Knowing God

"Why, then, should anyone study theology? First, if there is a God, assuming we have discarded atheism, he must be someone we should know. Everyone likes to receive information about his friends, at least if the information is good news. Even though it saddens us, we even want to hear bad news, such as news of an injury or accident. If someone like Abraham is a friend of God, news about God is welcome; and the more welcome in proportion as God is a better friend than one's classmates, business associates, or even relatives. To recommend theology in more Biblical terms, one could say, 'This is life eternal, that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.' There is more meaning in this verse than appears to a hurried reader, but it is evident one cannot be a Christian without theology - a knowledge of God." - Gordon H. Clark, In Defense of Theology

The Primacy of the Truth

Also Clark says, "The primacy of the intellect, then, cannot be a power automatically exercised over the volition regarded as a separate faculty. This would violate the unity of the person. Instead of the phrase 'THE PRIMACY OF THE INTELLECT', the essential idea might better be expressed as 'THE PRIMACY OF THE TRUTH'. And the primacy is one of authority rather than of psychological power. The older forms of expression generate an old perplexity dating from Platonic dialogues. On the assumption that the intellect dominates the will, it would follow that no one does wrong knowingly. All evil is due to ignorance, and education guarantees correct conduct. The ambiguities hidden in this apparently simple language are enormous. But if we speak of the primacy of truth, we can avoid, even if we do not solve, these perplexities. The primacy of truth will mean that our voluntary actions ought to conform to the truth. Obviously sometimes they do not. If it is true that worshiping God is good, we ought to worship him. Perhaps we choose not to worship God, but the truth is superior in right to our will. This way of putting the matter extends as well to the voluntary choice of belief. We may choose to believe a truth, or we may choose to believe a lie. Both types of choice actually occur. But the primacy of truth means that we ought to believe the truth and we ought not to believe the lie." - Emphasis is mine. Found in his Three R's

We are saved by correct Gospel doctrine

Someone asked me to point them to the references that speak about the fact that we are saved by correct Gospel doctrine. They said, "I do remember that verse in the bible.... just can't remember the reference...."

Romans 10 says our Faith is Intellectual and Assent. If we believe with our hearts and confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord then we will be saved.

Hebrews 11 shows us that our Faith is confessional and creedal. I simply believe in and believe that.

Matthew 7 shows us that we know a tree by its fruit. It just so happens that in this verse the fruit represents doctrine. It is the False prophets who are known for their false fruit. They speak on behalf of themselves.

John 15 demonstrates the fact that we must abide in Christ. We abide in Christ by Faith in him (which Romans 11 says is the fruit of the tree).

1 John 1 says that we heard the testimony of the Apostles. Our Faith is based upon the Prophets and the Apostles and not upon our own vain conceited ideas. 1 Corinthians 1-4 speaks of this fact in fact it speaks primarily of our epistemology. Through out the whole Bible we see references of certain people praying in the name of God, or God saying that it was by His name alone people were redeemed or rescued. The fact that God is a Person gives credence to the fact that we are saved to believe a certain standard. What we believe does matter.

John Piper denies The Scripture alone

http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/do-christian-hedonists-idolize-joy




