From ece9fbab6b9c332d7c6d7b6f95bbe87bd4c1aaa6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michael Hunteman <michael@huntm.net>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 17:27:29 -0600
Subject: Add theology blog post

---
 content/blog/repent-and-believe.md | 845 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 845 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 content/blog/repent-and-believe.md

(limited to 'content')

diff --git a/content/blog/repent-and-believe.md b/content/blog/repent-and-believe.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a3a3452
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/blog/repent-and-believe.md
@@ -0,0 +1,845 @@
+---
+title: Repent and Believe
+date: 2023-11-12
+draft: false
+---
+
+> But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a
+> defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in
+> you, but with gentleness and respect;[^1]
+
+[^1]: 1 Peter 3:15 (New American Standard Bible).
+
+## Ultimate Commitments
+
+[Epistemology] is the theory of knowledge. It is how you know what you know.
+John Locke (1632-1704) and Empiricists believe experience from the senses is the
+test of knowledge. René Descartes (1596-1650) and Rationalists believe reason is
+the test of knowledge. Jesus and Christians believe Scripture is the standard
+and reference point for wisdom and ethics. We believe in a revelational
+epistemology. God has publicly revealed Himself in history through the prophets
+and apostles, nature, and the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
+
+[Epistemology]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
+
+When debating, some try to start at a neutral stance and prove their worldview
+from that position when in fact no neutral position exists. Everyone has
+presuppositions (i.e., starting assumptions in reasoning often called axioms).
+We each have a framework of beliefs. The foundation of those beliefs is one's
+presuppositions. All other beliefs should be derivable from a person's set of
+presuppositions. They give us perspectives we use to interpret everything else,
+a lense through which we view the world. Debates over God's existence, conscious
+life after physical death, historical and scientific accuracy of the Bible, etc.
+are clashes between worldviews based on different presuppositions.
+
+When dealing with ultimate commitments (i.e., presuppositions), the conclusion
+one argues for should govern the method they use to reach that conclusion. If
+the conclusion is not reached by the same method of reasoning, the method of
+reasoning does not argue for an *ultimate* commitment. The manner of
+argumentation would not have the same ultimate commitment that the conclusion
+has.
+
+> The complaint will be heard that, if we are arguing over whether God exists
+> and has final authority, we may not take that authority for granted while we
+> are arguing about it. But the complaint is reversible, is it not? The
+> Christian can reply: "If we are arguing over whether God exists and has final
+> authority; the attempt to authorize (substantiate) His authority by some other
+> standard would amount to the ruling that whatever authority He has cannot be
+> final." A person's presuppositions are (as such) presupposed even when someone
+> is discussing or arguing about them. For example, philosophers who argue for
+> the truth and validity of the laws of logic do not put aside logic while
+> arguing for it.[^2]
+
+[^2]: *Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis*, 92.
+
+Believers interpret human reason and experience through God and Christ whereas
+unbelievers interpret God and Christ through human reason and experience. The
+unbeliever sees themself as the final authority rather than God. Thus, a
+religious conversion changes one's final authority from themself to God.
+Everyone has faith in something. It could be in God speaking infallibly in
+Scripture or in man claiming he is autonomous (i.e., understands the world apart
+from God).
+
+One may point out that Christians must *reason* to read, understand, and believe
+what God spoke in Scripture. But in order to presuppose reason, one must first
+presuppose God. Why does logic exist if God does not? Is there a basis for the
+law of causality or law of non-contradiction?
+
+We appeal to God's revelation as the final authority in order to reason.
+Scripture is self-authenticating. Many people try to force the Bible into a
+preconceived philosophical system so that the system begins to dictate how the
+Bible is understood (i.e., eisegesis).[^3] Instead, we are to come to the Word
+of God and seek to understand It on Its Own terms (i.e., exegesis).
+
+[^3]: Final authority is a major contention between Catholics and Protestants.
+    Catholics view the church as the final authority whereas Protestants view
+    the Bible as the final authority and sole authority hence *sola Scriptura*.
+
+> When God has reasoned with us and changed our minds till our every thought is
+> brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, we must use our minds, our
+> intellect, our reason, our consciousness, in order to receive and re-interpret
+> the revelation God has given of himself in Scripture. That is the proper place
+> of reason in theology. There is no conflict between this reason and faith,
+> since faith is the impelling power which urges reason to interpret aright.[^4]
+
+[^4]: *Introduction to Systematic Theology*, 30.
