---
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*