"Just because one claims sola scriptura does not mean they actually believe it. That should be the logical flow of thought with you Lordship guys." Why are you not consistent in your view of one's professing of having faith and in this matter of Piper saying he believes in Scripture alone? Is it not true that one who does not have WORKS or EMOTIONs in faith that he does not have faith? If that is the case then just because one professes Scripture alone does not actually mean that he believes it. Maybe because you cannot? Be consistent here please.
Regardless, perhaps maybe you think that desiring God is the ultimate thing? It is not. Perhaps, you think rather that an appeal to Scripture means that one is biblical it is not. Question: is man made up of emotions? I mean he is made up of Intellect and Will but is he made up of emotions as well? Perhaps maybe you think that an appeal to Intellect and Will and Emotions is not an issue. But this is an issue when you consider the fact that usually when emotions are added, it is the only real thing that is looked at. For example to say that there are three things that are involved in Man (Intellect and Will and Emotions) then means that a man may have both Intellect and Will, but if he does not have emotions then his intellect and will are really not real. Emotions are given a greater issue. He denies that Scripture alone is the basis of faith (Intellect and Assent) and says that one must also Desire God or be passionate about God. Regardless of whether a man may have emotions, Piper's view of the matter is that Emotions are the ultimate testing ground. One may have Intellect and Assent, but (as I said) unless he or she has a "real" desire for God he is not really a Christian. He also denies Scripture not just in the fact he claims Emotions, but also in the fact that as he said many of his views came from C.S. Lewis. Lewis was a big proponent not of doctrine or true doctrine, but of MERE CHRISTIANITY. Piper's views are anti-intellectualism. I apologies ahead of time you are fighting a losing battle here. Your famed Pastor is not a Scripturalist.
Or again when one says that Faith is not just Intellectual Assent to Biblical truths, but also something else need to be added (perhaps that something else is trust). It is the fact that that ultimately that something else diminishes the role of Intellect and Assent so that it is not enough to just believe the truths of Scripture but one must also actually trust it. Or as the famous analogy goes: It is not enough to merely believe in the Chair, one must also actually sit in the chair. This means that belief in the chair which stands for Christ Jesus is not enough one must also add works or trust to the occasion. Piper says essentially that Emotions are the real evidences of saving faith and not intellect or will. He moves beyond Scripture alone. If the Christian religion was emotions then there is no real Intellectual Assent to the Scriptures.
"We may note here that the complainants express themselves very carefully: 'the more recent theologians seem to agree in large measure.' But even so the complainants are in error. It is far nearer to the truth to state that Reformed theologians have generally speaking, been strongly opposed to the threefold distinction of intellect, will, and emotion, and have often expressed their fear of the danger of this distinction. The danger of this distinction, to which they usually pointed, is that the emotions in that case gradually assume a dominating and controlling position in the soul of man, and that according to this trichotomous psychology, such experiences as love and hatred, sorrow and joy . . . are relegated to the emotions or feelings. [Which] . . . would exactly be the deathblow to all true religion."
Remember one's ideas may come from Scripture, it does not mean that his ideas are actually scriptural. Satan indeed quoted Jesus many Scripture verses that said if he did this, then something else would happen.

Christian Rap

Without Holy Scripture we cannot discern rightly General Revelation. Apart from Special Revelation no one can discern rightly what is being spoken of in General Revelation (in fact some even have taken liberty to say this does not really exist). God exist and has shown Himself and continues to speak of Himself in nature, but unless God turns man and gives him light to see he will not turn to God and God’s wrath abides.
Scripture alone does not speak on every topic. It does not speak on the topic of arithmetic. If it did then I suppose anyone who failed the class would be all sinners in sin. Fortunately Scripture does not tell us how to sing or what musical instrument should be used. The argument could be stated another way. They did not have Drums (which many of our modern day worship services have), I am pretty sure they did not have a Piano or a Organ (I could be wrong here).
Every time a little child plays an instrument learning how to play the notes yet fails to hit the right notes are in Sin because of the fact that what they are playing is ugly.
I think the real issue here is that Scott just does not like Rap.

Christian Rap and Shai Linne

I think now the Debators are now arguing none essentials. Shai needs to press Scott on what he means by:

Third, you are making a very common category error in these discussions. I agree completely, of course, that whatever God creates is good. God created music. God created meat. These things are good. But God did not create rap. People did. For that matter, God did not create Gregorian chant, German chorales, Appalachian folk tunes, country western, jazz, or rock ‘n’ roll. People did. And because these are all human communication, they are moral. It is very dangerous to ascribe to God something that he did not make.

Brother, I’m not understanding the distinction you’re making. You said that God created music. But then you went on to say that people created particular genres of music. Every genre you mentioned has lyrics, which you rightly termed “human communication”. But my original question was about music apart from lyrics. Can you explain what you mean when you say “God created music.”? Thanks.

Indeed the real issue is not contextualizing the Gospel. But the real issue is whether or not the Gospel is being heard in this form of music. Music - apart from the lyrics - does communicate in one sense (though to be honest Humans are lead by such things). We would rather listen to good music without actually hearing the words. All men struggle with this. Scott believes that emotions play a role in the Christian Life. Whereas the truth of the Scripture is that Emotions play no role at all. Truth matters. That is why Scripture calls us to worship God alone. God says that it is by His Name alone that He saves people. The Christian Faith is intellectual. The real issue here in discerning whether or not a particular Genre is good or not is not the musical instruments used but whether the lyrics themselves speak of divine truth. In one sense we must redefine the issue or restate the issue. The issue is not whether or not I can listen to rap - but whether those lyrics those words in the rap are edifying and God glorifying.