+
+To accept an interpretation of life upon authority we must examine the authority
+we already believe. However, by determining our authority, we would take
+ourselves as the ultimate authority rather than the one we may wish to believe.
+When Eve became neutral between God and Satan, considering what they each
+claimed equally, she already sided with Satan. She denied God as the Creator and
+Satan as created. God and Satan have different levels of knowledge. God's
+knowledge is original and absolute, and the knowledge of His creatures is
+derivative and subordinate.
+
+To accept the authority, we must already know it to be that which it claims. We
+need to answer the [ontological] question before we can answer the
+epistemological one. That is, we should know the nature of the Bible before we
+listen to Its claims of knowledge.
+
+[ontological]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
+
+> All Scripture is *God-breathed* and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for
+> correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man or woman of God
+> may be fully capable, equipped for every good work.[^5]
+
+[^5]: 2 Timothy 3:16 (NASB).
+
+## Creator-Creature Distinction
+
+Monism claims everything is one and that there is no distinction between God and
+creation. Monists believe the conditions of knowledge are singular, applying
+equally to God and man. For the Christian, man's thinking follows after God's
+thinking as we are His creatures.
+
+> The would-be autonomous man begins by taking for granted that he and God would
+> have to be on a par when it comes to interpreting the world, knowing anything,
+> or making moral judgments, but this "monistic assumption" (which denies the
+> significance of the Creator/creature distinction for epistemology and ethics)
+> results in the destruction of the intelligibility of reasoning, science, and
+> ethics.[^6]
+
+[^6]: *Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis*, 113.
+
+A non-theistic nature of reason and evidence differs from a theistic one.
+Unbelievers assume the ultimacy of the human mind contrary to believers. The
+unbeliever asserts valid evidence must stay within the realm of human experience
+(i.e., space and time), but God is not subject to the same conditions as man. If
+a man is raised from the dead, they would assume it is not due to a transcendent
+action of God, but because of a biological event we have yet to explain. *A
+priori* the unbeliever dismisses transcendent explanations because they have
+materialist presuppositions.
+
+The man professing to be autonomous conducts his life as though he were not a
+creature of God and under obligation to the Word of his Creator. Christians fall
+into the same trap. We serve ourselves rather than the Creator. Christians and
+non-Christians alike justify their behavior and failure to serve God because of
+what is claimed to be a lack of evidence for God's existence. In reality, we
+cannot make sense of the world apart from God. We rely on the laws of logic,
+nature, and morality every day, but the unbeliever has no basis for universals,
+necessity, causal connections, or moral prescriptions. Their presuppositions
+fall short.
+
+The unbeliever actually lives with two opposing worldviews. One worldview they
+openly profess and conclude reason and the human experience is possible without
+God and another worldview they refuse to acknowledge, but makes sense out of
+math, science, language, history, and the rest of human experience.
+
+> For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
+> unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness because
+> that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident
+> to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that
+> is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being
+> understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even
+> though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they
+> became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were
+> darkened.[^7]
+
+[^7]: Romans 1:18-21 (NASB).
+
+## Laws of Logic
+
+> By this rejection of God, agnosticism has embraced complete [relativism]. Yet
+> this relativism must furnish a basis for the rejection of the absolute.
+> Accordingly, the standard of self-contradiction taken for granted by
+> antitheistic thought presupposes the absolute for its operation. Antitheism
+> presupposes theism. One must stand upon the solid ground of theism to be an
+> effective antitheist.[^8]
+
+[relativism]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism
+[^8]: *A Survey of Christian Epsitemology*, In Defense of the Faith, vol. 2
+    (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969), xii.
+
+Unbelievers hold to the laws of logic while arguing against God. They appeal to
+abstract and universal laws their worldview cannot account for. They claim all
+that exists is matter in motion, and consciousness is just chemical processes in
+the brain. From a materialist perspective, there is no difference between a
+human's mind and the environment. But the laws of logic are not material. The
+materialist has to deny the laws of logic according to their presupposition that
+holds all that exists is matter.
+
+## Uniformity of Nature
+
+Science deals with the laws of nature and the facts of human experience which it
+gives an interpretation of. Facts from the materialist worldview are random and
+unconnected and do no warrant laws or predicability. All events would be random
+and without purpose. If reality is *chaos*, it is unintelligible. If it is
+unintelligible, there can be no knowledge.
