Apologetics – Page 4

Vessels of Mercy

Predestination and election are difficult to understand until we diligently consider the context — the dreadfully sinful human condition: Man’s Depravity. Apart from carefully integrating this concept throughout our theology, many fundamental precepts of Scripture appear hopelessly irreconcilable.

For example, how can God choose who will be saved while respecting Man’s Free Will? Similarly, How can a loving God be in total control when there’s so much evil and suffering? These are perhaps the hardest questions, and they aren’t peripheral; they’re fundamental spiritual bedrock. We can’t afford to dismiss them, yet resolving such mysteries seems impossible. Many stumble here, and go no further.

Yet God Himself gives us the key by addressing the problem directly, asking these same questions, and then answering them. God’s purpose in election will be realized (Ro 9:11) yet God will be totally righteous in it all (14), because God’s not obligated to be merciful (15) — by definition: mercy is undeserved, never justly required.

The reality is, if God didn’t elect anyone, choose anyone to be saved, and He let us all go our own way — we would: every last one of us would walk away from Him; we would not come to Him. (Mt 22:3) This would be fair, certainly, but then Heaven would be desolate (Lk 14:16-18a), and the world filled with even more evil and suffering than it already is. (Ge 6:5) This is what Depravity teaches us (11), if we listen. (Je 17:9)

So, if God chooses to intervene in a few of us, choosing us out from the masses and giving us new hearts and new wills that don’t run away, He’s showing mercy in election, not being unjust.

God never actually turns anyone away who seeks Him, or causes anyone to do evil; He controls by mercifully restraining us from acting out our full evil nature according to His sovereign purposes. (2Th 2:7) There’s nothing at all inappropriate about restraining evil; so, God’s in absolute control of all that happens (Ep 1:11), yet He’s also perfectly good, just and merciful; He’s righteous and holy in all He does. (Ps 145:17)

In giving us new hearts God doesn’t force us against our will; what He does in His elect is heal our will, displacing our love of lies, which moved us to distrust and despise Him, with a love for truth; He works in us to will according to His good pleasure (Php 2:13), such that we begin to want to do good. He works all this in us for our good and for His glory. (Ro 8:28)

The only remaining challenge here is: Why doesn’t God save everyone if He has this ability? The answer lies in God’s glory: He’s most glorified in fully revealing His nature, His wrath and power as well as His love and mercy. (Ro 9:22-23) If God didn’t let most all of His enemies act like enemies, and treat them as He does, we’d know much less about Him, so that’s exactly what He’s doing; God is perfectly revealing and glorifying Himself by only saving a few. (Re 15:3)

Rather than faulting God for being absolutely sovereign, and for choosing only a remnant to be saved, we ought to let all the blame for evil lie where it truly belongs: with sinful Man, and glorify God for His mercy. (Ro 15:9) Rather than complaining and running away, we seek God until we find Him (He 11:6), and discover that we’re indeed elect, vessels of divine mercy. (Ro 9:23)

And in being vessels of infinite mercy (Ps 103:11), undeserving recipients of God’s kindness, love and favor, we also ought to be merciful (Lk 6:36), to be compassionate toward those who are out of the way (He 5:2), esteeming others better than ourselves. (Php 2:3)

articles ♦ posts

Give an Answer

When unbelievers ask us why we believe and act the way we do, why we have any hope living in this evil, broken world, we should be ready to give an answer. (1Pe 3:15) We shouldn’t just give them sentiment either; true faith is based on facts.

Scientific facts, archaeological and historical facts, well-attested to over centuries, provide the groundwork of earnest belief. We don’t believe a certain way just because our parents did, or because friends and family agree. Godly faith isn’t blind; it’s grounded in wisdom and reason. We should be familiar with the factual grounds of our faith and be prepared to provide a reasonable defense.

Perhaps the greatest challenge to our faith will be on moral grounds, why we don’t accept the LGBTQ or Social Justice agenda. Those who’ve invented their own false Christ think He accepts any behavior because He’s too loving to correct or rebuke anyone. They won’t tolerate those who refuse to bow the knee to political correctness.

