Remnant · Scientific Creation · Theology

Free Will and(/or) Predestination

Predestination must be true. So must free will.



Predestination refers to the concept that all events of history are predestined, usually in reference to divine predestination, but also in reference to the concept that the future is theoretically predictable and, thus, unalterable; that is, the idea that, given knowledge of everything in the universe, one could predict the future, because there is nothing in the universe that does not follow the laws of physics.

First note that predestination is a concept; an idea; a theory. Neither atheists nor creationists nor followers of most other major religions completely subscribe as a united block to predestination. Various counterarguments have been proposed from different points of view to prove predestination false. For our purposes, the main comparison to make is that between the Biblical argument of divine free will and the atheistic argument of quantum indeterminacy.

Free Will

The Biblical argument is that of free will, which like predestination is a more general term than its Biblical use. In Biblical contexts free will refers to the concept, confirmed in Scripture, of humanity having free agency to change and affect its future. More generally, free will refers to all beings having free agency to change affect their futures.

Quantum Indeterminacy

Quantum indeterminacy is, like most things starting with ‘quantum’, a complex concept, but it boils down to the idea that, at a very basic levels, quarks, the components of atoms, are unpredictable. The idea is that, since to gather information about something you must observe it by bouncing rays of some sort off it, once the observed thing is small enough, it is impossible to gather all the information about it. This is borne out in reality; you can tell either where a quark is or tell its momentum, but not both at the same time, because to observe one quantity you inevitably alter the other. Thus one cannot have knowledge of everything in the universe, and therefore the universe cannot be predicted, and therefore predestination cannot be true, at least as we know it. Obviously this feels somewhat suspect, but under atheistic beliefs it holds true. The idea needs some altering under Biblical beliefs, though, because an omnipotent God would not need to alter a quark to observe it.

The counterargument I would offer is this: that we know that illogical things are a caveat of omnipotence (God can’t make a rock that he can’t lift, which is not a problem with his omnipotence but rather a necessary facet, just as he cannot make a square circle). It is possible that quark observation could be considered just as illogical as divinely un-liftable rocks, even if it doesn’t feel like it to humans for the simple reason that we have no practical experience or understanding of quantum indeterminacy. There is simply no real way for us to have a practical comprehension of most quantum things; they fall outside the wheelhouse of what our minds are trained to understand.

But Predestination!

It is an inevitable counter-counterargument that the Bible contains examples of what many consider to be predestination (see Proverbs 16:9, Jeremiah 10:23, Acts 13:48). These are complex issues, and I would advise you to seek out all the arguments you can on the topic so as to gain a full understanding of it. Here, though, are a few articles that I commend to your study of free will: an argument that predestination is a man-made doctrine, an overview of predestination and free will, a list of Bible verses relevant to the topic, and an article about the prominent Richard Dawkins’ seemingly contradictory beliefs on the Bible, free will, and comfort against correctness. All these and more have their own light to shed on the fascinating topic of free will and predestination.

At the end of the day, though, this is a problem that nearly every religion, plus atheism, faces in one way or another. For instance, the solution of quantum indeterminacy may soon find threats as advances in the quantum field are made. I cannot make any claim to discovery of the silver bullet that will put the debate to rest once and for all, but rather would make you aware of the debate and lead you towards different solutions and problems, for your own perusal and conclusion-drawing.


What Happened:

what happened_

In nineteen days, Donald Trump will have been president of the United States for a year. This time last year, pundits were screeching about the impending disaster that would likely unfold. Previously reasonable people were warning of a nuclear winter, a mass exodus from the United States, and an unchecked rise in global warming. And yet, one year later, what has actually happened?

Not much, it seems. Obamacare is set to be repealed this summer, true. And a new tax bill recently went into effect.

Actually, let’s talk about that tax bill. It’s the most relevant source of recent Republican-Democratic debate.chart (1)

As the chart above shows, the bill (the last line segment at right) wasn’t actually all that major. Obama had passed a larger cut just a few years earlier.

So why all the hullabaloo? Simple. Donald Trump’s actions have caused people to dislike him, and thus, many are automatically suspicious of whatever he may do, even if they don’t actually know that much about it.