+
+Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) in *Problems of Philosophy* outlines the problem of
+induction. One example is the sun rise. Every morning we expect to see the sun
+rise. But can we *know* that the sun will rise? The only reason for believing
+the laws of nature will continue is that they have worked up until now. However,
+our past experience is not sufficent to predict the future. Investors have a
+similar trope: "past performance does not guarantee future results." Another
+example is the chicken and the farmer. Every day the chicken receives food from
+its owner, so it begins to expect food. One fateful day for the chicken its
+prediction no longer holds.
+
+Science is the pursuit of knowledge. Science assumes *order*. Scientific
+discovery rests on the presupposition that the future will be like the past.
+Scientists form hypotheses and conduct experiments to test them. They make the
+assumption that the same set of conditions will result in the same outcome.
+[Falsifiability] falls apart if this is not the case.
+
+[Falsifiability]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
+
+The scientist's job is to seek the logic of the facts. They collect data through
+observation of experiments. From that data, they looks for patterns. Patterns
+come from logic, and logic presupposes design.
+
+> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
+> God.[^9]
+
+[^9]: John 1:1 (NASB).
+
+Word in Greek is *[logos]* which means logic. It is the *rational order* behind
+the *[cosmos]*. Every event is part of the rational order and logos. The order
+is God. He has an ultimate goal or *telos*. *Logos* has a second meaning that is
+speech. Language itself represents the order behind the cosmos. To speak
+truthfully and coherently and use language correctly is to represent logos. Bad
+grammar violates *logos* in the same way that immoral behavior attempts to
+subvert God's plan. Lies and faulty grammar cause mistaken ideas about reality
+which lead to unethical behavior.
+
+[logos]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
+[cosmos]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos
+
+Now we will turn to the first part of the verse which has parallelism to Genesis
+1:1, "In the beginning". God spoke the universe into being using language.
+
+How can something come from nothing? *[Ex nihilo nihil fit]*. This is a core
+scientific axiom or presupposition that means out of nothing, nothing comes.
+Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) posed the same idea when he asked, "Why is there
+something rather than nothing?"
+
+[Ex nihilo nihil fit]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing
+
+From nothing, nothing could possibly come. Nothing does not have the power to
+produce something. 
+
+- If something came into being from nothing, it would have to be self-created. 
+- For something to create itself, it would have to be before it was. 
+- This is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Q.E.D. 
+
+Self-creation is referentially self-destructive because it is an inherent
+contradiction. Sometimes when people talk about the origin of the universe they
+say "15-18 billion years ago, the universe exploded into being." What did the
+universe explode from? Did it not *be* before the explosion? If it didn't exist
+before the explosion, what was it that exploded? Self-creation violates the law
+of non-contradiction.
+
+God is self-existent, not self-created. He is eternal and has the
+power of being within Himself depending on nothing outside of Himself to be.
+This does not violate any formal concept of logic.
+
+Some people talk about chance as if it is a force. They say the universe came to
+be by chance. Take an example like flipping a coin. Did chance exert power on
+the coin toss? If we knew the air density, the side facing up beforehand, the
+pressure on the coin, and the amount of revolutions it would make we could
+predict with a greater likelihood than 50/50. Chance did not influence the event
+because it has no power and no being. Chance has no mass or dimensions. When we
+say something is caused by chance, what we really mean is we don't know what
+caused it. Chance is used to describe mathematical possibilities, but it is
+falsely equivocated to mean a force. Chance is only our ignorance of real
+causes. As David Hume (1711-1776) said:
+
+> Though there be no such thing as chance in the world; our ignorance of the
+> real cause of any event has the same influence on the understanding, and
+> begets a like species of belief or opinion.[^10]
+
+[^10]: *Of Probability*, Section VI.
+
+Everything has a cause, and all causes are connected. The universe is rationally
+governed by God so nothing can happen by chance. We will return to order and
+chance in the section on God's Sovereignty.
+
+## The Christian Starting Point
+
+Earlier I pointed out that we need to start with God and order before we can use
+logic and reason about the world. We have a presupposition that comes before our
+knowledge of God. It is self-consciousness. Before we become aware of God's
+knowledge, we must have awareness of ourselves. The only being that starts with
+God's knowledge is God. We first have self-awareness, and from it we have
+awareness of God.
+
+Does this mean we start with human autonomy? No. Autonomy is not analytically
+contained in the idea of self-consciousness. We still cannot make sense of the
+world without God.