In the face of such challenges, is it appropriate to begin quoting scripture? If they reject scripture as authoritative, why would they care what it says? The wicked are often expert at finding flaws in arguments, pointing out apparent inconsistencies, and referencing academic/scientific authorities to support their rejection of Christianity. Trying to answer their objections can be very difficult and time consuming, and even well-reasoned answers will be unacceptable to the darkened heart. This approach seldom ends well.

Perhaps it is better to ask them to explain the basis of their own confidence. In my experience, atheists don’t arrive at their position through any clear evidence, but by rejecting false religion: it’s a strawman fallacy. For a moral code, ask them how they know what good and evil are, and why they act as if evil exists. They can’t help but act this way; it’s in their very design. How so?

If they can’t site some scripture somewhere, some official written moral code that isn’t subject to their momentary whim, perhaps Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim, which they’re following earnestly and consistently, they’re simply making up their own morality as they go. Why then should they get so frustrated when they see us (supposedly) doing the same thing? It’s irrational.

And on the rare occasion when an antagonist does follow some documented code of conduct, it’s easy then to ask what evidence they have that this code was revealed by God. If they’re letting some mere mortal set up their moral code, why impose this on others? This isn’t much better than making up our own.

The very existence of the Jewish people proves God exists, and that Torah is His moral code: it’s not Man-made. And the very existence of Christianity proves that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and he believed in Torah. If they can’t point to any other code with a more compelling factual and historical basis, and they can’t even get close, then why not follow Torah?

Such an approach may cause an unbeliever to consider why they feel so smug and confident in their unbelief, and to begin to question their own faith. Perhaps God would use this to convict them and move them to seek Him. (Ac 17:27)

articles ♦ blog

Dull of Hearing

An inability to hear or see severely limits our opportunity to receive new information. Most of us cherish our sight and hearing in the natural realm, but not so much in the spiritual; we tend to think we’ve already arrived (Php 3:13), to be wise in our own conceits (Ro 12:16c), thinking we already know it all. We tend to close ourselves off to anything new, choosing to ignore what doesn’t fit with our preconceptions, dimming our own sight and dulling our own ears, locking ourselves into our current errors and limited understanding. (Mt 13:15)

When we read our Bibles in this state, or participate in spiritual discussions, we aren’t really listening with an intent to learn; we’re waiting for an opportunity to reinforce or show off what we think we already know. We ignore and dismiss ideas which might contradict our current view; we want to be perceived to be right, rather than actually being right. We become dull of hearing, unteachable. (He 5:11)

Scripture calls such behavior loving darkness, and it’s our natural state (Jn 3:19); it takes an act of God to wake us up (Ep 2:1) and fill us with love for truth. (2Ti 2:25) Apart from God’s intervention, making us truth lovers, we’d all be deceived and eternally damned. (2Th 2:10)

How do we know if we’re dull of hearing? Simple: when we perceive something inconsistent with our current way, how do we respond? In the natural realm, we carefully consider obstacles and incorporate them into our world view, understanding them and navigating them, or leveraging them as tools to help us on our way. But if we’re constantly ignoring and dismissing reality itself, stumbling over the aspects of it we don’t like and not even noticing, it proves we’re blind, deaf and insensitive to pain – disconnected from the natural world and largely unaware of it. (Jn 11:10) In such brokenness, we don’t tend to last very long. (Mt 15:14)

When we perceive any aspect of reality which might not align with our current world view, a lover of truth pauses and carefully reflects on this new information. What am I missing? How does this fit with my current understanding? If something doesn’t fit, I need to adjust my thinking until it does … until everything fits into a coherent whole. I am poor in spirit; I need others to challenge me, to help me see my blind spots, where I’ve been deceived, where darkness still dwells in me. Everyone knows something I don’t; let my hearing be clear and sharp, so I can learn what I should as God crosses our paths.

articles ♦ posts

Your Own Conceits

The carnal nature in us, our old man, presumes we already know all we need to know; we don’t seek truth since we think we already have enough. It often operates in a vacuum of desperate self-deception (Re 3:17); the less we know the more confident we are in our understanding: in the extreme, it’s being utterly confident while knowing virtually nothing. (Pr 26:16)

We can detect this well-known principle operating in us, called the Dunning-Kruger effect, when we find ourselves over-estimating our own ability or knowledge, or underestimating that of others. Simply ask, what do I really know about this? How well do my ideas hold up under the scrutiny of experts who disagree with me? How well do I understand their best counter-arguments? Do I have training and experience demonstrating my capability under stress? What are the true boundaries of this area? Is my confidence based on facts or presumption? Whenever we find ourselves smugly confident, unwilling to listen to and deeply consider the claims, opinions or skills of others, we’re deceiving ourselves. (Ja 1:22)