As we stick to the issue now we can consider the rest of the problem going on. The question was asked:

Shai, I have heard you talk about the differences between east coast, southern, midwest, and west coast hip hop and the “flavors” they communicate. Would you say that each of these forms has strengths and weaknesses when attempting to communicate different aspects of biblical truth such as lament, exultation, rebuke, or instruction? If so, could you give examples of what each of these do well and what they do poorly? If not, could you explain why not?

 Some of my points though will be with Shai Linne's comments to the Question. He says that music is used with the Lyrics. Depending on the type of song it is it seems determines the type of music played. This seems to be logical. Likewise with how we communicate truth's of scripture depends on what is being communicated. We obviously would not tell someone they are Totally depraved and apart from Life in Christ you have no hope and that the Law condemns with a smiling face. Likewise music is used to enforce what is being said (it leads the emotions). This is what he says:

This is an excellent question, Scott. It’s something that I think Christian Hip-hop artists need to wrestle with more than we do. My answer is yes. Like all genres, different regional forms of Hip-hop have strengths and weaknesses when it comes to expressing different kinds of truth. It’s something I’m conscious of and it guides how I choose the music I rap over. It’s the point I tried to make starting at the 5:50 point of this video...

Yet, I fail to see how this in itself proves Scott's contention that rap music is wrong. Perhaps maybe he is the one who is moved by the music, rather than by the WORDS of truth Spoken? Maybe he felt compelled to buy a gun after listening to rap music? Bach gave him a Handel on things. Obviously Context determine the Content. There is a Law and Gospel distinction. I would not speak the Law to someone who needs to hear the Gospel and likewise I would not want to speak the Gospel to someone who needed to hear the Law. My tone of voice has nothing to do with the truth being communicated ultimately (though it may help, or may be hurtful in some cases).  So I want to always bring the case back to the Objective reality of things - Content, Content, Content.

With this I want to respond briefly to Scotts' address:

In the meantime, third, I would simply like to observe that you did not use any Scripture to prove that “southern Hip-hop is strong when it comes to encouraging excitement and rallying around something.”

I am not certain Shai has to in this regard. Scott has moved away from Scripture. Scripture does not speak on the tone or music style of the giving of truth. We saw this when we went through various Scripture verses that Scott used. At this juncture this is philosophy. Of course do we believe that Scripture alone is our only Guide for faith and practices? Yes. We need no other guide or tool at all. It would be wrong for Shai to use the music to get people do something that was out of pure emotions. Scripture says that our worship should be Reasonable (Romans 12:1-2).

But here is the point I would like to stress here: often we who argue that certain forms of music are not fitting to communicate God’s truth are cut off from any discussion because the Bible doesn’t explicitly say that music communicates, how music communicates, or that some kinds of music are inappropriate for holy matters. 

Perhaps the better word would be entices rather than communicate. Music certainly can entice us to do something. This is something we must stay away from. But Communication is used rather than entice because entice would be bad. lets say Certain forms of music are not fitting to entice God's truth . . . Because in reality music does not speak anything. This is why many may listen to country music and become entice with the Chivalry climate that is speaks on often. The issue goes straight back to the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God alone and nothing else. Music should not entice us to do anything unscriptural. A preacher or a minister may administer the Word of God fine. But how he does that whether he preaches or writes a book does not matter as long as the Word of God is preached (John 4:21-24; Romans 10:14-17). - This could be my rebuttle to what Scott said:

I’m convinced that if we could get past the “But the Bible doesn’t say anything about music!” argument, we could really move this discussion along to actually discuss the merits and demerits of the genre of rap itself.

Here is a link to Shai's Comment to the Question asked: http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-how-does-rap-flavor-its-truth-content/

Here is a link to Scott's rebuttle: http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-how-does-rap-flavor-its-truth-content-rebuttal/

Christian Rap and Man's Sinfulness

Scott Aniol and Shai Linne, continue in their well debate against one another. Interesting remarks to be made is that the point Shai is making is that Music, apart from lyrics, can be sinful. Indeed it can be sinful. Just as the sowing of the evil one is sinful. It is not sinful in and of itself to simply create music. But, the intentions and the darkness of our hearts make it so. Scott is disagreeing (without Scriptural backing) albeit he may have some knowledge of Scripture. certainly his points are full of error though. I agree in one sense Shai's point on Romans 14 - we are not obligated to remain with the two distinctions between a thing and another thing. Shai is debating over whether Rap MUSIC is sinful or not. So you can actually place these distinctions in place of say the meat offered up to idols. Does Rap music actually cause one to commit idolatrous worship?

