A REFORMED CALVINIST PERSPECTIVE

Scripture doesn’t mince words about atheism. Both Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 begin with this stark declaration: the fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

The divine assessment raises important questions, particularly within Reformed theology where we emphasise God’s sovereignty in salvation. If, as Calvinists affirm, no one comes to saving faith without God’s regenerative work, how can God justly call atheists “fools” for their unbelief? This tension deserves careful examination through the lens of Scripture and Reformed doctrine.

 

WHY THE BIBLE CALLS ATHEISTS “FOOLS”

The Key Texts: The Psalms clearly identify atheistic thinking with folly. The assessment isn’t confined to isolated verses but reinforced throughout Scripture. In Romans 1, Paul explains unbelief isn’t due to lack of evidence but rather the willful suppression of truth. The book of Proverbs repeatedly contrasts wisdom, which begins with the fear of the Lord, with folly, which rejects divine authority. These texts indicate atheism isn’t merely an intellectual position but as a moral stance against the Creator.

The Biblical Concept of “Folly”: The Hebrew word translated “fool” in these passages (nabal) goes far beyond suggesting someone lacks intelligence. Biblical folly represents moral rebellion, not merely cognitive error. The distinction is crucial in understanding God’s assessment of atheism. In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul distinguishes between worldly wisdom and godly wisdom: he shows what appears as intellectual sophistication to the world may actually be foolishness before God. Atheism, then, isn’t simply an alternative intellectual framework but a rejection of divine reality that Scripture consistently characterises as not only unwise, but also culpable.

 

THE REFORMED DOCTRINE OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY

Natural Man’s Condition

Reformed theology teaches the doctrine of total depravity—that sin has corrupted every aspect of human nature, including our intellectual faculties. Romans 3 affirms no one seeks God naturally; Ephesians 4 describes the unregenerate mind as darkened in understanding. This corruption, what theologians call the “noetic effects of sin,” prevents unbelievers from properly interpreting the evidence for God that surrounds them. Thus, atheism isn’t a neutral intellectual position but a spiritually-determined one.

The Suppression of Truth

Paul says (Romans 1:25), unbelievers actively suppress the truth about God that is plain to them through creation. Calvin described this as fighting against the “sensus divinitatis” (sense of divinity) that God has implanted in all humans. In Reformed understanding, atheism is unnatural—it requires effort to deny what creation and conscience continually affirm. Every person knows God at some level, making atheism not merely incorrect but a willful rejection of accessible truth.

 

THE CALVINIST PARADOX: DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY

The Tension Explained: Here we approach the heart of our question. Reformed theology, following Ephesians 1 and other texts, affirms God’s sovereign election and regeneration of sinners. Yet Scripture simultaneously holds us responsible for unbelief, as seen in John 3. The tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility has been called the “Calvinist paradox,” but it’s important to recognise Scripture affirms both realities without suggesting contradiction.

How Can God Call Atheists Fools When Faith Requires God’s Regeneration?  The Reformed answer lies in distinguishing between different types of revelation and knowledge. Calvin articulated the concept of “duplex cognitio“—the twofold knowledge of God and self. He believed true self-knowledge is impossible without knowing God, and genuine knowledge of God reveals our sinful condition. The Westminster Confession carefully articulates how we remain responsible agents even while unable to will our own salvation.

The key distinction is between natural revelation (available to all through creation) and special revelation (the gospel message). While saving faith requires regeneration, the knowledge that God exists comes through natural revelation that is universally accessible. Thus, atheism represents a culpable rejection of this general revelation, regardless of one’s inability to embrace saving truth without regeneration.

The Reformed Solution: Augustine distinguished between different types of inability: he  noted fallen humanity isn’t able not to sin (non posse non peccare). Jonathan Edwards clarified this with his distinction between natural ability (the faculties required for belief) and moral inability (the will that consistently chooses against God). In other words, we possess the natural ability to recognise God through creation but lack the moral ability to love and submit to Him without regeneration.

Romans 1 and 2 tell us God judges people according to the light they’ve received. Everyone receives sufficient natural revelation to render them “without excuse,” while saving knowledge comes only through the special revelation of the gospel, coupled with regeneration. The doctrine of common grace explains how God provides general benefits to all people, including some knowledge of Himself, while reserving saving grace for the elect.

This framework resolves our apparent dilemma: atheists are culpable for rejecting the clear testimony of natural revelation (thus “fools” in Scripture’s assessment), even though they cannot embrace saving truth without God’s regenerative work.

 

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Approaching Atheists with Truth and Grace

This theological understanding should shape our engagement with atheists. Remembering our own former spiritual blindness (Ephesians 2), we approach unbelievers with humility and compassion. We present truth faithfully while recognising that only God’s Spirit can remove spiritual blindness. Our conversations should be marked by prayer, recognising our dependence on God’s regenerating work rather than our persuasive abilities.