Were it not for the restraining grace of God, our sin nature here would put each of us well beyond hope (Ro 7:24), for one who thinks he already knows has closed his mind (Mt 13:15) and can’t learn. (Pr 26:12) But this presumption is simply pride rooted in lies; we can learn from anyone, we can always improve if we’re poor in spirit and love the truth. As we perceive this arrogance operating within, it’s time to humble ourselves, soften our hearts, and repent. (Ja 4:10)

Rather than thinking we’ve arrived (Php 3:13-14) and are superior to others (Ro 2:19), God tells us all to be not wise in our own conceits (Ro 12:16c): helping each other seek and find the truth (a), esteeming others better, focusing first on fundamentals, along with the lowly. (b) Generally, when we’re missing it big, we’re missing the basics. (Mt 23:23)

This isn’t to say that we can’t be confident in our knowledge of God (Je 9:24), that we must always be doubting everything. (2Ti 1:12) There is room in faith and humility for confidence and certainty. (He_10:22) While that is true, it is also true that we don’t know everything about anything. (1Co 8:2) We can be both confident and teachable, grounded in the truth while ever seeking more of it.

articles ♦ posts

Clearly Seen

To design is to envision an outcome and then purposely determine how to rearrange matter to achieve that outcome. The context might be physical, resulting in a tool or a machine, or metaphysical – symbols or imagery conveying meaning, or a combination of the two. Design is ultimately produced only by intelligence; unconscious matter cannot envision, purpose or determine.

Complexity is a measure of difficulty in design; more complex designs require more intelligence. When we encounter highly complex, inanimate designs we immediately recognize them, and we naturally ascribe the intelligent cause to humans; proposing any other cause is irrational.

Yet living creatures also have the appearance of profoundly complex and exquisite design, far beyond human capability, so it’s natural to infer the existence of a supreme Mind, a God, the Designer of the human mind, and to be inspired unto worship. (Ps 139:14)

But when we’re predisposed to rule out the possibility of a transcendent, intelligent Cause a priori, we invariably struggle with the apparent design of living creatures, desperately looking for a natural cause rather than a divine one.

Enter Charles Darwin, a mid-19^th century biologist offering an explanation (Evolution) for how unintelligent processes might account for the appearance of design in Nature: organisms change (evolve) over time due to slight, random changes in offspring (Common Descent), some of which improve chances of survival; in competing for scarce resources, random (unintelligent) processes tend to eliminate inferior organisms (Natural Selection), favoring those more suitably adapted to their environment. Given sufficient time, Darwin supposed such processes might plausibly account for design throughout Nature.

Yet Darwin and his contemporaries were unable to explain how Evolution works at the required level of detail; they were clueless about the complex biological machinery of life because the tools enabling this level of research were unavailable until the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries.

Now, we understand the molecular mechanism which drives Evolution: random anomalies (mutations) may occur during DNA replication which alter the structure of proteins, the building blocks of living cells; some of these changes are beneficial, helping offspring survive.

This explains, for example, the wide variety of Galapagos finches or African cichlids; Evolution nicely accounts for variations within a kind of organism (generally within the same family classification, micro-evolution), but it has not yet explained how the various kinds of organisms (family and above, macro-evolution) came to exist in the first place. Why not?

Differences between families of organisms, say between a finch and a swan, or between a cichlid and a shark, lie at the molecular level, in the myriad array of biological machines which make up living cells. Many of these machines are irreducibly complex: disabling any one of the component parts breaks the machine; such machines cannot be formed gradually, in a step-wise manner, continuously improving or altering their function: it’s all or nothing.

Consequently, after decades of intense research, scientists hoping to find a naturalistic explanation for the apparent design of living systems find themselves at an impasse: mutations in DNA replication cannot reasonably account for the large differences between diverse kinds of biological machines. It’s like proposing that blueprints (DNA) for sewing machines came from haphazard copying errors (mutations) to blueprints for washing machines, one step at a time, such that each intermediate machine (none of which were ever actually observed) worked as well as or better than the prior one. It’s unthinkable, patently absurd.