This unveils what is really a problem with politics at large: very few people actually bother to understand what they’re talking about. The statistics are merely a means to an end, and it’s easy to pick whatever end you want. The chart above shows historical tax cuts and increases overall, which makes sense, and in that light Trump’s is relatively tame. But what if it were to show historical tax cuts and increases for the wealthy (or the poor)? How would the bill look then?

You can see how easily seemingly clear data is to manipulate. What, perhaps, you don’t see is how often it is manipulated.

Almost every major company, politician, and medium of news is deceiving you. And it’s being done in increasingly clever and unnoticeable ways.

Consider Vox’s video about the decision to transport the United States embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which also informs about the general issue. You can watch it at this link, or below:

Seems simple enough. But consider, for example, this line, from near the end of the video:

Israel has arrested Palestinians and is clamping down on protests…

The rest of the sentence quickly moves on to other topics  – and that’s intentional. Think about the way that sentence is structured.

Why, exactly, is Israel arresting Palestinians? Is their reasoning good or bad? Where is it happening – is the area Israel’s rightful jurisdiction? Are those protests peaceful?

On the face of it, the sentence sounds rather bad: ‘arrested’ and ‘clamping down’ act as buzzwords that put the viewer into a negative frame of mind about Israel’s actions, but the video draws attention away from it before the natural questions framed above surface.

And it’s not just Vox that does this. CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, Washington Post, and many more use confusing charts, tricky turns of phrase, and other ways of painting the picture they want to varying degrees of obviousness. For instance, Fox more or less openly accepts that they are conservatively bent, whereas Vox proclaims itself ‘a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what’s really driving the events in the headlines’.

As I’ve stated before (and I try to do so when I write about politics) I would be classified as ‘centrist-right’. That is, if I classified myself, which I don’t like to do. The idea that (at least for an American) political view is just as defining as age, gender, or religion is bizarre. The less I think about my political views (like my opinion on whether Republicans deserve to die), the better.

It’s definitely not worth arguing about from a Biblical perspective. After all, both liberals and conservatives will be in heaven, unless I’ve somehow overlooked a part of the Bible that refers to political parties that didn’t even exist until a few centuries ago.

If that means giving up spending a valuable chunk of time arguing over the newest stupid thing that Trump has said (which, by the way, will most definitely not have an impact on your eternal destiny), count me in.


In All Circumstances


1 thess 5-18


What does ‘in all circumstances’ mean?

I mean, we’re probably fine with ‘give thanks’, since it is, after all, ‘the will of God’, but in all circumstances?

Well, that’s just exaggeration. It has to be. Hasn’t it?

Not exactly.



The Problem With ‘In All Circumstances’

Modern society (even modern Christian society) has a tendency to run on a situation-response system, in that what we do rests largely on how we are feeling and what’s going on at the moment. For this reason, the idea of giving thanks in all circumstances is rather foreign, at least to us.

By contrast, Hebrew society has been doing this for millennia. There are dozens of Psalms which begin with lament but end in praise despite no change occurring physically – the change is in the psalmist’s heart, as they repent of failing to trust God.

I understand that Thanksgiving is over. Those of us who took vacations are likely already back – and that’s intentional. I waited until today to post this in part because it’s more effective further away from Thanksgiving.

After all, everyone is talking about thankfulness on Thanksgiving (at least in the United States). It’s easy to enthuse about how thankful you are for everything, the same way it’s easy to be generous on Christmas or make resolutions on New Year’s Day.

But now – just five days after Thanksgiving – you’ve likely hardly thought about being thankful today. Right?

Thankfulness should be a year-round thing. So should charity (Christmas) and faithfulness (New Year’s), to name but a few.

Thanksgiving – and other holidays like it, celebrating positive aspects such as thankfulness – can be very useful to Christianity. We can use them to point unbelievers to the Bible, as many do. But be wary that you do not relegate such aspects to solely these occasions.

Don’t just be thankful at Thanksgiving – give thanks in all circumstances.