+
+Self-consciousness is an awareness that we are the ones doing the thinking.
+Saint Aurelius Augustine (354-430) thought of this more than a millennium before
+Descartes came up with *[cogito, ergo sum]*. I think, therefore I am. It is our
+starting point because we can know it with absolute certainty. To doubt his
+thesis is to prove it. In order to doubt it, one has to think it. Doubting
+requires thinking, and thinking requires a thinker.
+
+[cogito, ergo sum]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum
+
+Following our self-consciousness is an awareness of our finitude. We know we are
+not infinite, and with that we know we are not God.
+
+Augustine and Descartes had three possible explanations for our existence:
+
+1. We are eternal.
+2. We were self-created.
+3. We were created by someone or something that is eternal.
+
+We know we are not eternal. And in the section on the Uniformity of Nature I
+showed self-creation is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. That leaves
+us with one option: we were created by someone or something that is eternal.
+
+Can the universe be external? In a debate with Frederick Copleston, Bertrand
+Russell claimed that we exist because of an infinite series of finite causes
+(i.e., [infinite regress]). Copleston argued back that the idea of an infinite
+series of finite causes is unintelligible and irrational.
+
+[infinite regress]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress
+
+Growing up Russell read John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) who had a profound
+influence on Russell's thinking. Mill made the observation that if everything
+that exists requires a cause, then not only would the universe require a cause
+but God Himself would require a cause which would lead to an infinite regress. 
+
+The mistake they made was thinking the law of causality requires everything to
+have a cause. Instead, it only requires that *every effect* have an antecedent
+cause. It is one thing to say every effect must have a cause. It is a different
+matter to say to say that *everything that exists* must have a cause. The
+statement presupposes that everything that exists is an effect. God is not an
+effect and therefore not caused.
+
+Heinrich Olbers (1758-1840) discovered a different problem with an eternal
+universe. If the universe we live in is actually eternal, we would see light
+everywhere we look because every line of sight would end on the surface of a
+star. The whole sky would be as bright as the sun. Even if light was absorbed by
+matter between the stars and us, eventually the matter would heat up enough to
+shine like the stars.
+
+![Olbers's Paradox](/olbers's-paradox.gif)
+
+What if the universe has not eternally existed in an expanded state but existed
+as a singularity? The singularity would have been stable and organized,
+unchanging in a state of inertia. The universe is no longer a singularity, so
+there would have been a change in state like an explosion (i.e. [cosmic
+inflation]). How can the universe eternally exist as a condensed point and then
+explode? The law of inertia states that if a body is at rest it will remain
+at rest unless acted upon by an *outside force*, God.
+
+[cosmic inflation]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29
+
+Something or someone is eternal. If something does exist, something has always
+existed. It has to be someone whose existence is not dependent, not finite, and
+not contingent, but is independent, infinite, necessary, and self-existent. It
+is God. God is ontologically necessary, and we are contingent on Him to exist.
+There was never and will never be a time when He was not or will not be. He is
+"I am", [Yahweh] in Hebrew.
+
+[Yahweh]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh
+
+> God said to Moses, "I am who I am." And He said, "Say this to the people of
+> Israel: 'I am has sent me to you.'"[^11]
+
+[^11]: Exodus 3:14 (NASB).
+
+God is the author of our idea of truth. God imposes His revelation of Himself
+into our minds. God gives us two kinds of revelation. Special revelation comes
+from the Bible. It teaches us about salvation and the person and work of Jesus
+and how we can be saved. General revelation is given to the whole world and
+every human being. It is general in terms of the audience and content. General
+revelation does not tell us about the cross or Christ's ascension. Instead, it
+tells us about the nature and character of God.
+
+There are two kinds of general revelation, mediate and immediate. Mediate
+general revelation is a revelation from God through a [medium] (e.g., TV and
+radio). It is a means of communication that is much broader than those examples.
+God's medium to share His being is all of nature.
+
+[medium]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_(communication)
+
+> The heavens tell of the glory of God; And their expanse declares the work of
+> His hands.[^12]
+
+[^12]: Psalm 19:1 (NASB).
+
+TODO: add James Webb Telescope picture
+
+We do not see God directly when we look at the stars, but in seeing the galaxy,
+we see the marks of the Creator. God caused the universe. We cannot observe God,
+but we can observe what He creates.