It should come as no surprise then to find that, to date (early 2020), no scientific publication of any kind explains exactly how random rearrangements of DNA could reasonably account for the design of any irreducibly complex molecular machine in any living organism, not even the simplest of these machines. The reason is obvious: each one comprises many very complex proteins arranged in very specific ways to achieve very complex functions, much more complex than a sewing machine.

The chances of randomly forming a typical, useful protein molecule from scratch, even if all (20 or so) required types of components are present, compares to blindly selecting a particular atom from among all the atoms in the Milky Way galaxy.

Even if we start with a similar but fundamentally different kind of supposed parent machine, the time required to randomly generate just a handful of the numerous mutations needed to form the specific proteins required by any one of these complex biological machines would be astronomical. In other words, even the simplest of the biological systems is so extremely complex that it is inconceivable for even one of them to come into existence via Evolution.

This scientific impasse is not based on an absence of knowledge (God of the gaps), but on overwhelming biochemical evidence that is only becoming increasingly problematic for Evolution as we learn more about how living organisms work. No reasonable alternative theories have been proposed which explain the scientific data, and given the overwhelming nature of the evidence, we have no reason to ever expect a naturalistic explanation.

The only rational conclusion we can now derive from science is that every living thing is designed by a very powerful Mind. The entire body of scientific knowledge in biochemistry points to this conclusion; there is zero evidence for macro-evolution.

Divine design is now more evident in living things than is human design in inanimate things, which we readily accept where we’re free from crippling bias. Design is clearly seen everywhere, being understood by us all, whether we happen to like it or not. (Ro 1:20)

articles ♦ posts

None Good but God

When a rich young man approaches Jesus Christ to inquire about salvation, he begins by addressing Christ as “Good Master.” (Mt 19:16) Christ replies, as He often does, by questioning the young man: “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” (17a)

Christ systematically uses questions to help us think through what we’re doing so we can find the truth. This case appears to be no different. What is Christ leading the young man to discover?

Some might claim from Christ’s response that He’s rebuking the young man, admitting that He Himself isn’t good because He isn’t God. If this were true, then a rebuke would certainly be appropriate, but it presupposes that Christ is merely human. So, treating this as evidence of Christ’s mere humanity is classic circular reasoning, a logical fallacy.

If we observe carefully, Christ doesn’t actually assert that He isn’t good, or that the young man’s address is inappropriate; the mere question isn’t a condemnation. Christ simply affirms that no one is truly good except God; everyone else is sinful and depraved by nature. So, is the young man acknowledging the divinity and perfection of Christ, or is he flattering a sinful creature like himself? Christ’s challenge is to awaken: either Christ is God, or He isn’t good.

This question challenges us all, does it not? Many are tempted to describe Jesus Christ as merely a good man, a great teacher of morality, perhaps the greatest ever, and nothing more. Yet Christ Himself doesn’t leave us this option: He spoke in ways that were totally inappropriate for a mere man. (Jn 8:12, 19, 23, 29, 58)

So, we’re left to choose: either Christ is God, or He wasn’t good; there is no in-between. This is the most profound choice one will ever make, so choose wisely and fully, and then live accordingly.

Unless we find some clear fault in Jesus Christ, some obvious flaw in His character, it’s exceedingly unwise to presume He isn’t Who He claims to be. (Jn_14:6) A Man who foretells His own innocent suffering and death (Mt 16:21), and claims He will raise Himself from the dead (Jn 10:17-18), and then pulls this off — and actually does it — has given us more proof than we could ever need.

articles ♦ posts

Thou, LORD, Hast Done It

Evidence for the existence of God is found in what He’s done, things no one else could possibly do. (Ps 109:27) It’s based on the Law of Cause and Effect; that every effect, everything that comes into being or begins to exist, has a distinct cause. The cause is distinct from the effect; the cause is not the same as the effect; the cause is something other than or different from the effect. If the cause can’t be natural, then it must be supernatural: God must be the Cause.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument, the primary way of establishing the existence of God (Ro 1:20-21), is based on this law:

Everything that comes into being has a cause.
The universe came into being.
Therefore the universe has a cause.