The Remnant is working on launching a podcast! We’re aiming to have it ready by Christmas, so stay tuned and look for Theology Over Tea in Google Play and on YouTube once we launch.

talk over tea

Fruit of the Spirit · Remnant · Theology

Word Study – Love

FotS 1

What is love?

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as ‘strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties’, which is accurate, but that’s not what we usually use love as. Love is more likely to be a verb than a noun – for instance, I love you rather than Love is what I have for you.

The term ‘love’ first appears in the Bible (at least in the ESV) in Genesis 22:2: ‘He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”‘

In this context, as in many other contexts throughout the Bible, love refers to what we think of now as paternal love. An oft-used – but still applicable – metaphor is that of a mother bear protecting her cubs.

But not all love in the Bible is paternal. The four most common words in original Biblical manuscripts are phileo, agape, storgē, and eros.


I. Phileo: Love of Friendship

Phileowhich is used most noticeably in contrast to agape in John 21, is a Greek term referring to a companionable love: one between friends. To use the term ‘love’ for one’s friends nowadays would be considered rather strange, so certain translators may choose to render this as a less amorous term; nevertheless, it is still a form of love.

Companionable love is an important but lacking aspect in society in modern times. Love is a term that has become increasingly polarised in recent times, hence the taboo nature of love among friends. This definition is virtually unknown nowadays, the word typically meaning either relational (among family members) or amorous (between lovers) love.


II. Agape: Love of Esteem

Agape refers to a love born of esteem for that which is loved. This, too, is an obsolete usage in modern English, typically replaced by ‘respect’ or ‘awe’. Though used rarely outside of the Bible, it appears 320 times in the New Testament.

An agape love wants only the best for that which is loved. It is unselfish and is best exemplified by 1 Corinthians 13, which serves well as a general description of the term. In other words, this is a platonic love.


III. Storgē: Love of Relation

Storgē is a love for one’s relation. Purely platonic, it is rare in the Bible, usually appearing only in the sense of negation (e.g., ‘unloving’ in Romans 1:31).

At its most basic form, however, storgē refers to a love for one’s family member – for one’s spouse, child, parent, relation, or even pet.


IV. Eros: Earthly Love

Eros is a curious case. Referring to a love existent for the lover’s benefit, it does not appear in the Bible, despite being a common Greek term. Why?

Well, eros represents all that the Bible opposes. It embodies egocentrism, lust, and self-satisfaction all in one. Eros is an earthly love, one which desires more for itself. It has the implication of sexual love, but by itself, sexual love is not morally inclined. Indeed, it is encouraged in the Bible, and it is the way God’s relationship to us is portrayed (translated typically as a form of the word know).

But nevertheless, eros is absent from the Bible for two reasons: firstly, it carries with it the baggage of its Roman origins: Eros (whose Roman counterpart was the more famous Cupid) was the Greek god of lust (though not always explicitly; he is also sometimes portrayed as the god of ‘sexual attraction’). And secondly (and more to the point), it is clearly not a part of the Bible’s vision. Marriage is, indeed, a temporary, earthly thing, and its facets should be enjoyed (as God directs), but eternally, our love and complete allegiance is to God, not to one another. It is a brotherly love that we are commanded to share eternally, not a sexual one.


In conclusion, the term love may be misleading. It can refer to friendship, honour, family, or lust. At any rate, it is a mistake merely to read passages containing this term without context or understanding. Properly interpreting love is not something to be taken lightly.

But it is supposed to be more common than it is. We are to have brotherly love for each other (see Hebrews 13:1, which puts it succinctly). So do so.


Love one another.



McLean Bible

Bible Gateway


Here We Stand

Here We Stand

It’s a question as old as time itself: how did we get here? There are many conflicting views, but here are some of the major beliefs as to the origin of the universe.

Beliefs (1)

The first theory we’ll look at is the primary evolutionary belief: the Big Bang.

According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe – and time itself – began nearly fourteen billion years ago, during a spontaneous explosion of infinitely compressed matter. The explanation for this event is still unknown according to evolutionary theory. Supposedly, after the Big Bang, the universe, superheated to incredible amounts of heat, expanded at incredible speed, eventually cooling down enough to allow the creation of various elements, then stars, and finally planets and life.

