Got a few things on my agenda tonight.

First of all, I realized that in my "knee jerk" reaction to that political post, I ignored the word "vicarious", which sort of makes a big difference. I intend to correct it for intellectual honesty. Nonetheless, that mistake pertains to one of my several objections, and I think that my premise stands.

Up next, I watched the movie "Patema Inverted" today. It was really disorienting, and left me thinking a lot, but it was a really well-done and intelligent movie. I recommend it. My only complaint is that they made some unnecessary ties to religion, and painted it in a negative light overall.

I also did some practice tests for my training, walked to panera bread for breakfast, hiked up a mountain, got lost in the woods, met some deer, and then participated in a beer mug holding contest at a bar we found while we were walking around; they served a great oktoberfest with brats and weisswurst. It was a really fun day overall.

In the past week, despite my wants, I have not been able to get myself into bed before 1:30AM. Right now, for example, it's 1:30AM and I'm blogging.

I also had an interesting conversation with an atheist. He had a long list of objections, and when I answered one of them he would not respond to my answer, but would just move on to his next objection. I wished he would either focus on one thing until he was satisfied, or acknowledge that my answer was satisfying. He had already read the NT, and he said that he refuses to touch the OT (which I called him out on, using some passages where Jesus upholds the OT). He already thought that predestination was a necessary part of Christianity, and one of his main issues was that he couldn't wrap his mind around how, just because someone doesn't believe right now it doesn't mean that they are nonelect.

In any case, that conversation was especially interesting because of the way it tailed nicely on my other conversations about Romans. During the talk, we touched on the bulk of Romans leading up to Romans 9, and then he said, "The Bible teaches that God predestines people, and this makes me think that man has nothing to do with it. Nobody is saved by hearing the Gospel, only by receiving the HS. But the Bible also teaches that we have to choose to be saved. They can't both be true." (it's a paraphrase; his post was much longer than that). This was really awesome because it gave me the opportunity to bring up Romans 10.

God here says, through Paul, "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.  How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? ... So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."

The point is, God determines both *who* will be saved, and also *how* they will be saved.
Who: All of the elect who God chose before the world began.
How: By hearing the word of God and believing in it.
Every cause and effect was planned by God before He created the world.

One more thing he asked, though, and I didn't have a very satisfying answer for it. Here's the question and the response I gave:

He asked, "Why does God slowly sanctify His elect, piece by piece, rather than completely sanctifying them." And he suggested that this indicates that God isn't powerful.

My answer was, "The issue here is that you're thinking in terms of time. God does a complete work, but he decided that it would be accomplished in time. As to why God did it with time, as opposed to some other inconceivable substance -- He's the artist, and I'm just a self-observing piece of art. He's an infinite God, and I trust that His reasons are perfect."

This answer isn't all that satisfying, because I didn't actually tell him "why". I only told him "what". It's like a scientific answer. The scientist says, "the apple falls because gravity pulls it down", and I said, "we're sanctified slowly because it's what God chose". Neither statement answers "why", both statements answer "what". Neither me nor the scientist can explain "how" really either, (though we can try). We only know "what".

But somehow I wish that "what" was enough. I wish that I could answer to every question, "well, God did it that way and I trust him and it's enough for me".... but then my ways of thinking would be no better than those of an atheist.

As a Christian, I want my ways of reasoning to be better than nonChristian ways, because I base my thoughts on a better foundation; I want my thoughts to be worthy of the new heart and new mind which God has given me and on which God has written his law. Even when I am not reasoning through a problem, I can use my idle thoughts in a better and more God honoring way by following the teachings of God on how we are to conduct our thoughts:

   Philippians 4:8 - "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."
   2 Corinthians 10:5 - "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,"
   Psalm 1:1-2 - "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night."

God commands us to learn about him, and Jesus demonstrates to us that we may learn about God by examining His creative expressions of Himself. Jesus says, "consider the flowers" and "consider the birds", and makes several agricultural analogies; proverbs also says "consider the ant" and talks often about the nature of different substances like honey, and the behavior of some animals. These comparisons teach us about God so that we can know him better, whereby we are enabled to answer "why" and "how".

I guess in the end, "why" becomes "to teach us ___" or "to express ___ quality of God to us", which is always reducible to "For God's glory". So "how" becomes the more difficult question, but for moral and spiritual issues at least, the Bible seems to give the answers to "how".

"May it be a sweet sweet sound in your ears"