Premise 1 is merely a restatement of the Law of Cause and Effect, which forms the basis of all scientific inquiry. We presuppose it whenever we’re trying to understand an occurrence or event. When we’re being honest, we never suppose something (an effect) just is, that it’s causeless. We instinctively ask How? looking for the cause. People only deny this law when they’re biased, averse to the implications – and there’s just one scenario like this: when the Cause is God. We find the idea absurd otherwise; it opposes science itself.

Premise 2 is true because if Nature (i.e. everything that is natural) is infinitely old then it would be at steady state with no usable energy (due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), and it’s not. Since Nature is not infinitely old, it must have come into being.

So, the universe, or Nature, the entire space-time continuum, came into being; therefore it had a cause. Nature could not have caused itself since effects must be distinct from their causes; the cause of all of Nature must therefore be distinct from and separate from all of Nature. Thus, the cause of Nature cannot be natural; it must be non-physical, beyond space and time: spiritual, supernatural. We call this supernatural, spiritual Cause of Nature: God.

articles ♦ posts

Against Nature

God intends for us to learn from His design (1Co 11:14); it’s good in every conceivable way. (Ge 1:31) So when we violate any aspect of natural order, we’re asking for trouble.

This is the fundamental problem with homosexuality: it violates natural design. God calls this out when He describes it as changing the natural use into that which is against nature (Ro 1:26), and leaving the natural use. (Ro 1:27)

This isn’t complicated: we’re perfectly designed as male and female to procreate though stable, heterosexual relationships. Homosexuality is a fundamental, flagrant violation of this design: such relationships can’t produce offspring because they’re unnatural; it’s using sexuality in unintended ways for unintended purposes, twisting it, perverting it. (1Ti 1:10)

God forbids such perversion in His Law (Le 18:22, 20:13), along with many other kinds of sexual activity. Because God is good, His Law is also good (Ro 7:12) for us all, and it isn’t optional: those who refuse to obey God as a manner of life identify themselves as children of disobedience, alienated from God and subject to His wrath. (Ep 2:2-3)

Our desires and natural instincts are not the point; we’re all born with a sin nature, with an inclination to violate God’s law: in our natural state we won’t submit to God. (Ro 8:7) God didn’t make us this way; we’re fallen beings, corrupted through our own lusts (2Pe 1:4), with a will that’s free to depart from God, and does so with remarkable consistency.

It’s not easy for anyone to control and discipline themselves, consistently curbing their natural appetites for a greater good; this is the mark of maturity and wholesomeness; very few master themselves here. It’s a journey, and it takes time. To truly overcome our evil tendencies, we must start by getting a new nature from God (Ez 36:26); our old one won’t get us very far at all. (Ga 6:15)

When we give ourselves over to unnatural desires they become part of us, taking root and establishing themselves, corrupting our souls and enslaving us (2Ti 2:25-26); this ultimately drives us to sin and separates us from God. (Ja 1:15) Normalizing perversion simply encourages more of us to do this, weakening our culture and destroying the fabric of society.

It’s wisdom to recognize God’s perfect design in us, and to concede that any inclinations contrary to it are rooted in lies designed to destroy us. When we align our minds with truth, our passions inevitably follow. It’s a spiritual war with a real, evil, spiritual enemy (Ep 6:12), seducing and tempting us. We ought not to give such an enemy place in us, receiving his appeals to seek satisfaction apart from God. (Ep 4:27) Rather, we should ask God to help us learn to be content (Php 4:11) in Him, trusting God to quicken us so that we can live for Him.

articles ♦ posts

The Oracles of God

The scriptures are essential to spiritual life (Ps 119:9); to depart from their precepts is to walk in darkness. (Is 8:20) They’re given by inspiration (2Ti 3:16) to make us wise unto eternal salvation (2Ti 3:15), providing more evidence of spiritual reality than any miracle ever could. (Lk 16:31)

But how do we know what scripture is? What documents should we consider to be inspired of God? How do we go about validating this? What tests should we apply? Several characteristics are common to all of the books included in the Bible, giving us ample clues.

To begin, we know that Jesus Christ, the greatest figure in human history, accepted the 39 books of the Old Testament cannon as scripture (Lk 24:44); He acted as if the Jews of His day had correctly identified all scripture, and only scripture, within these texts. (Jn 5:39) This is now a well-documented, historical fact.