Scott replies back to Shai's point by saying again the Scripture is concerned with not only the WHAT we say but the HOW we say it, which is something that I disagree whole heartedly. Scripture does not speak on the HOW so much. Consider this as an example: Prayer. Someone who prays to the true God (What) is said to be praying in idolatrous tones because of How he prays, whereas Hindu who prays to whoever is said to be the most devote person in Prayer because of HOW he prayed. Again Scripture is more concerned with What we know and not in how we know it. Of course Scott furnishes for us some scriptural evidences of his view, granted - taken out of context. For one thing Ephesians 4:15 is not speaking to us about how we communicate something. Whether we preach or teach has nothing to do with how we communicate it. The in love furnishes the purpose for why we communicate these truths. In fact, it furnishes the why God has given us the Apostles, and teachers. The purpose of the Apostles and Teachers were to communicate truths of revelation for the purpose that the Church would grow into unity of the knowledge of the faith. Of course there are those of the flesh who do not know the truth and do not want to truth these people are talked about in 1 Corinthians.

1 Corinthains 2:1-5 - simply Paul's point is that God has appointed Paul as an apostle and elder and teacher so that what Paul preaches is not 'lofty speech' but the word of God alone. Nothing here speaks against knowledge but everything in Paul's letters speaks against carnal knowledge. Gnostic knowledge puff's up, but true knowledge which Paul is not talking against does not.

The last point I wish to make is that Scott seems to be making a very very common error with regards to God and secondary causations. For one God is said to have caused the fall in the sense that God simply moved into motion the world so that the world now is on a course in which it cannot stop. Now whatever happens to the world happens because it does it on its own and not because God actually Caused it to happen. Consider this clearly to be the Cosmological Argument. The great danger here is that although God is said to be the Creator of all things He is not the 'maker' of all things. Indeed man makes things out of the saw dust that God made. But man can make something out of the portion that God made sinful. Who is making the jump? Shai or Scott? I believe the prayer of Scott would be like God I thank you that you have given me your dirt so that I could make a beautiful bow and arrow. Not what you have done, but what my hand had wrought (pun intended).

http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-music/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-can-music-be-sinful-rebuttal/

Christian Rap and Scripture alone

The Article (linked below) is interesting. It begins with a Question by one of the persons who adheres to the Form of Music in question. The Question seems to be not whether Christian Rap Music (With lyrics) is sinful, but in general whether Rap music (perhaps other music) without lyrics is sinful. The Answerer responds by saying yes and then goes on a tangent on why it is so. I am not certain if the Complainant really understands the question asked. Perhaps he is answering with a general idea that all 'Rap' music regardless of lyrics is bad. If this is so he must say it clearly and ground it in Scripture. He has not so far done either one of them. But lets comment on what he is saying:

Although, our intentions are first and foremost important to whatever we do or say. It is also clear from certain communicable(Community) ethics that sometimes our actions or words though we may not intend to do so might cause others to stumble. The meaning of this is that though I know the truth and I intend to communicate the truth to others - we definitely understand that understanding facts (especially of Scripture) comes by Grace alone and not by might. Therefore, as a teacher of truth I intend to communicate it in such a way that others would be more in apt to listen and understand - this means by not being a jerk. I understand the way I communicate is not as important as what is being communicated - but as our fallen sinful passions are concerned here is that we concern ourselves more so with the way and not the what. As I will be listening and reading on certain thoughts of certain people it is my goal to listen and hear each of the arguments being said. Though I affirm that Truth is truth and needs to be spoken regardless of the formality of how it is spoken, still though I (personally) try not to be a jerk about it (as I leave the offense of the Cross to the Cross - the truth). I will say that Scripture however is not concerned primarily with the HOW we speak of certain things than the WHAT and with regards to Christian Rap (as oppose to other forms of Christian music) it is one of the best music out there lyrically speaking - as they contextualize Scripture. Though I like some Christian Rap (not all Christian Rap is lyrically good) I personally do not listen to it all the time.