Apologetic Implications

Reformed theology has given rise to pre-suppositional apologetics, pioneered by Cornelius Van Til, which begins with the recognition that all reasoning presupposes God’s existence. Unlike evidential approaches that treat God’s existence as a hypothesis to be proven, pre-suppositional apologetics demonstrates atheistic worldviews cannot account for rationality, morality, or meaning without borrowing from the Christian worldview they reject.

This approach doesn’t aim to win arguments but to expose the impossibility of the contrary—that denying God creates insurmountable problems for any coherent worldview. Yet we must remember even the most compelling argument cannot replace the regenerating work of the Spirit.

 

CONCLUSION: WHY DOES GOD CALL ATHEISTS FOOLS?

Scripture’s assessment of atheism as “folly” stands, not as a mere insult, but as a divine diagnosis of the human condition. The wisdom of God often appears as foolishness to the world, while the wisdom of the world proves foolish before God. As believers, we recognize our own faith isn’t the result of superior intellect but of God’s gracious regeneration.

This recognition produces profound gratitude and humility. We engage unbelievers not with intellectual pride but with grace-filled witness, proclaiming truth while depending on God’s Spirit to bring life. Our ultimate purpose isn’t winning arguments but glorifying God and loving our neighbours, including those who do not yet acknowledge their Creator.

In the end, the Reformed perspective on atheism reminds us all knowledge of God—whether through natural or special revelation—is gift rather than achievement. We stand not as intellectually superior but as graciously redeemed. And we’re called to faithful witness in a world that still suppresses the truth in unrighteousness.

 

For further study, consider:

• Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book 1, chapters 1-5),
• The Westminster Confession of Faith (chapters 1, 6, and 10),
• Cornelius Van Til: Defence of the Faith

 

WHY DOES GOD CALL ATHEISTS FOOLS—RELATED FAQs

Isn’t calling atheists “fools” unnecessarily antagonistic and unlikely to win them to Christ? Scripture’s assessment isn’t meant as a personal insult but as a spiritual diagnosis of rejecting what’s plainly revealed. As believers, we present this biblical truth with gentleness and respect, remembering we too were once spiritually blind. Our goal isn’t to win arguments by calling names but to faithfully represent God’s perspective while depending on His Spirit to open hearts.

If atheists are suppressing the truth, why do many seem genuinely convinced God doesn’t exist? Self-deception can be powerful and complete, especially over time. Romans 1 describes a downward spiral where continued suppression of truth leads to darkened understanding, creating genuine subjective certainty that’s nevertheless objectively false. This is why apologetics alone doesn’t converts atheists—what’s needed isn’t just better arguments but divine regeneration to overcome this deeply entrenched self-deception.

How does the Calvinist position differ from other Christian views on this topic? Arminians and other non-Reformed traditions typically emphasise human free will in belief or unbelief. They suggest people are neutral evaluators of evidence who can choose to accept God. The Calvinist position on the other hand, maintains sin affects our reasoning so fundamentally that nobody remains neutral—we either receive God through regeneration or suppress the truth through unbelief. This doesn’t diminish human responsibility but places it within the context of God’s sovereignty.

If atheists are predestined not to believe, how’s their unbelief their fault? Predestination doesn’t remove human agency or responsibility—it operates at a different level of causation. People reject God because they freely choose to according to their own desires, not because they’re being forced against their will. Divine sovereignty works through human choices rather than against them, preserving both God’s perfect control and genuine human responsibility for those choices.

Doesn’t this perspective make evangelism pointless if God has already determined who will believe? Not at all—God ordains not just the ends (who will be saved) but also the means (evangelism). In 2 Timothy 2:10, Paul says he endures all things for the sake of the elect, thus showing evangelism is vital even within a Reformed framework. God uses our faithful witness as the very instrument through which He calls His people to Himself, making evangelism not pointless but purposeful within His sovereign plan.

What about intelligent atheists who’ve carefully examined the evidence and but reject God? Intelligence and education don’t overcome spiritual blindness—in fact, human wisdom often becomes a stumbling block to recognising divine truth as 1 Corinthians 1 explains. Even brilliant minds examine evidence through presuppositions and values shaped by their fallen nature. This is why we see both brilliant believers and brilliant unbelievers examining the same evidence and reaching opposite conclusions—the difference is not intelligence but spiritual illumination.

If God truly desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), why doesn’t He regenerate everyone? This question touches on the mystery of God’s will, where Reformed theology distinguishes between God’s revealed will (what He commands) and His secret will (what He decrees will happen). While God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11) and genuinely offers salvation to all, He has sovereignly chosen to save some and not others for reasons known only to Him. This maintains both the universal offer of the gospel and the particularity of election within Reformed thought.

 

WHY DOES GOD CALL ATHEISTS FOOLS—OUR RELATED POSTS

• Does God Exist? 10 Compelling Evidences
• Evaluating the Truthfulness of the Statement “There Is a God”
• The Mystery of the Trinity: A Cornerstone of Christian Belief
• Is the Holy Spirit God?
• Is Jesus God? 5 Lines of Biblical Evidence