sacrifice for sin. And this is true of all ordinances, even of that most sacred of all, The Lord’s Supper.

Even this ordinance, solemn as it is, glorious as it is, is not for the bearing of our sins. It has no more power than the most common rite…to bear one single sin! It tells of sin already borne; borne by Another; borne by Jesus in His own body on the tree. The bread and the wine are placed upon that table, not that they may bear our sins, or any part of our sins, but that they may testify of sins already borne. They are witnesses of sin already atoned for by Another, and not to be again atoned for by us. They seal our pardon, but they do not purchase it. They seal our peace, but they do not procure it. They tell us of sin, whose weight has been already borne. They point away from themselves altogether. They point to Calvary; they point to the Cross; they point to Him Who bore our sins in His own body on the tree, and W ho by that one offering hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.”

-The Sin Bearer, 6-7.