 "The essential thing is the message preached. The same principle applies to hillbilly singing. If it detracts from the message, it is bad. If it were used with a moderately well educated audience, with people who have some taste in music, it would so detract, by repelling them. On the other hand, I cannot agree with a friend of mine who says that good Reformed theology requires that only Bach should be used. Oh dear, no Mozart and not even Handel's Messiah! Personally I prefer good music, just as I prefer good grammar; but the Scripture does not specify what style of music must be used. As the Westminster Confession says, 'There are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence." - Rev. Gordon H. Clark

http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-can-music-be-sinful/

Philippians 2:5-11

The question is on this early Hymn (whether compromised - made up by Paul or the Church) whether the exaltation is because of Christ Obedience or something else or could it be both obedience and something else?

Christ obeyed by humbling Himself and taking on a form of a human being and submitting himself to death even death on a cross. Therefore God highly exalted him. Although, this is a great interpretation of the text and I think we read in Hebrews 12:2 that Christ received his reward or something like that, I will say however that this is the secondary issue or reasoning why God exalted him. With the first reasoning being the something else which the text does say - That although Christ was in the form of God He did not take equality with God a thing to be grasp but made himself nothing taking upon himself a form of a slave. Now the text is clear Christ was in the form of God I have no need to go through the meaning of this word. However, my goal is to show you that I think this is the reason why Christ was highly exalted not because He was obedient to death - that would imply to say that because one obeys God's law that God will automatically grant a high estate. But, my position on this matter is not that this reward idea is not grounded in the text that is probably true as well. But my position is that the reason why Christ was highly exalted after He submitted Himself to death on the Cross is because of who He was and is that Christ is the eternal God that is above all things and goes before all things. This means that because It was Christ who is God and humbled himself - although he had every right not too - and becoming man (something in which most religions had never taught - that God himself becomes one of us) and after having obeyed God to the point of death even death on a cross, God highly exalted him because He is God. Jesus prayed that God would give Him the glory which he had before in eternity past. (I hope that is clear)

Is my positioning historical? I think so as Athanasius says

"For if being God he became man, and having come down from the height he is said 'to be exalted,' where is he exalted, being God? It is clear that since God is the highest, his Word is also the highest. Therefore, how is one who is in the Father able to be exalted more and be 'like the Father in all things'? Therefore he is without need of every addition, and he is not as these things have been written, what was the need that he humbled himself in order that he should seek to receive that which he has?"

Or elsewhere, 

"And, if now he had his improvement according to them, remembering his own glory before the world and above the world, how did the Son say, 'glorify me, O Father, with the glory which I had with you before the existence of the world' (John 17:5)? But if now he has been exalted according to them, how before this time 'did he bend the heavens and come down' (Ps. 18:9) and again, 'The highest gave his voice (psalm 18:13)? Therefore, if even before the existence of the world the Son had glory and ' was Lord of glory and the Highest' and came down from heaven and is always worshiped; then having come down he was not improved, but rather he improved the things which needed improvement. If he has descended to effect their improvement, he did not have the title of Son and God as a reward; rather, he himself has made us sons to the Father, and deified men, having become man himself."

Clarkian's Revelation and Morality

I have been reading Gordon H. Clark's work Religion, Reason and Revelation in order to under the issues better of Equal Ultimacy which I have slim knowledge of.
It has been good so far, yet some things I have difficulty understanding. Might be worth another read through sometime. But there is a quote from Newman Smyth (I have not heard of him) whom Clark quotes which says, 

Old theology is always becoming new in the vitalizing influence of ethics. . . . It is reason enough for doubting and for restudying any traditional teaching or received word of doctrine if it be felt to harass or confuse the Christian conscience of an age. Nothing can abide as true in theology which does not prove its genuineness under the ever renewed searching of the Christian moral sense. . . . Still less can we allow in Christian ethics any dogmatic belief which would put in bonds the Christian ethical principle itself; as, for instance, the tenet that morality is dependent upon the divine will. . . . Christian ethics cannot consent to commit suicide in any supposed interest of theology.

Clark does not agree with the quote (Neither do I). But he says the reason why is that Smyth separates as Kant and Plato does the truth and the practical. That is truth is set in one arena while ethics is what matters here and now. That the practical is the judge of what is true based upon what the quote says is interesting. It kind of informed me that as a Christian I am to be both the dispenser of truth and while also (not watering the truth down) but showing its practicalness or applying the very truth to the hearers of truth.

On Christian Joy, Worship, and Happiness

"And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment." Luke 7:37-38

What is the cheif end of Man?

"Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever."


Lee Williams - Chapter and verse?
 