+
+With immediate general revelation one does not have to reason through the medium
+to know the author of the medium. We also have the immediate revelation of God
+in our minds and souls. John Calvin (1509-1564) called this the *[sensus
+divinitatus]* or the sense of the divine within ourselves. We cannot escape the
+knowledge of God. It is not only in nature, but also within us.
+
+A further discussion on this is in the section on Psychology of Atheists.
+
+[sensus divinitatus]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensus_divinitatis
+
+## Objective Morality
+
+> And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a
+> depraved mind, to do those things that are not proper, people having been
+> filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, and evil; full of envy,
+> murder, strife, deceit, and malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of
+> God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
+> without understanding, untrustworthy, unfeeling, and unmerciful; and although
+> they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy
+> of death, they not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice
+> them.[^13]
+
+[^13]: Romans 1:28-32 (NASB).
+
+God revealed His holy character to all of us. Every human knows that God is
+righteous. We all know the difference between right and wrong. Despite our
+knowledge of good and evil, we do not want God in our minds. We behave in the
+way Paul describes and encourage others to commit the same sins.
+
+> For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and
+> all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the
+> hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who
+> will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively
+> perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a
+> law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their
+> hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or
+> defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the
+> secrets of mankind through Christ Jesus.[^14]
+
+[^14]: Romans 2:12-16 (NASB).
+
+Not only did God give the law to Moses on Mount Sinai, but He writes it in the
+heart of every creature. The proof of this law is the conscience. Although it
+can be corrupted, it is part of the constituent makeup of every human being. If
+someone is completely devoid of conscience, they are a psychopath or sociopath.
+They can commit pernicious wickedness without feeling guilt. It is a perversion
+of natural humanity. God bears witness to Himself by planting His moral law in
+the hearts and minds of every human being.
+
+An atheist may respond that our conscience is the result of taboos of the
+society we were raised or still live in. This idea is known as [moral
+relativism]. There are certainly differences in cultural taboos and societal
+laws. That being said, all cultures have to have some ethical structure. Without
+it, civilization cannot function and falls apart.
+
+[moral relativism]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
+
+Every civilization has been built upon a philosophy, religion, or mythology. It
+unites the society and cultures within it. There have been three major stages of
+American history. The Pilgrams based the United States on a theological
+foundation. In the 18th century, the foundation was replaced with a
+philosophical one. Finally, the late 20th century gave rise to a mythological
+foundation, moral relativism. Myths are not based on truth.
+
+Immanuel Kant said that every single person has a sense of oughtness (i.e., a
+sense of right and wrong). This sense of right and wrong Kant described using
+his [categorical imperative] is an absolute command as opposed to moral
+relativism which cannot command anyone to do anything. Everyone has a sense of
+duty that requires them to behave in a certain manner. We cannot get rid of
+guilt. The guilt comes from failing to do what we are morally obligated to do.
+
+[categorical imperative]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
+
+For our conscience to be meaningful Kant asked himself what the necessary
+preconditions for morality are that would impose obligations upon the
+individual. He realized that without an objective morality, civilization is
+impossible. Law is [might makes right]. If the Nazis would have won WWII, their
+morality would have been right. We know this cannot be true.
+
+[might makes right]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right
+
+Without an absolute standard, all ethics become personal preferences. Everyone
+does what is right in their own view. Why is your view more right than anyone
+else's? Society becomes a battle ground of arguments over personal preferences.
+Although we may have facts on the effects of murder for example, they say
+nothing about murder being evil. Hume covers this in his [is-ought distinction].
+
+[is-ought distinction]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem
+
+What is necessary for the categorical imperative to be meaningful? There must be
+*justice*. In the end, if the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer, injustice
+prevails. There would be no reason to be ethical because we would benefit from
+doing otherwise. There would be no practical reason to be anything but selfish.
+Good behavior must be rewarded, and bad behavior must be punished. What is
+necessary for justice?
+
+1. **Life after death**: This world does not deliver justice perfectly. Innocent
+   people suffer from the evil deeds of the guilty. Courts do not always work.
+2. **Perfect Judge**: If He can be corrupted, He could deliver injustice.
+3. **Omniscient**: The Judge has to know everything (e.g., extenuating
+   circumstances). He must know all facts and details.
+4. **Omnipotent**: The Judge must have the power to deliver His judgement. If He
+   can be restricted by an outside agent, there is no guarantee justice follows.