Key problems with the Big Bang theory include the lack of explanation for the original explosion or existence of matter as well as the sheer impossibility of life originating from non-living components.


Beliefs (2)

The next theory (and the primary Biblical theory) is that of divine creation.

According to this theory, the events of Genesis are to be taken literally, with creation occurring in six literal days. Holding up this is the usage of ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ in the original passages of Genesis 1.

Some problems raised with this theory are those of the believed non-existence of an omnipotent, eternal being or the believed impossibility of a six-day creation.


Beliefs (3)

The Day-Age Theory holds that the days in Genesis are actually long amounts of time, allowing evolution and/or an old earth.

This theory holds up its argument with 2 Peter 3:8 (‘a day is as a thousand years’), though this verse, opponents of the theory argue, does not apply to the Genesis account. It is also supported by the variable use of the word day in Hebrew, though the original texts are clearly referring to a twenty-four hour period (similarly to the use of the word in the phrase ‘in my day’).


BeliefsThe last theory we’ll look at is the Gap Theory, which postulates a billions-of-years period between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

The Gap Theory holds up its argument by stating that divine creation is flatly impossible, and by pointing out that there is technically no indication that time does not pass between the aforementioned verses.

Key problems with this theory include the complete lack of an implication that time passes between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and the statement that the creation was ‘very good’ multiple times during creation, since a creation with preexisting death (as a result of sin) would not be ‘very good’ by any means.



There is a large wish to compromise between the divine Creation and Big Bang theories in certain Christian circles which wish to remain respectable with their evolutionary friends.

However, these theories typically consider Genesis as something that it is not: a story, or a metaphor, or a non-literal account. There are dozens of other, smaller compromise theories, but the two shown in this article should give a good example of what this field of blended Christianity and evolution looks like.

Draw from them what you will.


Deo Gloria



I wanted to write this yesterday. I really did.

It’s my own fault, to be honest. I’ve spent quite a lot of time on other things – things which shouldn’t take up my time.

And that is the point of the Reformation. Soli Deo gloria. To the glory of God alone. It’s our ministry’s motto, as well.

But what does that mean? What’s the point of Soli Deo gloria?


Soli Deo Gloria: A Biography

Soli Deo gloria didn’t start out as ‘to the glory of God alone’. It really means ‘glory to God alone’, but even earlier in its lifetime, it had yet another meaning, the one used by the earliest coiners of the word: ‘glory to the only God’.

The first people to use Soli Deo gloria were not the reformers. Such a phrase might even have been entirely foreign to them, though it was likely in use by that time. Rather, the original use of the phrase was as a postscript to the musical works of Johann Sebastian Bach, where he abbreviated it SDG.


Later still, in the mid-twentieth century, Soli Deo gloria was combined with the other four solae to create the first known instances of the five solae together. They were not all used in the Reformation, but they do well to encapsulate the idea behind it: the fundamentals of the church returned to the stage and cast in a starring role.


Soli Deo Gloria: A Meaning

So what does Soli Deo gloria mean?

This is by far the most contentiously translated sola of the bunch. While others are straightforward, Soli Deo gloria can be rephrased as ‘to the glory of God alone’, ‘glory to God alone’, or ‘glory in all things to God alone’, to name but a few. Each of these takes a slightly different point of view, but all boil down to the concept expressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:31 – ‘So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.’

So what is the application?

Firstly, beware pitfalls. Do not misconstrue God’s will as your own, lest you consider your own desires over that of both your fellow man and your righteous God.

Secondly, glorify God in all things. This is a somewhat strange idea, since many things we do have nothing to do (at first glance) with moral or spiritual choices, but if we delve deeper we can tell that even our everyday actions – the way we talk, the people we befriend or spurn, even the very food and drink we consume – have Biblical aspects to them. Emphasise godly friendships, consider terminating ungodly ones. Care for your body as a temple of God (1 Corinthians 6:19). Strive to lead others to Christ by your speech and your actions.

Glorify God in all you do, and glorify God alone.