Mark Austin - I think Kirk was quoting the first question of the Westminster Catechism. It provides biblical references.
Man's chief end is to glorify God (1Cor. 10:31; Rom. 11:36) and enjoy Him forever (Ps. 73:24-26; Jn. 17:24-26).
 
Lee Williams - I knew the origin of the quotation. I question that the context of those passages will support the interpretations of the Westminster Confession. The 1st Cor. and Romans passages do not speak of glorification as the "chief end" of mankind, nor can the end of "enjoying" God be derived from the passages from Psalms and John.
 
Mark Austin - Mr. Williams, fair enough. I take this as an opportunity to learn. So, wIth all respect, what is the chief end of man? Or even, Is there a chief end of man?
 
Lee Williams - Perhaps we could clarify purpose by looking at the words of God in Gen. 1:26-28. It would seem that part of our "chief end" is to display the purposive understanding of the image of God.
 
Mark Austin - I can see how Gen. 1:28 could be seen as purposive. Yet, that is far from a chief purpose of man. The question remains, is there no chief purpose of man? Based upon your response, is it then better to look at each imperative given to humanity in order to determine man's purpose(s)? As for Gen. 1:26f, that is a statement of ontology *not* teleology. Are you grounding man's teleology in his ontology?
 
Lee Williams - It would seem to me that, teleologically, man was to represent God to the creation, since man was created in the image of God. This is possible because, ontologically, God is the Creator and Sustainer of that creation.
 
Mark Austin - I agree with you. So then, in light of Gen. 3 and say Jn. 1 what are the new teleological implications for man (especially in light of the ontology and teleology of Jesus)?

What do Christians fundamentally believe?

The fundamental christian belief is that there is a God who is good and just and that he impartially judges not according to appearances but according to the heart.

The blessing of God's Free Grace

By faith I believe Jesus appeased the wrath of God by taking upon himself the sins of His people and giving them His righteousness.

God is still in charge and involved in the world

"Rather, we reduce God by making him a figurehead. We too often portray him as standing back from a world that runs on its own. We banish him to the hidden corners of our lives while we amble through life, pursuing our own ambitious goals driven by narcissism, hedonism, and materialism, and refusing to allow God to bridle our self-sufficiency." - John H. Walton

We should always live our lives knowing the fact that God who presents himself all through out salvific History (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is still ruling over it and ordering it and also moving it toward an end. When we think that God is too far away from us or not there we will start ruling our own lives and living how we think is right.

God's love for His People is perfect for those whom it intended to save

..."Preaching the gospel, he tells us, is not a matter of telling the congregation that God has set His love on each of them and Christ has died to save each of them, for these assertions, biblically understood, would imply that they will all infallibly be saved, and this cannot be known to be true. The knowledge of being the object of God’s eternal love and Christ’s redeeming death belongs to the individual’s assurance, which in the nature of the case cannot precede faith’s saving exercise; it is to be inferred from the fact that one has believed, not proposed as a reason why one should believe." - J.I. Packer


In other words because I am regenerated and justified and am being sanctified to believe is the fact that God did love me; that God did atone for my sins. John 3:16 - Are you believing now? For God loved the world in this way (qaulitatively) by giving up His son Jesus Christ so that any believing one will not perish but have eternal life. Christ actually took upon himself the due punishment that the sinner deserved, if the sinner on the one hand did not believe and was cast into the firey lake then it was because Christ did not atone for His sin.

The importance of God's eternal Predestination

"The question of God's eternal predestination is not curious, or unprofitable, but of great importance, and very necessary in the church of God." - Theodore Beza

Jesus unique person

It is funny how all other world religions had a belief of a God/man but that Jesus Christ was unique as the God/man in that He became humbled and not rich. Although He was full of Grace and wisdom, he was also poor and lowly.

Philippians 2:5-11

What does it mean to me when I tag Soli Deo Gloria (for the glory of God alone) at the end of a note or letter?