+
+Friedrich Nietzsche discussed the concept of a herd morality which he used to
+describe 19th century Europe. I believe it applies even more to today's 21st
+century America.
+
+The distinctive characteristic of human beings is the principle of
+intentionality. We can act with intention which implies design.
+
+Non-Christians serve the creature. Christians serve the Creator.
+
+The Day of Judgment
+
+## God's Sovereignty and Predestination
+
+All Christians agree that God is sovereign. God has the power to rule over His
+creation. What Christians disagree on is how we understand sovereignty. The
+Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way:
+
+> God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will,
+> freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[^15]
+
+[^15]: *Westminster Confession of Faith*, Chapter 3.
+
+As much as people think it does, this position from the Westminster Confession
+is not unique to Calvinists or Presbyterians. It is not even unique to
+Christians. Theists believe this statement, and atheists do not. If anything
+happens apart from what God ordained, it occurs outside His sovereignty. If God
+is not sovereign, God is not God.
+
+All events happen in accordance with God's sovereignty. If something happens
+because of men, nature, or machines, God always has the power to prevent it from
+happening. If He does not prevent it from happening, He has chosen to let it
+happen. It does not mean He approves it by His divine sanction, but He allows it
+to happen. By allowing an event, He sovereignly decides what takes place.
+
+God's sovereign will, which He decreed before creating the universe, has two
+divisions: His efficacious and permissive wills. Events that directly contribute
+to God's plan are efficacious, and events He permits that do not directly
+fulfill His will, but in the end do are permissive. He allows evil acts of man
+to occur and through them He brings about good. God gives us an example at the
+end of Genesis with the story of Joseph. Joseph's brothers were jealous of their
+father's favor for Joseph. Joseph recognizes the sins of his brothers to sell
+him into slavery were part of God's purpose.
+
+> As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to
+> bring about this present result, to keep many people alive.[^16]
+
+[^16]: Genesis 50:20 (NASB).
+
+A small event can has a massive effect on the course of history. As R.C. Sproul
+(1939-2017) put it:
+
+> If there is one maverick molecule in the universe, one molecule running loose
+> outside of the scope of God's sovereign ordination, then ladies and gentlemen,
+> there is not the slightest confidence you can have that any promise that God
+> has ever made about the future will come to pass.
+
+Christians would have no guarantee that God's promises will be fulfilled. One
+detail could prevent Jesus from returning. God has sovereignty over time and
+providence within it. God actively works out His purpose in our lives. *Deus pro
+nobis*, God for us.
+
+We continue with the rest of the confession:
+
+> yet so thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to
+> the will of creatures, no is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken
+> away, but rather established.[^15]
+
+This is not an absolute determinism with no free creatures. Rather, God is
+sovereign over free creatures. Christians agree that God is sovereign, and that
+men are fallen and do evil. What is the relationship between a sovereign God and
+a fallen world? God could respond in four ways to a fallen world:
+
+1. God could offer no opportunity for anyone to be saved.
+
+A just God is not required to demonstrate His love for rebellious creatures by
+offering mercy to them. He could love and punish all fallen people (i.e.,
+everyone). God is justified to exercise justice against an unjust creature. Some
+Christians have the presupposition that God must be merciful. They believe God
+owes grace to us. However, if it is required by God, it is no longer mercy.
+Justice can be required, but mercy by its definition cannot.
+
+2. God could offer opportunity to all or some people.
+
+People have a chance to be saved, but there is no guarantee that anyone would be
+saved. People would have to cooperate with God to receive salvation. This is
+known as [Semi-Pelagianism]. God's grace would not be sufficient.
+
+[Semi-Pelagianism]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Pelagianism
+
+3. God guarantees the salvation of all people.
+
+God could work through the hearts of fallen people to ensure the salvation of
+all. He could change peoples' hearts to bring them to faith. This is called
+[Universalism].
+
+[Universalism]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_universalism
+
+4. God guarantees the salvation of some people.
+
+Similar to the salvation of all, He could change the hearts of some people
+(i.e., the elect).
+
+God does offer salvation, so we can eliminate the first option. God tells us
+through His word that not everyone is saved which eliminates the third option.
+The fourth option was the view Augustine held called [Augustinism]. In fact, it
+was also the view of Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards. Five of the greatest
+Christian theologians, while they disagreed on many other doctrine, agreed on
+the doctrine of predestination.
