Ought we to Ignore Atheists?

[Sam Jer]

Wilhelmus a Brakel wrote:

May everyone therefore strive earnestly to acquire the knowledge of God, without which there can neither be faith, love, religion, nor salvation. Do not be satisfied with only a natural knowledge which cannot lead you to a saving knowledge of God, —Vol. 1, Page 22— but rather strive to behold God's glory in the face of Jesus Christ. Likewise, strive for the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness. From the foregoing, the godly may conclude that they are merely being tempted when they are troubled by atheistic thoughts. Their dismay concerning this is sufficient evidence that they know God and believe that He is." Do not yield to such thoughts, but resist them. Even if for some time you cannot rid yourself of these temptations, still hold to your inner conviction. As troublesome as it may be to you now, it shall make you more steadfast later. Persevere in reading God's Word and join yourself to the godly in order to hear them speak about the delight they may have in God. Refrain from reading books authored by atheists or those who encourage atheism. Avoid interaction and disputation with confirmed atheists. Instead, turn to the Lord by continually engaging yourself in prayer; live in simplicity, knowing what the will of God is. In so doing you shall grow in the grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Pet 3:18).

~ The Christian Reasonable Service, chapter 1

Are we to take his counsel to avoid interaction with Atheists as pertaining only to his time, or only people who do not know to put up the right defence against it? If not — is he wrong? It seems to be saying to not engage Atheism at all!


It feels wrong to just quote this paragraph and not several pages or even the entire chapter, in which he lays out what kind of knowledge of God is innate even in fallen man and what isn't, as well as why not to start from a posture of doubting everything. It was a profitable read.

 

[Poimen]

In regards to A Brakel's counsel about atheists and their writings, we may observe four things:

1) In his preface he addresses his congregation, noting that they are those for whom the work was (primarily) written.
2) Earlier in the same chapter A Brakel cites Spinoza, which argues not a passing familiarity with the man and his work.
3) The immediate context of the words quoted above is about atheistic doubts in believers that may undermine their assurance.
4) He prefaces his warning about reading atheists (a law that no Christian is held to) with a counsel to read scripture (the duty of every Christian).

I think is safe then to conclude that he was not asserting an absolute prohibition as much as dissuading the average Christian from (heavily) interacting with atheists when their time is precious and could be filled with more edifying matters. In my opinion this is a very pastoral and wise exhortation, applicable to his time as well as ours.

 

[Sam Jer]

I think is safe then to conclude that he was not asserting an absolute prohibition as much as dissuading the average Christian from (heavily) interacting with atheists when their time is precious and could be filled with more edifying matters. In my opinion this is a very pastoral and wise exhortation, applicable to his time as well as ours.

Does this include more evangelistic settings (i.e walking away before a certain point in a conversation)?

 

[Poimen]

Does this include more evangelistic settings (i.e walking away before a certain point in a conversation)?

Yes I think that could be a legitimate application of the principle.

I recall once witnessing to an aggressive atheist when, in a desire to win the argument, I continued on longer than I should have. As a result I gave him a platform to blaspheme which caused me to apologize to the fellow Christian I was with for allowing that.