For one it means that God does all things for his glory. That He is not just the one on the throne up above, but that he is actually orchrastrating every event for His good pleasure sort of like what Acts 4:28. But even further He is workin...g out all things in peoples lives for His name sake for those who are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28). Not only does Soli Deo Gloria mean that God works in all things for His glory and pleasure, but it also means that I too as well as others should live for His glory in response to what He does (Romans 6:4). Its not only in response to what He does, although without His work in me I could not positively live for his Glory as Christ now lives forever at the right hand of God, but its I should live for His glory because of who He is - almighty holy infinite God! I am to ascribe to the Lord the value and measure of His intrinsic worth; I am to Worship God by glorify Him and Enjoying Him forever (Psalm 96:7-9). Isaiah 48:9-11

On Equal Ultimacy

Scripture says that God hands over the unrighteous men and women to the lust of their own hearts who distort the truth of God and fashion for themselves idols from what has been clearly percieved because God Himself makes it known to them Romans 1:18-32. What does this passage tell us about God? That God does not hide. Scripture says that, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them" V. 19. That God gives people over to the lust of their hearts. Three times it is said that He gave them up to the lust of their hearts (Vs. 24, 26, 25). Notice how this action by God is a result of something. So because people supress the truth of God The wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. So these actions are a sign of God's wrath. All men hate God Romans 3 says they do not fear God and because of this they do evil things. But perhaps also because they do evil things they also do not fear God.
This is different from John 4:23-24 which speaks of the opposite side of what is happening here. For here we see that God seeks true worshipers who worship God in spirit and in truth. True worshipers are those who do not supress the truth and also have right emotion or response to the truth of God. Moses Silva in his commentary said that Philippians 3:3 correlates with John 4:23-24, which also correlates well with Thesis of Romans 1:16-17, which is antithetical to Romans 1:18-32. But Silva says that it is by the Spirit of God we worship for  it is by the Spirit we are circumcised. J.I. Packer said in his listing of the purpose of the Spirit of God is to glorify Christ Jesus. We are lead by the Spirit when Christ is lifted up high. For the reason is that we are saved by Christ righteousness alone and not anything of our own. This is partly the reason why Islam and Calvinism cannot be united as positing the same god. For in Islam, god is not acting upon his nature. In Calvinism he is and so there is comfort that God will not say one thing one moment and something else the next. Also when God saves His people he does not save according to works done in the flesh, but according to His pleasure. Dr. Giesler is not the first one to say that Calvinism and Islam are the same, I believe there are others who do a cursery reading of the Qur'an and Scripture and Calvinism text.
But going back to Romans we see that God is not working in the individuals to do evil. But God is giving them up to their own lust. Supralapsarianist claim that God elected some for salvation and reprobated others for damnation before either one of the clay lumps did anything good or bad. Then that God created all of them and then that God permitted the fall so that Both the Elect and the Reprobate are fallen and have a need of salvation. So God decreed that Christ who is both God and Man to win the salvation of the Elect, and to apply that salvation to the elect by the Spirit of God. But what you see here is that the Reprobate are fallen, so when God passes them by He does not work anything in them (like evil) but that he leaves them in their sins. For unbelief is not the reason for condemnation, sin is and God is still just for condemning one even if He never hears the gospel news. Which is also what Romans 1 teaches us. While in the elect He works His salvific grace in them so that they will believe, will repent, and become like Christ.  

R.C. Sproul in his book Chosen by God pg. 142-43 tells us what Equal Ultimacy is and how it does not fit in the Reformed view of Double Predestination:

"There are different views of double predestination. One of these is so frightening that many shun the term altogether, lest their view of the doctrine be confused with the scary one. This is called the equal ultimacy view.
Equal ultimacy is based on a concept of symmetry. It seeks a complete balance between election and reprobation. The key idea is this: Just as God intervenes in the lives of the elect to create faith in their hearts, so God equally intervenes in the lives of the reprobate to create or work unbelief in their hearts. The idea of God's actively working unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate is drawn from biblical statements about God hardening people's hearts.
Equal ultimacy is not the Reformed or Calvinist view of predestination. Some have called it 'hyper-Calvinism.' I prefer to call it 'sub-Calvinism' or, better yet, 'anti-Calvinism.' Though Calvinism certainly has a view of double predestination, the double predestination it embraces is not one of equal ultimacy.
To understand the Reformed view of the matter we must pay close attention to the crucial distinction between positive and negative decrees of God. Positive has to do with God's active intervention in the hearts of the elect. Negative has to do with God's passing over the non-elect.
The Reformed view teaches that God positively or actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to insure their salvation. The rest of mankind God leaves to themselve. He does not create unbelief in their hearts. That unbelief is already there. He does not coerce them to sin. They sin by their own choices. In the Calvinist view the decree of election is positive; the decree of reprobation is negative.
Hyper-Calvinism's view of double predestination may be called positive-positive predestination. Orthodox Calvinism's view may be called positive-negative predestination."

I found this on google books.