+
+The objection to this view is unfairness. Some Christians believe if God changes
+the hearts of some, He is obligated to do it for all. This issue goes back to
+the definition of mercy which cannot be required.
+
+[Augustinism]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinianism
+
+> For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy, and I will
+> show compassion to whomever I show compassion."[^17]
+
+[^17]: Romans 9:15 (NASB).
+
+In fact, the second option in light of the Scripture would ensure no one would
+be saved.
+
+> Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a
+> slave to sin."[^18]
+
+[^18]: John 8:34 (NASB).
+
+Slaves are not free. Men have creaturely wills that are enslaved to sin. People
+who do not subject themselves to the law of God of enemies of Him.
+
+> What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged
+> both Jews and Greeks under all sin; as it is written: "There is no righteous
+> person, not even one; there is no one who understands, there is no one who
+> seeks God; They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;
+> there is no one who does good, there is not even one. Their throat is an open
+> grave, with their tongues they keep deceiving, the venom of asps is under
+> their lips; their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are
+> swift to shed blood, destruction and misery are in their paths, and they have
+> not known the way of peace. There is no fear of God before their eyes."[^19]
+
+[^19]: Romans 3:9-18 (NASB).
+
+The fourth option is more gracious. Rather than leaving people to their own
+ability to believe, the Holy Spirit changes the hearts of fallen people who are
+dead in sin to bring them to faith. It also ensures that the death of Christ is
+never in vain. Jesus did not die to make us savable. He actually saved a group
+of people in union with Himself upon the cross.
+
+> No man can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will
+> raise him up on the last day.[^20]
+
+[^20]: John 6:44 (NASB).
+
+The word "can" translates from the Greek which means "to be able". Jesus was not
+talking about permission. He was talking about ability. God commands all people
+everywhere to come to Jesus. It is everyone's moral obligation. By ourselves we
+cannot come. We do not have the ability unless God graciously changes our
+hearts.
+
+> And you were dead in your offenses and sins, in which you previously walked
+> according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of
+> the air, of the spirit is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them
+> we too all previously lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires
+> of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as
+> the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which
+> He loved us, even when we were dead in our wrongdoings, made us alive together
+> with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and
+> seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages
+> to come He might show the boundless riches of His grace in kindness towards us
+> in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is
+> not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works, so that no
+> one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good
+> works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.[^21]
+
+[^21]: Ephesians 2:1-10 (NASB).
+
+The work of the Holy Spirit to change the human heart must happen before anyone
+can come to faith. Regeneration precedes faith. All who are regenerate come to
+faith. Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) called the grace of regeneration
+*operative grace*. It is not cooperative grace. God's grace works. Grace is not
+based on human merit or work otherwise it would no longer be grace.
+
+But by changing our hearts, we are made new creatures in Christ who want to live
+consistently with Him. The new man wants to please God who created him, redeemed
+him, and loves him because of what God has done within him. He was given the
+gifts of faith and repentance.
+
+> Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us
+> with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He
+> chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and
+> blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to the adoption as sons and
+> daughters through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of
+> His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, with which He favored us in
+> the Beloved. ... In Him we also have obtained an inheritance, having been
+> predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things in accordance
+> with the plan of His will,[^22]
+
+[^22]: Ephesians 1:3-6,11 (NASB).
+
+Our destinies were decided in advance by God. Before the world was made, God had
+a plan to predestine people to salvation in Jesus Christ. God's grace is so
+powerful that it extends throughout history. In His plan for the ages, He
+determined to shed His grace upon some. God does not potentially predestine
+everyone to salvation. We do not chose God. God chose us.
+
+The people God elected to be saved receive mercy, and the people God did not
+elect receive justice. No one is left with injustice. Mercy and injustice are
+both non-justice, but they are not the same.
+
+![Diagram of justice and injustice](/justice.webp)
+
+> As Jesus passed by, He saw a man who had been blind from birth. And His
+> disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he
+> would be born blind?" Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned,
+> nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in
+> him." [^23]
+
+[^23]: John 9:1-3 (NASB).
+
+Jesus answer why bad events take place. They happen to display the glory of God.
+
+> For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the
+> ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the
+> good person someone would even dare to die. But God *demonstrates* His own
+> love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. [^24]
+
+[^24]: Romans 5:6-8 (NASB).