And Christ’s Apostles identified certain new texts penned in their own era as inspired, the 27 books of the New Testament, which recorded the details of Christ’s teaching and ministry, the history of the early church, and how to rightly understand the ways and nature of God in light of all that had already been revealed. (2Pe 3:16) This is also a well-documented, historical fact.

All of these 66 texts in the cannon of Scripture, the Bible, have several unique qualities in common, which are to be expected from scripture:

All scripture is committed to the Jews, God’s chosen people (Ro 3:1-2), who have recognized each inspired text, acknowledged it as scripture, and committed themselves to preserving it for us all. Just as salvation is of the Jews (Jn 4:22), so also are the scriptures, which teach us the Way of salvation, of the Jews.
Scripture does not exalt any mere mortal to spiritual prominence or importance. The authors of scripture often did not even know that they were writing scripture; they did not do so in order to promote or enrich themselves. Those who did write any details about themselves admitted faults which implicated themselves as fallen souls, much in need of grace. There is no record of any author of any biblical text proclaiming that God had perfectly inspired the text through themselves. The assertion and confirmation of inspiration was made independently, through godly men and women who were not in any kind of league with the author to promote them. (Lk 14:11, (Pr 27:2)
Scripture does not contradict any truth of any kind; each text retains a perfect integrity with every other inspired text (Pr 30:5), with science (1Ti 6:20), and with history. (De 18:21)
All scripture is generally received by the people of God as the Word of God. (Ps 119:105) As a pillar upholds a roof and connects it with the ground, so the church upholds the truth of God as His Spirit reveals it to her (1Jn 2:27), and teaches her how to translate that truth into godly behavior. (1Ti 3:15) As a spiritual community, the early Jewish Christians recognized the spiritual power of the Word of God in the New Testament cannon and affirmed it, piece by piece, just as their fathers had recognized the Old Testament cannon of scripture.
All scripture is profitable for godly instruction (2Ti 3:16), teaching us how to walk with God. It glorifies God, not man (1Co 1:29), and feeds our spirits so that we grow up into the image of Christ. (1Pe 2:2)

All scripture is sacred: add not unto His words, and neglect them at your peril. (He 2:1-4) It is living and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword. (He 4:12) Let’s delight in God’s engrafted Word, as a perfect gift, hiding it in our hearts and meditating in it day and night, so that it might quicken us (Ps 119:50), and enable us to rightly divide it. (2Ti 2:15)

articles ♦ blog

Choose Life

God frequently tells us to be careful in our choices (De_30:19) because they have consequences. (Ga_6:7) He asserts that we have a will, that we are conscious, and that we have a responsibility to choose the good and refuse the evil. (Is_7:15) There is a moral law, and we violate it at our peril.

To all of us, each and every one of us, this is self-evident, that we have the ability to make choices: that we are conscious and aware of the options of both good and evil choices before us, and that we have an obligation to make good choices.

Atheism, however, asserts that only matter and energy exist, and that matter and energy are not conscious. This implies there is no consciousness, thus no free choice, and no good or evil. This implies that our perception of free will and moral choice is merely an illusion in our brains, implying that we are no more than mechanical robots, programmed by evolution to act as we do. Atheists assert this because it is implied by atheism, not because there is any actual evidence for it.

Even Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle does not provide for conscious, moral choice; it only provides for the possibility of random, unconscious, amoral behavior.

When accepting proposition A implies conclusion B, and B is false, we know from the logical contrapositive that A is also false. This is called proof by contradiction. In other words, the fact that atheism implies we are not conscious, and that we make no voluntary choices, and that there is no moral reality, conclusions which we know by experience to be false, proves that atheism is false.

It is true that while we are alive in our body we are intimately linked with our brains, which operate with chemicals and electricity, but we are not merely our brains: we are more than bodies. We live through our bodies and think through our brains, but our thoughts are not merely impulses in our brains any more than we are merely our bodies. In other words, we are intimately connected with Nature, but we are not merely of Nature: we are eternal, made in God’s image.

Our ability to think and to choose, to understand Nature, something Nature by itself cannot do, proves we are above Nature, that we exist outside of and apart from Nature, such that we can look at Nature as an outside observer. This is the foundation of epistemology, the science of knowledge, that enables us to perceive, understand and know the living God, and the universe He created.

articles ♦ blog