+
+God is faithful in His promises to us. Our sin and unbelief cannot alter God's
+faithfulness. Our unrighteousness does not diminish God's righteousness. In
+fact, to the contrary. It makes God's righteousness more glorious. We could not
+understand the depth of God's righteousness if we were not familiar with
+unrighteousness. God shows his Character who loves enemies of Him that commit
+sin.
+
+> You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted
+> His will?" On the contrary, who are you, you foolish person, who answers back
+> to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like
+> this," will it? Or does the potter not have a right over the clay, to make
+> from the same lump one object for honorable use, and another for common use?
+> What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power
+> known, endured with great patience objects of wrath prepared for destruction.
+> And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon objects of mercy,
+> which He prepared beforehand for glory,[^25]
+
+[^25]: Romans 9:19-23 (NASB).
+
+If there was no sin, God's wrath would never be on display. God endures an
+assault against His holiness. Sin puts the depth and range of all the attributes
+of God's Character on display. God could not demonstrate His righteousness
+without judgement nor His love without grace and mercy. God predetermined the
+existence of evil without ever causing it, for the purpose of displaying His
+holiness. At the same time, He predetermined the people He would save through
+His Son to demonstrate His mercy. God did all of this to gather into heaven a
+redeemed people who will forever praise Him for all that He is!
+
+If all events are caused within the great system of a universe (i.e., divinely
+ordered universe), how can we take responsibility for our actions?
+
+God does not regret even though it may seem that way in some Old Testament
+passages. He speaks to us anthropomorphically. It is an issue of interpretation.
+God uses language of accommodation. He speaks to us in a way we can understand.
+His thoughts are not our thoughts.
+
+Passages about God changing His mind are found in narratives. The narrator
+describes God in a human way. The didactic passages remind us that God is not a
+man. One rule of hermeneutics is to interpret the narratives by the didactics
+and not the didactics by the narratives.
+
+As Einstein said, God does not play dice.
+
+I cannot think of a better example of God's sovereignty than Jesus of Nazareth.
+
+TODO: If God is Sovereign, How can Man Be Free? by RC Sproul
+
+## Peace with God
+
+A common objection to Christianity is the number of alternate religions. How can
+we know the God of the Bible is the true one?
+
+> "Present your case," the Lord says. "Bring forward your evidence," The King of
+> Jacob says. Let them bring them forward and declare to us what is going to
+> take place; As for the former events, declare what they were, So that we may
+> consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is coming.
+> Declare the things that are going to come afterward, So that we may know that
+> you are gods; Indeed, do good or evil, that we may be afraid and fear
+> together. Behold, you are less than nothing, And your work is less than
+> nothing! He who chooses you is an abomination.[^25]
+
+[^25]: Isaiah 41:21-24 (NASB).
+
+Jesus
+
+God used the worst act men ever committed to accomplish His best work, the
+salvation of His people.
+
+- Matthew 27-28
+- Genesis 3:15 (the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head)
+- Genesis 22:6
+- Exodus 12:46 (no broken bones)
+- Isaiah 7:14, 9:6-7, 52:13-15, 53:7-10
+- Daniel 7:13-14, 9:26 (temple)
+- Micah 5 (Bethlehem)
+- Psalm 22
+
+In Jesus Christ, all of the believers' sins are imputed to Him for which He paid
+an atonement that perfectly satisfies the justice of God, and also in His
+perfect life of obedience He achieved a righteousness that is imputed to all of
+those who embrace him by faith alone.
+
+TODO: Messiah Prophecy by Jeff Durbin and Lewis's trilemma
+
+## Biblical Inerrancy
+
+TODO: Biblical Inerrancy by John MacArthur
+
+- 1 Peter 3:15
+- Proverbs 1:7
+- Proverbs 26:4-5
+- Colossians 2:2-3
+- Romans 1:18-20
+- Acts 17
+
+## Justification By Faith Alone
+
+Five Solas
+
+Doctrines of Grace (TULIP)
+
+## Christian Living
+
+R.C. Sproul
+
+### Meaning and Purpose
+
+Nietzsche and Nihilism
+
+Kierkegaard and Existentialism
+
+Analytic and Positivist Philosophy
+
+Probably should cover Sartre too
+
+Are we created in the image of God for a purpose and therefore our lives have
+meaning and significance or are we grown-up germs and cosmic accidents with no
+significance? How we understand God determines how we understand the universe.
+How we understand God and the world determines how we understand our place
+within the universe.
+
+Martin Luther *coram deo*
-- 
cgit v1.2.3